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 2nd January 2016, 01:47 AM   #2281
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post

2. The CIQ was declared a clever work of art by a pope, who claimed to know the identity of the painter.
I beg your pardon!

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post

(2)There is nothing "dubious" about the historical fact that Bishop D'Arcis reported to Pope Clement VII that the CIQ was a cleverly-wrought fake produced by an artist. Pope Clement's response was to allow the continued exhibition of the CIQ, but not as a relic; and to instruct the clergy that it should not be presented as the "actual shroud of Christ", but as an image of it.
It is correct now. But the fact that bishop d'Arcis said a thing doesn't mean that we have the evidence of this. D'Arcis' document is a draft that doesn’t present any evidence of his claims. It is possible that d’Arcis’ charges were invented in the course of a power battle with the Lirey canons. Pope’s opinion is obviously political. We have no idea whether it was well founded or not.
Therefore, we have d'Arcis' opinion and pope's opinion. They are meaningful, but not conclusive.

To be continued.

Last edited by David Mo; 2nd January 2016 at 02:14 AM.
David Mo 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 2nd January 2016, 02:12 AM   #2282
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. That weave is unknown until medieval times. If you have evidence that such a weave was present in the Levant 2,000 years ago, please, share. Nobody else has ever seen such.
You are a believer? You want to direct the counter argument to where you think you can argue rather than the issues you know you cannot?
You are advocating pandering to sindonists, ignoring evidence that shoots them in the foot and only debating that which they think they can argue when the eveidence is right in front of them. Do you think that's valid? Ignore the actual evidence so that one may focus on the arguable? Really?
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
So you feel one should ignore all the objective evidence and concentrate on something vague. ..... You should get along fine with Jabba.
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
How very...odd. You dispute that there is "a lot of evidence" that the CIQ is a representational image; and yet, when presented with a précis of the evidences that the CIQ cannot physically be the "shroud" in which a body (any body) was "wrapped" after supposedly being crucified, you complain about being presented with "too much" evidence.
Be calm , gentlemen. Don't be excited and read what I have written. Was I defending the authenticity of the Shroud?

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
According to his website, David believes the dirty tea towel to be a medieval fake.
Thank you. I think this was evident from my claims here that I am not a sindonist. I think the Shroud is a medieval fake. And I think I have some evidence about this.
But some people seem scandalized because my arguments are different to theirs.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The evidence is the evidence.
Bravo! Nicely tautological!
But I think you are confusing indications with evidences. Evidence is conclusive, indications are not.
The first example, in my previous comment about d’Arcis’ document.
David Mo 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 2nd January 2016, 04:36 AM   #2283
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,331
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Was I defending the authenticity of the Shroud?

You seem to be advocating ignoring the strong evidence that the shroud is not authentic in favour of weaker and more debatable evidence, thus enabling the discussion to continue as if authenticity is actually arguable, which is almost precisely Jabba's approach.
__________________
"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 2nd January 2016, 05:25 AM   #2284
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,096
It takes the OP having an enforced absence for some kind of actual argument to break out.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 2nd January 2016 at 05:27 AM.
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 2nd January 2016, 06:24 AM   #2285
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Was I defending the authenticity of the Shroud?

It's not easy to tell from post to post.
__________________
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 2nd January 2016, 06:28 AM   #2286
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 David Mo View Post
I beg your pardon!



It is correct now. But the fact that bishop d'Arcis said a thing doesn't mean that we have the evidence of this. D'Arcis' document is a draft that doesn’t present any evidence of his claims. It is possible that d’Arcis’ charges were invented in the course of a power battle with the Lirey canons. Pope’s opinion is obviously political. We have no idea whether it was well founded or not.
Therefore, we have d'Arcis' opinion and pope's opinion. They are meaningful, but not conclusive.

To be continued.
Oh, my. You may, in fact, choose to reject Celement's opinion. You may, in fact, accuse Clement of the kind of duplicity of which Mme. F-L and Dr. McCrone have been accused, and which sidonists practice as a high art form. You may, in fact, indulge yourself in special pleading and conjecture about Clement's motivations.

