Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Yes I go with all that, Ian. In the absence of certainty (which we can't have) contradictory evidence is still evidence. Coins of the emperor Justinian II have some resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. Some people think that is evidence that the coins were modelled on the face of the Shroud of Turin, and therefore that the Shroud existed before the coins. I think they're wrong. But in the absence of certainty, those coins are evidence contradicting the medieval date of the Shroud. There is masses of similar evidence. This is what Jabba means by evidence, and it seems to concur with your explanation. I think Carlitos is certain that the Shroud is medieval, and therefore that any evidence suggesting it is not must be wrong, and is therefore not evidence at all. It's a question of semantics. There is no point in having a yes-there-is no-there-isn't argument of words which mean different things to each side.

OTH, contributing to, and being complicit with, the semantic pettifoggery is not, IMO, useful.

The CIQ is a manifestly medieval artifact, as demonstrated by ¹⁴C dating from three independent labs. Because of that, any "resemblance" to the pictures of a roman emperor (for instance) is not, cannot be said to be, evidence that the CIQ dates from before it existed (particularly since, as it was crafted after the coins, it is not at all unreasonable to think that the resemblance to a historic coin could heave been done intentionally, as verisimilitude).

The anatomical, historical, postural, and scriptural inaccuracies of the image on the gessoed piece of linen are not evidence that it is the "True Shroud^TM", but quite the opposite. Calling them "wrong evidence" just clouds the issue.

 

[John Jones]

[...]Coins of the emperor Justinian II have some resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. Some people think that is evidence that the coins were modelled on the face of the Shroud of Turin, and therefore that the Shroud existed before the coins.

That's not evidence that the shroud is the authentic burial garment of Jesus. It's nonsense. It would make more sense to say it's the shroud of the emperor Justinian

 

[Resume]

Yes I go with all that, Ian. In the absence of certainty (which we can't have) contradictory evidence is still evidence. Coins of the emperor Justinian II have some resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. Some people think that is evidence that the coins were modelled on the face of the Shroud of Turin, and therefore that the Shroud existed before the coins. I think they're wrong. But in the absence of certainty, those coins are evidence contradicting the medieval date of the Shroud. There is masses of similar evidence.

Or, as we all know, human beings are pattern-seeking: Abe Lincoln in a tree knot, Jesus on toast, what have you on an ink blot. Or, we could call the tablecloth The Shroud of Justinian II.

 

[carlitos]

Yes I go with all that, Ian. In the absence of certainty (which we can't have) contradictory evidence is still evidence. Coins of the emperor Justinian II have some resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. Some people think that is evidence that the coins were modelled on the face of the Shroud of Turin, and therefore that the Shroud existed before the coins. I think they're wrong. But in the absence of certainty, those coins are evidence contradicting the medieval date of the Shroud. There is masses of similar evidence. This is what Jabba means by evidence, and it seems to concur with your explanation. I think Carlitos is certain that the Shroud is medieval, and therefore that any evidence suggesting it is not must be wrong, and is therefore not evidence at all. It's a question of semantics. There is no point in having a yes-there-is no-there-isn't argument of words which mean different things to each side.

Words mean things. Evidence that is not evidence of something isn't evidence of that thing. It's not "evidence" as the word is commonly used in the English language.

And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?

 

[Olowkow]

In October of last year, there was a conference in St. Louis for the presentation of several dozen papers trying to renew interest in the Shroud prior to the 2015 exhibition.

Attorney Mark Antonacci has studied all aspects of the Shroud for more than 30 years....
“We want to emphasize that there’s a number of tests and experiments that can be done to the Shroud of Turin, in the future, that can get closer to the truth.”

Antonacci, though not a scientist, has written papers about the shroud generally from a point of view of attempting to question scientific principles. The impression from other links suggests Antonacci's involvement with the Shroud is mainly motivated by his religion.

• "Are semantics obscuring the real issue of Shroud science? Do scientists use semantics or phrases and concepts that have no application to investigating whether particle or other radiation was emitted from the body of the man in the Shroud?"
• "This paper highlights some of the main reasons why radiation caused the body images on the Shroud of Turin."
  
• "This paper proposes future testing that could examine every fiber on the Shroud of Turin."

Of course, this congregation of what appears to be around 100 were treated to scientific papers which were attempting to "get closer to the truth" of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. There is fortunately a site that contains links to all of the papers presented, and it is worthwhile perusing a few to get a feel for the nature of this conference.

