ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 17th December 2015, 03:46 PM   #2121
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Discussion Format

Originally Posted by Tomboy View Post
*sigh* This shouldn't surprise me. At least the individual posts seem to have been copy/pasted verbatim, but the fact that they’re not shown chronologically means it’s not an accurate representation of the conversation.

Jabba, if you’re going to reproduce the discussion that’s taking place here on your website, at least do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the content.
Tomboy,
- I hardly know what I'm doing on my blog, and, for some reason keep deleting stuff by accident... Putting stuff back, requires me to take extra time to properly sort it. This isn't as easy as it would seem cause I'm trying to sort by specific topic rather than (or, before) chronology.
- If you don't want to be included on my blog, I'll take you off -- but I'd like to be able to quote you, and fit your questions/comments into the discourse by their specific topics first, and then by chronology.

- As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 03:58 PM   #2122
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I hardly know what I'm doing on my blog...
Then don't do it. There is widespread objection to your selective copypasting on your blog. You clearly cannot summarize the discussion accurately to the satisfaction of those whose statements you're using. If you aren't pleased either with your attempts at editorship, then give it up. It's highly insulting for you to beg indulgence for your ineptitude from the people who don't agree you should be editing the discussion at all.

Quote:
As you surely know, I have a theory [...] re what makes for effective debate...
Nothing you're doing here constitutes effective debate, in theory or in practice. In fact, your critics have identified several elements in your approach here that seem calculated to make it as ineffective and illusory as possible. Skimming over the top of the debate, as you do, picking and choosing only ephemera to respond to, is insulting to the critics who are attempting to engage you directly and honestly.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:01 PM   #2123
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,078
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- I hardly know what I'm doing on my blog, and, for some reason keep deleting stuff by accident... Putting stuff back, requires me to take extra time to properly sort it. This isn't as easy as it would seem cause I'm trying to sort by specific topic rather than (or, before) chronology.
- If you don't want to be included on my blog, I'll take you off -- but I'd like to be able to quote you, and fit your questions/comments into the discourse by their specific topics first, and then by chronology.

- As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see.
Your map is a bad joke and you cannot even adhere to your own waffling ideas about makes for effective debate.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:03 PM   #2124
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
My Dear Mr. Savage:

As you have been told, repeatedly, even if it were possible for you to actually demonstrate a "weakness" in the 14C dating; that would, at best, indicate that the 14C dating did not conclusively date the CIQ to the mid-thirteenth Century, C.E. You would still have to deal with each and every one of the other indicators of medieval provenance, or, even even better, provide the slightest indication (not the Whangers' "coins", but actual evidence) of the CIQ being ~2000 years old (something you have yet to even begin to do).

it is not a binary problem, no matter how blithely you choose to cling to your pretense that it is.

I also encourage you to be punctiliously accurate in your dealings with the sidonists.

Somewhat disappointedly, I remain,

Faithfully yours, &ct.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:12 PM   #2125
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
But don't forget.... Angels are real!
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:14 PM   #2126
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
You would still have to deal with each and every one of the other indicators of medieval provenance...
And in his weighing analogy, that's not putting stuff in the Authentic pan. It's taking stuff out of the Medieval pan.

Quote:
...or, even even better, provide the slightest indication (not the Whangers' "coins", but actual evidence) of the CIQ being ~2000 years old (something you have yet to even begin to do).
That's the only thing that puts weight in the Authentic pan. If there's nothing there, then taking stuff out of the Medieval pan never tips the balance toward authenticity -- even if the Medieval pan were completely empty.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:35 PM   #2127
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,078
After coffee and a big breakfast I'm about ready to deposit some evidence of kind we have become accustomed to in the authentic pan.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 04:48 PM   #2128
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,663
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
http://shrouddebates.com

For bonus giggles see a manifesto for the OPs mission here and ironic advice for dealing with the dishonest and slippery heathen skeptics:
http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/25/a-...a-rich-savage/
The measure of the man right there. There's no prospect of honest debate.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 05:34 PM   #2129
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,210
Jabba, the evidence in the "pro-forgery" pan is rather weighty: the 14C dating, the preserved letters among church officials, the medieval rendering of the image, the weave--and even the twist of the yarn.