None of which changes the fact that among the earliest historical references to the actual CIQ (not misidentifications like the Pray Codex; or red herrings, like the "Sudarium") is the D'Arcis Report and Clement's proscriptions as to the proper display of the CIQ, due to it not being the
True Shroud".

...it's been continued for more than four years. Have you, perhaps, read the rest of this thread? Most of this has been hashed to death already.
__________________
"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 2nd January 2016, 06:29 AM   #2287
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 Sideroxylon View Post
It takes the OP having an enforced absence for some kind of actual argument to break out.
No, it doesn't!

__________________
"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 2nd January 2016, 07:24 AM   #2288
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,465
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's not easy to tell from post to post.
Indeed, I was going to post a similar sentiment. One must wonder why it is that anyone would demand that the best evidence be thrown under the bus in favour of quibbling about other issues. Have we not seen four years of this behaviour already?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 2nd January 2016, 07:48 AM   #2289
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Indeed, I was going to post a similar sentiment. One must wonder why it is that anyone would demand that the best evidence be thrown under the bus in favour of quibbling about other issues. Have we not seen four years of this behaviour already?
That's the whole game. Teach the controversy.
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright
Maurice Ledifficile 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 2nd January 2016, 12:52 PM   #2290
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile View Post
That's the whole game. Teach the controversy.
Yep. Teach some manufactured controversy.
__________________
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 2nd January 2016, 01:16 PM   #2291
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,467
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Too much.
You include dubious facts (2, 6 ), exaggerations (3), vague sentences (5), non-conclusive sentences (7, 8, 11), debated facts (14)...
But why do the sentances have to be non-vague or conclusive, or non-debated?

Remember, your challenge was for "NON-SCIENTIFIC" evidence. Given your request, you can't complain that the evidence doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

In fact, when you made your request for "non-scientific evidence", the first thing I thought of was the letter from the middle ages that said it was a forgery and they knew who the forger was.

As evidence goes, despite being non-scientific, it is far, far better than anything the burial cloth of Jesus side has (for Pete's sake, Jabba has claimed the "undocumented history" as evidence for authenticity!)

The criticisms of the attempts to replicate the shroud because they don't account for every single detail are similarly pretty weak considering that the explanation for the image by authenticists, knowing that you can't get the image by wrapping a cloth around a body, is quantum radiation. AKA, a miracle occurred.

At that point, vague and non-conclusive sentences are a major upgrade.
__________________
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 3rd January 2016, 12:51 AM   #2292
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But why do the sentances have to be non-vague or conclusive, or non-debated?

Remember, your challenge was for "NON-SCIENTIFIC" evidence. Given your request, you can't complain that the evidence doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

In fact, when you made your request for "non-scientific evidence", the first thing I thought of was the letter from the middle ages that said it was a forgery and they knew who the forger was.

As evidence goes, despite being non-scientific, it is far, far better than anything the burial cloth of Jesus side has (for Pete's sake, Jabba has claimed the "undocumented history" as evidence for authenticity!)
And McCrone's being a grouch.
__________________
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 3rd January 2016, 01:06 AM   #2293
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Was I defending the authenticity of the Shroud?
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's not easy to tell from post to post.
Ein?
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief. They don’t like this.
Is this not clear enough? I think it is “very easy to tell”. ...snip...

Edited by jsfisher:  Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Last edited by jsfisher; 3rd January 2016 at 08:08 AM.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 01:08 AM   #2294
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Oh, my. You may, in fact, choose to reject Celement's opinion. You may, in fact, accuse Clement of the kind of duplicity of which Mme. F-L and Dr. McCrone have been accused, and which sidonists practice as a high art form. You may, in fact, indulge yourself in special pleading and conjecture about Clement's motivations.