Shroud of Turin:
The Controversial Intersection of Faith and Science
Conference
October 9-12, 2014
Drury Plaza Hotel
St. Louis, Missouri

This example gives one a feel for the conference's attempt to perpetuate the false controversy concerning the carbon dating of the Shroud.

Raymond J. Schneider, P.E., Ph.D. Note that Schneider's interest seems to be sectaraian, and that his background does not suggest expertise in C14 dating.

Ray Schneider first encountered the Shroud of Turin at a religious retreat in 1962 where he attended a presentation using the 1931 Enrie photographs. Dr. Schneider holds a B.S. in Physics, most of an M.S. in Physics, an M.S. in Engineering Science and a Ph.D. in Information Technology.

Abstract:
When the Carbon 14 (C14) dating of the Shroud of Turin result was announced in 1988, the tests
concluded that the shroud was woven of flax whose age was estimated to be between 1260 and
1390 A.D. This result flew in the face of many expectations of authenticity but was welcomed by
many as revealing the shroud to be simply inauthentic and it was then popularly heralded as a
"fake." However, this rush to judgment contradicted most of the science and scholarship
previously invested in the shroud. It is perhaps a measure of the respect in which C14 dating is
held that the finding tended to discredit the earlier work, yet it is a questionable scientific
practice to vest one kind of result with such weight as to completely discount the results of a
large body of prior work. The present paper seeks a larger perspective by providing an objective
account of as many factors as possible to put the issue of dating in a more complete balance.
Both the positive and negative evidence for authenticity from a variety of historical,
archeological, religious, and scientific domains is presented.

 

[Giordano]

In looking up "evidence" I see a range of definitions, from "broadly construed... anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak" to"that which tends to prove or disprove something."

So rather than argue the "proper definition" I'll borrow the first (evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion) but highlight that the "evidence" presented can be "strong, weak," totally useless, or, in fact, can help document the opposing assertion.

An image perceived by some to be Jesus on a slice of toast is totally useless for establishing that there is a divinity named Jesus. Oddly, an image of Jesus on a Shroud that has absolutely impossible proportions, and on cloth scientifically dated to the middle ages, etc. is in fact fairly good evidence that the cloth is a fake.

 

[John Jones]

OK then.

Does everyone see how that works?

Does anyone have evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

OK then.

Does everyone see how that works?

Does anyone have evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old?

None here; CIQ is manifestly medieval.

 

[abaddon]

OK then.

Does everyone see how that works?

Does anyone have evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old?

Nope.

The fact that it is a medieval fake, however, should have no bearing at all on Jabba's or any other shroud proponents faith. So why, I wonder, are they so invested in clinging to the claim of authenticity at all costs? Maybe it's the ultimate religious security blanket or something, I don't really know.

 

[carlitos]

1 - I'm too lazy
2 - I don't think that the forum search works for 3-letter words

CIQ?

 

[Slowvehicle]

1 - I'm too lazy
2 - I don't think that the forum search works for 3-letter words

CIQ?

"Cloth In Question"

 

[John Jones]

Nope.

The fact that it is a medieval fake, however, should have no bearing at all on Jabba's or any other shroud proponents faith. So why, I wonder, are they so invested in clinging to the claim of authenticity at all costs? Maybe it's the ultimate religious security blanket or something, I don't really know.

I won't go there, but Jabba necromanced this thread a few weeks ago for whatever reason. He has admitted that if the shroud is not 2,000 years old, then no other arguments matter.

Jabba, the shroud is not 2,000 years old. Provide evidence that it is 2,000 years old, or recognize that none of your other points have any merit.

 

[hugh farey]

"And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?"

In some discussions people work together in search of a truth that neither fully owns. In others the participants have opposite opinions, and try to change their opponents' minds to concur with their own. I think it reasonable for these to be called the two sides of the discussion; here, on the one hand, we have Jabba, who would like to convince us of the authenticity of the Shroud, and on the other we have many who would like to convince Jabba that it is of medieval origin. For the medievalists, the principal evidence is the carbon-dating, which, in spite of the minutest examination, has yet to be refuted in my mind, and for Jabba, well, difficult to say what, if I were his attorney, I would lead his case with. Probably an examination of the depiction of the body of Christ over the 12th-14th centuries and an attempt to demonstrate that the evolution of its design depended on a full length, naked, crossed-hands, blood spotted original, which I would suggest was the Shroud arriving in Europe from Constantinople in 1205 or so. Possibly I would use the pollen, the limestone and the vanillin as cumulative evidence. I would however be aware that if the medievalist attorney was as good as myself, he would be able to discredit all these in front of the jury, while I would not be able to budge him on the radiocarbon evidence one bit.