All you're putting on to the "pro-authentic" pan is hot air and dust bunnies.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 06:00 PM   #2130
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
- That would be great if you could stop diddling around and present some evidence for the authentic pan.
- Will you be back with that?
- Haven't you given showing weakness in the carbon dating your best shot by tossing around shroudie web links and talking points but repeatedly failed?
- Are you bored of probability talk and about to rehash past points as if they were not abject failures every other time you have raised them, ignoring past criticisms?
- Are these questions obviously rhetorical given your years of dishonest behaviour in your threads?

Well spake.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 06:29 PM   #2131
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
You must think Pgwenthold is being as deliberately obtuse as yourself.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 06:56 PM   #2132
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
 
PizzaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
Well then, considering that entry #1 in your most recent list of evidence has been thoroughly debunked, I take it that we can place that in the medieval forgery pan, and the scales have now significantly tilted away from authenticity. This is easy!
PizzaTheHutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 06:58 PM   #2133
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
 
PizzaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
But don't forget.... Angels are real!
YeeeeeeeYAAAAAYuuussssssssssssss!!!!
PizzaTheHutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 07:02 PM   #2134
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
After coffee and a big breakfast I'm about ready to deposit some evidence of kind we have become accustomed to in the authentic pan.


Nice one!
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th December 2015, 09:56 PM   #2135
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,310
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting...

Largely because whenever one of your points is demolished, you change the subject, only to return to it later.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 12:56 AM   #2136
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,524
I see the irrelevant is back in the room...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 01:09 AM   #2137
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,518
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...if I had stuff in the authentic pan
How about you work on that "If", rather than anything else? If you can't turn "if I had" into "I have", then give up.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 04:04 AM   #2138
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,565
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
snip.

- As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see.
Yeah, your idea about debate isn't a very good one and you're the only one engaging in it and selectively at that. You should just produce evidence for your claim. All else is just hiding behind process in a now clearly failed attempt to obscure the fact that you cannot produce evidence for the CIQ being what you want it to be.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 04:37 AM   #2139
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,171
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see.
To do this, we must agree on when a branch is at its end. It won't work when one side (you) insists on wordsplitting endlessly over little details.

And, please stop trying to lure little consessions out of people all the time. It is dishonest, and it serves no purpose.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:05 AM   #2140
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,663
I serves a purpose and you gave everyone a clue. It's a wilfully dishonest attempt to create the thin end of the wedge.

"If you concede that this bit of nonsense is true, just for argument's sake, then this bit of nonsense might be true, which means this other bit of nonsense might be true...[repeat n times..], then this piece of 'evidence' belongs in the pro-pan"
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:14 AM   #2141
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Nobody is taking the bait.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:08 AM   #2142
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Discussion Format

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:

As you have been told, repeatedly, even if it were possible for you to actually demonstrate a "weakness" in the 14C dating; that would, at best, indicate that the 14C dating did not conclusively date the CIQ to the mid-thirteenth Century, C.E. You would still have to deal with each and every one of the other indicators of medieval provenance...
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:13 AM   #2143
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,310
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time.

That's one more than we generally seem to see. You have yet to post anything that undermines the carbon dating, for example.

And the direction is also important. If you keep going around in circles the debate won't actually go anywhere.

Why not take a real step forward, and post whatever evidence you have that the cloth is around 2000 years old?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 18th December 2015 at 08:18 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:20 AM   #2144
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
You aren't taking one step at a time. You're replaying the well-repeated steps over and over again, hoping to get a more favorable answer each time from newcomers you think don't know your tactics. The tedium can't be denied, but you create it by tediously retreading old ground and tediously equivocating until your critics are convinced you have little other purpose.