None of which changes the fact that among the earliest historical references to the actual CIQ (not misidentifications like the Pray Codex; or red herrings, like the "Sudarium") is the D'Arcis Report and Clement's proscriptions as to the proper display of the CIQ, due to it not being the True Shroud".
No, I don’t reject the opinion of pope Clement. I consider it just an opinion. I only say that we don’t know the rational or irrational basis of his opinion. Neither those of d’Arcis’ opinion. It is evident that Clement is playing a double game: He allows the public exhibition of the Shroud, he orders the canons to say that it is not “the true Shroud of our Lord” and then he orders to keep the mouth shut the unique person that was able to control the canons. This is exactly the same double game of the contemporary popes: they don’t affirm the Shroud is an authentic relic but permit the exhibitions as it were.
I don’t intend to deny what the Pope and d’Arcis said. They said the Shroud was not authentic. But we don’t know why, we don’t know the basis of evidence of their claims. Therefore, we only know two opinions. And you cannot base evidence on opinions.

NOTE: The episode of Liège (Zantfliet, 1449) seems to me a stronger blow against the authenticity because it comes from a third testimony. Neutral, in some way.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 05:35 AM   #2295
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 David Mo View Post
No, I don’t reject the opinion of pope Clement. I consider it just an opinion. I only say that we don’t know the rational or irrational basis of his opinion. Neither those of d’Arcis’ opinion. It is evident that Clement is playing a double game: He allows the public exhibition of the Shroud, he orders the canons to say that it is not “the true Shroud of our Lord” and then he orders to keep the mouth shut the unique person that was able to control the canons. This is exactly the same double game of the contemporary popes: they don’t affirm the Shroud is an authentic relic but permit the exhibitions as it were.
I don’t intend to deny what the Pope and d’Arcis said. They said the Shroud was not authentic. But we don’t know why, we don’t know the basis of evidence of their claims. Therefore, we only know two opinions. And you cannot base evidence on opinions.

NOTE: The episode of Liège (Zantfliet, 1449) seems to me a stronger blow against the authenticity because it comes from a third testimony. Neutral, in some way.
You are, of course, free to approach the CIQ in whatsoever way you choose. I still think you are missing the point of the D'Arcis/Clement bits. What is significant is not that a Pope (or an anti-Pope, depending upon your taste is sects' acts) declared that the CIQ was not to be considered the "true shroud"; the point is that the Pope and the Bishop (if there were a choir girl, it would be the set-up of a joke) danced their fandango in the closing days of the 12th Century, C.E., while the artist D'Arcis identified was still alive; and while the CIQ, from all contemporary renderings, was much different in appearance that it is today. Any claim of "authenticity" must deal with the fact that the CIQ has faded dramatically in the 700 years since its historical appearance.
__________________
"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 3rd January 2016, 06:20 AM   #2296
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,465
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
your taste is sects' acts
Ahhh, you crack me up.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 3rd January 2016, 07:04 AM   #2297
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Ein?

Is this not clear enough? I think it is “very easy to tell”. ...snip...
Edited by jsfisher:  Moderated content and response to same redacted.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by jsfisher; 3rd January 2016 at 09:45 AM.
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 3rd January 2016, 08:41 AM   #2298
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

"The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief. They don’t like this."

Is this not clear enough? I think it is “very easy to tell”. ...snip...

Edited by jsfisher:  Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
OK. What is the problem with this?

Last edited by David Mo; 3rd January 2016 at 08:42 AM.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 08:49 AM   #2299
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Edited by jsfisher:  Moderated content and response to same redacted.
I have been some years studying the subject and I have participated in other threads on the Shroud in these forums. I haven't see the subject I am posing now. Your suggestion is out of place.

Last edited by jsfisher; 3rd January 2016 at 09:46 AM.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 09:02 AM   #2300
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have been some years studying the subject and I have participated in other threads on the Shroud in these forums. I haven't see the subject I am posing now. Your suggestion is out of place.
If you are suggesting I'm off-topic or being inappropriate to the MA or something, that's what the /!\ icon on the lower left is for. There is no need to lose your composure because I said your position wasn't always easy to understand.