 

[John Jones]

"And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?"

In some discussions people work together in search of a truth that neither fully owns. In others the participants have opposite opinions, and try to change their opponents' minds to concur with their own. I think it reasonable for these to be called the two sides of the discussion; here, on the one hand, we have Jabba, who would like to convince us of the authenticity of the Shroud, and on the other we have many who would like to convince Jabba that it is of medieval origin. [...]

And on the third hand, we have people with critical thinking skills who require others making claims about the authenticity of the purported burial shroud of Jesus Christ to actually provide some supporting evidence.

Show us some supporting evidence that the SoT is the true shroud without delay or equivocation, or I shall rightly assume that you have none.

Mister Jabba, this is obviously also directed to you.

 

[carlitos]

"Cloth In Question"

Thanks. I can't believe that I didn't figure that out for myself.

"And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?"

In some discussions people work together in search of a truth that neither fully owns.

Truth is truth, bro. Doesn't matter who thinks that they "fully own" it.

 

[IanS]

Words mean things. Evidence that is not evidence of something isn't evidence of that thing. It's not "evidence" as the word is commonly used in the English language.

And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?

Yep. precisely (and in far less words than I used). Perhaps it was my fault, but somehow I think Hugh completely misunderstood what I was saying.

Eg, red marks on the shroud (just to take an example) may be evidence of something (e.g. paint lol!). But they are not evidence of a 1st century date for the shroud (let alone being evidence of Jesus) ... unless of course someone can show that the red marks date to the 1st century (though of course nothing of the sort has ever been done for the shroud).

The C14 results are good reliable evidence for the date of the shroud. But that date is c.1260-1390AD.

 

[zooterkin]

And on the third hand, we have people with critical thinking skills who require others making claims about the authenticity of the purported burial shroud of Jesus Christ to actually provide some supporting evidence.

Show us some supporting evidence that the SoT is the true shroud without delay or equivocation, or I shall rightly assume that you have none.

Mister Jabba, this is obviously also directed to you.

I'm not sure why you're aiming this at Hugh, since he's said, more than once, that he accepts the carbon dating result.

 

[John Jones]

I'm not sure why you're aiming this at Hugh, since he's said, more than once, that he accepts the carbon dating result.

It's not "aimed" at Hugh. It was in reply to his post.

Check your PMs.

 

[ferd burfle]

Eg, red marks on the shroud (just to take an example) may be evidence of something (e.g. paint lol!).

That's exactly what it is, as discussed years ago by me and others and perhpaps more recently; I've just begun lurking this thread again recently. The late Dr. Walter McCrone identified the particles in the image portion of the SoT as red ochre and vermillion pirgments in a collagen and tempera vehicle, consistent with medieval artists' media; see http://www.mcri.org.php53-15.dfw1-1...s/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf

The C14 results are good reliable evidence for the date of the shroud. But that date is c.1260-1390AD.

And until the shroudies provide evidence it is 2000 years old, no need to further discuss the pigment analysis.

ferd

 

[hugh farey]

No, I've lost you, John. I told you what I would attempt to sway the jury with if I had to try to support the authenticity of the Shroud, and I told you that I would expect my attempts to be discredited. I did not describe it in detail as I assume you are already familiar with it, but I will if you want. You may certainly assume that I have no evidence for authenticity that could not be discredited.

And Ian, I still think we're juggling with words. I gave some very specific evidence for a very specific hypothesis, namely that the Shroud predates the reign of Justinian II. I did not claim that it was evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old, and I did not claim that it was evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud. I did not even claim it was true, and of course, if we were certain that the Shroud was medieval (which slowvehicle seems to say he is, although you and I, being good scientists, know is not possible) then we could say that that evidence is definitely false, and that therefore, by some definitions of evidence, it isn't evidence at all. However, as, being good scientists, we know that there is no such thing as 'certainty' then we must allow some probability, however small, to the evidence I gave for the antiquity of the shroud being correct, and that being so, the evidence is indeed evidence, even though it is very probably incorrect.

How's that for a paradigm of concise precision?