And there is nothing logical in your approach. The flaws in your logic have been explained to you several times by several people and you display absolutely no interest in correcting it or even acknowledging the contribution to the discussion.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:23 AM   #2145
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
And in your case, wholly ineffectual.

You know what? Your position would be more tenable if you actually had evidence of a 2000 YO CIQ.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 09:19 AM   #2146
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,922
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
How interesting that you avoid the entire issue in his post.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 09:30 AM   #2147
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,524
I refer the Right Honourable Poster to post 2136...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 09:38 AM   #2148
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,458
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
Do you accept that if I had wings, I could fly.

If there were evidence for authenticity, we could compare that to the evidence for a forgery.

Now, what is the evidence that it is the burial cloth of Jesus?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:09 AM   #2149
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by jond View Post
How interesting that you avoid the entire issue in his post.
That's how Effective Debate™ works. He wasn't really specific regarding what it's effective at doing. The lengthy history of this thread and its progenitors suggests it's intended to effect a prolongation of the debate by means of a pattern of pseudo-participation.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:22 AM   #2150
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
I serves a purpose and you gave everyone a clue. It's a wilfully dishonest attempt to create the thin end of the wedge.
In addition it sets up a false dichotomy. Jango attempted just such a thing in one of the 9/11 threads. He posted a poll whose question whose wording was deliberately ambiguous. He slipped up later and admitted he had intended to entrap reasonable dissent into the "wrong" side of the poll. But the effect was to elicit a modicum of reasonable doubt and then rewrite it as support for the other side.

Yes, that creates the point of the wedge. But in the context of debates like this, it polarizes the respondents. "Do you believe the cloth is Jesus' burial shroud?" gets asked. Then a weaker form: "Do you think it's even remotely possible the cloth is Jesus' burial shroud?" Having been asked the stronger question first, the astute respondent sees what's being attempted. While it's abstractly possible, in the most trivial way, that the cloth could be authentic, the respondent rightly sense a trap.

If the respondent nods to the theoretical but impractically remote chance of success and says "Well, yes, but..." then it gets equivocated to the stronger form. If he remains faithful to the context of the ongoing discussion and says, "No, it's not," then that's what fuels the blogs that decry skeptics as intractable ideologues. The question gets taken out of that all-important context (which frankly is just ham-fisted rhetorical wrangling) and paraded as proof of how "unreasonable" skeptics are.

Motte and bailey, for those who want the Game of Thrones style nomenclature.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:24 AM   #2151
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Do you accept that if I had wings, I could fly.

If there were evidence for authenticity, we could compare that to the evidence for a forgery.

Now, what is the evidence that it is the burial cloth of Jesus?
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:30 AM   #2152
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,662
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see.
It is worthy of much disparagement:

First, because you do not trace each branch to its end. Instead, you change horses at the last moment, to avoid acknowledging that the end of each branch goes against your preferred conclusion. You do this every single time. You betray your method always.

Second, because your method is irrelevant to the discovery of truth. For hundreds of years, now, humanity has discovered truth of all kinds, without having recourse to your method of effective debate. Scientists and scholars the world over, generation after generation, have been able to meet together and fruitfully discuss their ideas, without having recourse to your method.
  • The workings of gravity: Successfully investigated without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • The integral and differential calculus: Derived (more than once!) without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • The principles of aerodynamic flight: Established without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • The engineering of tall buildings: Developed without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • All of modern medicine: Practiced without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • All of history and archaeology: Studied without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • The mechanisms of electronic digital computation, that enable this discussion and many other rich discussions besides, implemented without your 'truly effective debate'.
  • The methods of weaving used in the manufacture of the Pope's ceremonial garments, invented and employed without your 'truly effective debate'.

In fact, there is no field of human endeavor, where truth has been discovered or results have been achieved, that has depended on your 'truly effective debate' for its success.