This is my final word on the matter.
__________________
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 3rd January 2016, 09:25 AM   #2301
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...while the artist D'Arcis identified was still alive...
You are assuming as true what you have to prove.

You are wrong. D'Arcis doesn't say that the artisan was still alive. He says that Henri de Poitiers discovered this artisan (in 1356 c.). It is a very different thing and not easy to prove.

Last edited by David Mo; 3rd January 2016 at 09:48 AM.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 09:29 AM   #2302
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
If you are suggesting I'm off-topic or being inappropriate to the MA or something, that's what the /!\ icon on the lower left is for. There is no need to lose your composure because I said your position wasn't always easy to understand.

This is my final word on the matter.
Sorry, I was suggesting that your advise was not pertinent because I know well the subject and the opinions of Jabba and other participants in this forum also. Nothing more.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 09:38 AM   #2303
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 David Mo View Post
You are assuming as true what you have to prove.

You are wrong. D'Arcis doesn't say that the artisan was still alive. He says that Henri de Poitiers discovered this artisan (in 1356 c.). It is a very different thing.
Even if your position were correct, you still have to deal with the statements that the artist was identified contemporaneously with the first historical records of the CIQ.

This has all been done (and re-done, and re-re-done) in this thread and its progenitors. Welcome (if fashionably late) to the party...
__________________
"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 3rd January 2016, 09:41 AM   #2304
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Sorry, I was suggesting that your advise was not pertinent because I know well the subject and the opinions of Jabba and other participants in this forum also. Nothing more.
MMm OK. Perhaps you came in a bit sideways.

I suggest you restate your opinion on how we should discuss the shroud, and why. I recommend you do it as briefly and concisely as possible.

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 3rd January 2016, 09:42 AM   #2305
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 abaddon View Post
Ahhh, you crack me up.
TY! (Of course, the typo is unfortunate: "in" , not "is"). It's nice to know someone is reading...
__________________
"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 3rd January 2016, 09:56 AM   #2306
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Sorry, I was suggesting that your advise was not pertinent because I know well the subject and the opinions of Jabba and other participants in this forum also. Nothing more.
__________________
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 3rd January 2016, 09:56 AM   #2307
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You are assuming as true what you have to prove.

You are wrong. D'Arcis doesn't say that the artisan was still alive. He says that Henri de Poitiers discovered this artisan (in 1356 c.). It is a very different thing and not easy to prove.
These testimonies must be taken with the reservations that are appropriate for all testimony of such age. Nevertheless they are there, and they do trump not having any. Sindonists do not have any historical evidence at all for a greater age.

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 3rd January 2016, 10:02 AM   #2308
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But why do the sentances have to be non-vague or conclusive, or non-debated?

Remember, your challenge was for "NON-SCIENTIFIC" evidence. Given your request, you can't complain that the evidence doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

In fact, when you made your request for "non-scientific evidence", the first thing I thought of was the letter from the middle ages that said it was a forgery and they knew who the forger was.

As evidence goes, despite being non-scientific, it is far, far better than anything the burial cloth of Jesus side has (for Pete's sake, Jabba has claimed the "undocumented history" as evidence for authenticity!)

The criticisms of the attempts to replicate the shroud because they don't account for every single detail are similarly pretty weak considering that the explanation for the image by authenticists, knowing that you can't get the image by wrapping a cloth around a body, is quantum radiation. AKA, a miracle occurred.

At that point, vague and non-conclusive sentences are a major upgrade.
Maybe “non-scientific” was not an accurate word for what I was intending to explain. I try again.

The 14C dating is the stronger scientific evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud. The basic rules of radiocarbon dating are easily understandable with no much scientific knowledge, but there are other particular (and important) aspects that are not known by most. I assume that people that usually discuss about this matter are not expert in radiocarbon dating. I am not, of course. Therefore, in this kind of forums it is easy to find someone that claims that the very last essay of XXXX shows how the 1988 dating was flawed. These “very last” investigations are usually debunked in a period of time more or less large (Kouznetsov, Garza-Valdés, etc.). Other (Rogers) are more resistant. But there are others that avoid the attention of the experts. Do you know Alconchel-Pecino? These kind of academic works don’t deserve the attention of the experts, they are not criticised and they allow some obstinate sindonists to cling on to them indefinitely. So, the debate becomes impossible.
I maintain that is more useful focussing the discussion in other points. These points don’t need a profound scientific knowledge, but common sense and critical spirit only. Of course, sometimes some scientific knowledge is implied, but not a specialized one. That is why I have called them “non-scientific”.
The advantage is that you can ask some basic questions to sindonists that don’t imply sophisticated devices or theories. My experience is that the sindonists are not able to answer by appealing strange scientists that work in some Lithuanian lab. This is what I call a “conclusive” argument. The inability to answer is evident to everybody.
You have quoted one of them: the position of the sheet. I have mentioned others:
-The position of the hair.
-The absence of squashing in the back of the body in the image.
- The blood trickles on the hair in the back of the head.
-The direction of the blood trickles.
-…and some other.

Discuss Mr. Alconchel-Pecino seems to me really boring and useless. It is more interesting to see how the sindonists react to the simple questions I have proposed.
And therefore is important to separate what is a conclusive evidence from what is only an indication.
See my argumentation about d’Arcis memorandum, please.
David Mo 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 3rd January 2016, 10:17 AM   #2309
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
[...]

Discuss Mr. Alconchel-Pecino seems to me really boring and useless. It is more interesting to see how the sindonists react to the simple questions I have proposed.
And therefore is important to separate what is a conclusive evidence from what is only an indication.
See my argumentation about d’Arcis memorandum, please.
There is only one person here who defends the authenticity of the shroud. If you ask him anything like what you are proposing, he will ignore it and reply that the 14C dating is invalid because of magical patches, that McCrone was difficult to work with, that Mme F-L was incompetent, and "Undocumented History". Therefore, the shroud is "probably" authentic

No one to date has found a way to have a meaningful discussion with him, but be my guest. It would be refreshing to see someone actually get him to engage honestly.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 3rd January 2016 at 10:42 AM.
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 3rd January 2016, 10:22 AM   #2310
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Maybe “non-scientific” was not an accurate word for what I was intending to explain. I try again.

*snipped for brevity*
And therefore is important to separate what is a conclusive evidence from what is only an indication.
See my argumentation about d’Arcis memorandum, please.
Fair enough, but 'conclusive' is the wrong term. The C14 dating is conclusive evidence.

Perhaps you could say "immidiately convincing". However, I think the main failing is the idea that anything will convince folks like Jabba.

What we do here is batting back any and all of his arguments, lest he confuse any spectators.

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 3rd January 2016, 12:10 PM   #2311
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,331
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The 14C dating is the stronger scientific evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud. The basic rules of radiocarbon dating are easily understandable with no much scientific knowledge, but there are other particular (and important) aspects that are not known by most. I assume that people that usually discuss about this matter are not expert in radiocarbon dating. I am not, of course. Therefore, in this kind of forums it is easy to find someone that claims that the very last essay of XXXX shows how the 1988 dating was flawed.