In fact, you have invented a method of debate whose sole purpose is to support your conclusion regarding the Shroud of Turin. And, in a twist that is both tragic and comic, your method fails even in this one purpose: You must abandon it at the moment of truth, every time.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:32 AM   #2153
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,310
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."

But you don't. So it wouldn't.

ETA: And, as we have seen so often before, you're putting words in someone else's mouth.

Quote:
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.

That's what you're currently failing to do (among other things).
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 18th December 2015 at 10:37 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:36 AM   #2154
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,310
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In fact, you have invented a method of debate whose sole purpose is to support your conclusion regarding the Shroud of Turin.

I disagree; it seems intended to disguise the lack of support for his desired conclusion.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:40 AM   #2155
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
In other words...
Don't restate his post. In his words, your question is meaningless. It's an abstract conditional, and you're trying to "convert" it (in logical analysis terms). You have nothing in the Authenticity pan, so speculating on how the debate might go differently if you did is pointless.

Quote:
A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
I addressed this at some length in the preceding pages, and you're representing only half of what I said. It is necessary for you to address evidence contrary to your belief. However, addressing it is not sufficient to prove your belief in any way. Proving your belief requires both direct, affirmative evidence and credible rebuttals for counter evidence. Now that you've emphasized you're trying to argue a preponderance of evidence, merely rebutting your critics is not probative in that way.

Quote:
I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it.
You can propose that, but you can't demand your critics (or the world) accept that as a reasonable standard of proof. This is just the standard meta-debate tactic fringe claimants use to arbitrarily dictate the onus and the standard of proof.

As I and others have repeatedly said, you can't weigh a preponderance between something and nothing. The something always wins by default, no matter how lightweight it is made to appear. And casting doubt on contrary evidence is an activity proper only to a fully populated argument. With nothing in the Authenticity pan, lightening the Forgery pan, conjuring up "doubt" by chipping little bits off of it, doesn't swing the scale in the least.

The doubt also has to be reasonable and substantial. Conjecture doesn't cut it. You and your authors are confusing doubt with denial. Denying the strength of counter evidence by imagining what might undermine it, without showing any that does, is not casting doubt. You want there to be a medieval patch where the 14C sample was taken. There simply isn't one. Your doubt is unreasonable.

So no, your approach is not valid. You don't understand the argument your critics have made regarding standards and methods of proof, and you're misrepresenting it.

Last edited by JayUtah; 18th December 2015 at 11:03 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:43 AM   #2156
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,605
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
You've been asked, time and again, to provide pro-authenticity evidence. You have steadfastly refused to do so - why ?

What evidence do you have which supports the authenticity ?
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:53 AM   #2157
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,458
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor.

Then again, the "there might be a patch" assertions don't actually weaken the 14c dating because even if there "might" there is no reason to think there is, and lots of reasons to think there isn't. For example, there is no way a medieval cotton patch made from non-shroud fibers could lead to an un-interrupted banding pattern.

But again, this is all irrelevant if there is nothing in the authentic pan.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 10:58 AM   #2158
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,929
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
You've been asked, time and again, to provide pro-authenticity evidence. You have steadfastly refused to do so - why ?
In the latest round, he's misrepresented his critics' arguments to support his belief that he doesn't have to.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 12:56 PM   #2159
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,791
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
So which step are you on now? It's awfully hard for me to tell because at one time, I seem to remember that your discussion with someone who makes so-called invisible repairs for a living told you that they're not truly invisible, and you seemingly accepted this person's explanation and were going to concede the point. Now invisible repairs are back in play, despite the actual, factual, practical imposibility of repair in the sample area, as verified by textile experts who examined the cloth and found no indication of repairs in the area, and radiographs of the cloth which show uninterrupted banding through the same area.

So which step are you on now? Is it a step forward or backward?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 01:41 PM   #2160
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
.

Whose words were these? I think you are lying.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
OK


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
You claim a lot of things all the time. You have spent 4 years trying to cast doubt on the 14C date, and you have failed in every attempt.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 18th December 2015 at 01:42 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.