Yes, but the same people will come up with all sorts of arguments against whatever other evidence you propose using instead. Worse, in Jabba's case he will then introduce another Gish gallop of debunked and/or irrelevant information that he says belongs in his "pro-authenticity pan", and claim that since the carbon dating is now out the "preponderance of evidence" must favour authenticity.
__________________
"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 3rd January 2016, 12:57 PM   #2312
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,465
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Maybe “non-scientific” was not an accurate word for what I was intending to explain. I try again.
OK.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The 14C dating is the stronger scientific evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud. The basic rules of radiocarbon dating are easily understandable with no much scientific knowledge, but there are other particular (and important) aspects that are not known by most.
While generally true, I can think of at least one exception to this.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I assume that people that usually discuss about this matter are not expert in radiocarbon dating. I am not, of course.
Your assumption is incorrect.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Therefore, in this kind of forums it is easy to find someone that claims that the very last essay of XXXX shows how the 1988 dating was flawed. These “very last” investigations are usually debunked in a period of time more or less large (Kouznetsov, Garza-Valdés, etc.). Other (Rogers) are more resistant. But there are others that avoid the attention of the experts. Do you know Alconchel-Pecino? These kind of academic works don’t deserve the attention of the experts, they are not criticised and they allow some obstinate sindonists to cling on to them indefinitely. So, the debate becomes impossible.
Which assumes that the protagonist actually wants an honest discussion of the facts. This is not the case in this thread.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I maintain that is more useful focussing the discussion in other points. These points don’t need a profound scientific knowledge, but common sense and critical spirit only. Of course, sometimes some scientific knowledge is implied, but not a specialized one. That is why I have called them “non-scientific”.
Again, you assume that the goal is to resolve the matter. It isn't. The goal is and always has been to prolong the "debate" in the hope of being able to declare a Pyrrhic victory over science. Introducing these other issues is simply grist to the sindonist mill and will be used as a blunt instrument with which to attack science, history and sheer common sense to artificially create a sense that there is any controversy at all.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The advantage is that you can ask some basic questions to sindonists that don’t imply sophisticated devices or theories. My experience is that the sindonists are not able to answer by appealing strange scientists that work in some Lithuanian lab. This is what I call a “conclusive” argument. The inability to answer is evident to everybody.
The disadvantage is the sindonists simply don't care.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You have quoted one of them: the position of the sheet. I have mentioned others:
-The position of the hair.
-The absence of squashing in the back of the body in the image.
- The blood trickles on the hair in the back of the head.
-The direction of the blood trickles.
-…and some other.
Been there and done that again and again and again. Everyone who has been here since the start of this nonsense is heartily sick to death of all of the evasions, dodges, fringe resets, Gish gallops, in fact everything from the woo playbook over and over and over.

Seems to me that your real problem is that all of us who have been here from the start look at your posts and groan because it will mean yet another turn of the hamster wheel of doom that is this thread and issues long thought to be firmly put to bed will (haha) be resurrected once again. That may seem a little harsh, but after four years and multiple threads tolerance levels are just a bit on the low side. This is not your fault. I am simply trying to convey to you why there is so much cynicism in this thread.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Discuss Mr. Alconchel-Pecino seems to me really boring and useless. It is more interesting to see how the sindonists react to the simple questions I have proposed.
And therefore is important to separate what is a conclusive evidence from what is only an indication.
See my argumentation about d’Arcis memorandum, please.
Alconchel-Pecino published an article, not a peer reviewed paper. And he sets out his stall right from the title, which is...
Quote:
A possible hypothesis for correcting the radiocarbon
age of the Shroud of Turin
Yeah, you read that right. He wants to set the C14 dating to the "correct" age which he already knows is 2000 years before he even puts pen to paper.

Here is the full article.

Enjoy.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th January 2016, 12:47 AM   #2313
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
There is only one person here who defends the authenticity of the shroud.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Which assumes that the protagonist actually wants an honest discussion of the facts. This is not the case in this thread.
(…)
Been there and done that again and again and again. Everyone who has been here since the start of this nonsense is heartily sick to death of all of the evasions, dodges, fringe resets, Gish gallops, in fact everything from the woo playbook over and over and over.
When I speak of the sindonists I am not thinking in Jabba… only.
I don’t know whether he is honest or dishonest. I suppose he is honest by principle.The method “I-come-back-again-and-again” is popular between the low levels of sindonism but I know many other species. There are more coriaceous and more sophisticated kinds of sindonism. There are even indecisive sindonsits. I don’t pretend to persuade anyone. I intend to make evident some of their contradictions with no way out. Everybody can draw his own conclusions.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Alconchel-Pecino published an article, not a peer reviewed paper. And he sets out his stall right from the title, which is...
I am not a believer of the peer review religion. Many of the best articles about the Shroud by Nicolotti, Rinaldi or Garlaschelli were publied in a non peer reviewed journal.
I know many flawed cases of the peer review system. Once again the peer review is an advisable requisite, but not definitive.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th January 2016 at 01:38 AM.
David Mo 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 4th January 2016, 12:50 AM   #2314
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Yes, but the same people will come up with all sorts of arguments against whatever other evidence you propose using instead.
Except those I have proposed, for they lead to logical contradictions.
David Mo 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 4th January 2016, 12:56 AM   #2315
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Even if your position were correct, you still have to deal with the statements that the artist was identified contemporaneously with the first historical records of the CIQ.
Yuou are assuming that d'Arcis was saying the truth on this point. Why?
Charles Freeman has other interesting hypothesis that doesn't imply any forger artist. See here: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-...s-shroud-turin

Last edited by David Mo; 4th January 2016 at 01:26 AM.
David Mo 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 4th January 2016, 04:13 AM   #2316
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 David Mo View Post
Yuou are assuming that d'Arcis was saying the truth on this point. Why?
Charles Freeman has other interesting hypothesis that doesn't imply any forger artist. See here: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-...s-shroud-turin
I honestly can't tell if you are intentionally adopting an obtuse pose, or if you simply do not get apprehend the issue.

Oh, well.
__________________
"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 4th January 2016, 05:04 AM   #2317
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Yuou are assuming that d'Arcis was saying the truth on this point. Why?
Charles Freeman has other interesting hypothesis that doesn't imply any forger artist. See here: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-...s-shroud-turin

That article has been presented and discussed here. Once by Charles Freeman himself.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 4th January 2016 at 06:16 AM.
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 4th January 2016, 05:56 AM   #2318
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Those who have very much enjoyed the intellectual cut-and-thrust of shroudstory.com have been upset by its recent closure, although with competent searching it remains an essential repository of primary sources and intelligent opinions. There was a time when I found internationalskeptics worthwhile, and indeed, followed chiefly mathematical arguments from an authenticist to a non-authenticist viewpoint. Since then, I have scrupulously examined every authenticist argument for discrediting the radiocarbon date, and found nearly all of them spurious, although there are still one or two grey areas. Many of the other evidences for a medieval date have also been scrutinised, in detail, with a view to determining their level of support. The d'Arcis memorandum is one of these.

Over the years the weakness of the authenticist position on this site has resulted in some very slack counter-arguments from non-authenticists, with the result that, although Jabba is frequently blamed for the pointless continuation of this thread, which must surely for heading for the Guinness Book of World Records, it has really been maintained by his opponents. In more or less the same three words ("I'll be back"), posted every month or so, Jabba has managed to keep a pack of hounds snarling at his heels, without achieving the slightest progress in denting his belief in the Shroud's authenticity. Mostly, the site has become an increasingly inaccurate re-iteration of supposed non-authenticist arguments, to the edification of nobody.

There may be an unrecognised worthwhile reason for the maintenance of this thread, which is to demonstrate the weakness of authenticist arguments, or the strength of non-authenticist ones, to readers who follow it, but never comment. For several years they have been largely disappointed, I fear.

Neither the Pope, nor Bishop d'Arcis, nor Bishop Henri, nor anybody else, has left any record that they knew the painter responsible for the image of the Shroud. All we have is an unsigned, undated draft of a letter addressed to the Pope from d'Arcis, claiming that the Shroud being exhibited in Lirey in 1389 was not a true relic of Christ, but a deceitful fraud, and that the whole thing had been investigated by Henri of Poitiers, "the truth being attested by the artist who painted it," after which it had been hidden for 34 years or so, a date so precise that it suggests some knowledge (or assumed knowledge) that the first time the Shroud was exhibited was in 1355 or so. ("Or so" perhaps being crucial, as we shall see. The Latin is "vel circa")

This is important. We do not have Bishop Henri's report. What we do have is his signed, dated, effusive commendation of Geoffroi de Charny written on 28 May 1356, with no mention of a fraudulent Shroud. It seems unlikely that Bishop Henry would have been so kind if he had just condemned a fraudulent relic.

Geoffroi de Charny died at the battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356.

Suppose, for a moment, that d'Arcis' information, whether or not he actually sent his letter, was correct. An interpretation of the evidence could be that the Shroud began to be exhibited after de Charny's death ('vel circa' being the operative words here), and Bishop Henri, having commended de Charney only the previous Spring, was shocked to discover that by the Autumn the canons at Lirey had exceeded their remit. This seems possible, and to me the most likely.

It is sometimes claimed that since there is no proof that d'Arcis' letter was sent, that no credence should be given to it. However, even if this particular complaint was not received by the Pope, he nevertheless commanded in 1389 that the Shroud could only be shown as a representation, and without all the ceremonial trappings of sanctity that might attend the display of the real thing, suggesting that at least somebody had complained. It is not obvious whether he personally thought the Shroud was genuine or not, but he certainly acted as if it wasn't.

On the other hand, if we decide that the "vel circa" is not adequate to reconcile the conflicting evidence from 1356, we could claim that Bishop Henri knew all about the Shroud and commended Geoffroi de Charney for building a chapel for its veneration. His commendation specifically states: "after scrupulous examination [...] of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult, and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts - a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents." What could this "cult" have been, if not that of the Holy Shroud? Well, the fact that the church is dedicated to St Mary may be related to that.

It may be worth considering how we know about the two conflicting documents in this case. The d'Arcis memorandum has been researched twice, by the Catholic Historian Ulysse Chevalier, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, and by Hilda Leynen in the 90s. The document by Bishop Henri was discovered by Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, who is a fairly extreme fundamentalist Catholic and Shroud authenticist, who thinks that the radiocarbon date was falsified by Dr Tite and Cardinal Ballestrero in the sacristy of the Royal Chapel in Turin in 1988. Although his discovery of the Bishop Henri document was presented to the St Louis Shroud Symposium in 1991, it was not referred to at all by Luigi Fossati in his two articles for Shroud Spectrum International in 1992, or in Jack Markwardt's 'The Conspiracy Against the Shroud' in 2001.

Finally, Luigi Fossati draws our attention to an interesting change of phrase in successive communications from Pope Clement to Troyes, at around that time, beginning with "figura seu representatio" (July 1389) amending it to "pictura seu tabula" (January 1390), but reverting to "figura seu representatio" in May 1390.

References:
D'Arcis memorandum: https://archive.org/details/tudecritiquesur00chevgoog
Bishop Henri commendation: "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity" (google.books)
Markwardt Discussion: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n55part3.pdf
Fossati Discussions: http://shroud.com/pdfs/ssi41part3.pdf and http://shroud.com/pdfs/ssi42part14.pdf
Bruno Bonnet-Eymard: http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine...-shroud-turin/
hugh farey 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 4th January 2016, 06:40 PM   #2319
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by hugh farey View Post
[...]

Over the years the weakness of the authenticist position on this site has resulted in some very slack counter-arguments from non-authenticists, with the result that, although Jabba is frequently blamed for the pointless continuation of this thread, which must surely for heading for the Guinness Book of World Records, it has really been maintained by his opponents. In more or less the same three words ("I'll be back"), posted every month or so, Jabba has managed to keep a pack of hounds snarling at his heels,[...]]
Really? A snarling pack of hounds? Charming.
__________________
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 4th January 2016, 07:16 PM   #2320
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 John Jones View Post
Really? A snarling pack of hounds? Charming.
Inorite? When all else fails, play the "piling on" card...

Especially trenchant from a poster who considers "shroudstory.com" to be a source of "intellectual cut-and-thrust"...
__________________
"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
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 09:19 PM.
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.