Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Olowkow]

In science, it is simply not enough to explain why you are right, you must also explain why those who disagree with you are wrong.

I beg to differ.

The scientist presents evidence in support of his hypothesis and demonstrates how this evidence predicts future experimental outcomes. In order to falsify an hypothesis based on this presented evidence, those who disagree must demonstrate that his work cannot successfully predict further empirical testing as claimed, i.e., failure by other scientists to replicate the results of his experiments. It is not the claimant's burden or responsibility to provide any explanation of his opponents' objections beyond the original description of his experimental results.

If someone finds a piece of cloth and announces that it is 2,000 years old, and a competent chemist informs him that after burning a section, he has determined that it contains nylon--a material not possible in a 2,000 year old fabric, mainly because there are no examples of nylon prior to February 28, 1935--it is certainly not incumbent upon the chemist to follow his material analysis with explanations of why all those relic seekers who disagree are mistaken. It is rather the burden of the opponents of the chemist's findings to produce evidence that the gases emitted by burning the claimed 2,000 year old fabric did not contain the chemistry indicative of nylon.



ETA: In case I am taking too much for granted, read the above to mean that absent any reasonable claims by competent persons that nylon may have been a naturally occurring polymer dating to the iron age, or that this fabric was manufactured by aliens or primitive people, or that the gas chromatography was performed or read incorrectly, the claim that the fabric is 2,000 years old is false. Period.

 

[hugh farey]

Elegantly put, and fair enough. If, however, an objection is published that the interwoven nylon was put there by a mischiefmaker, and that a painting exists of the cloth in the hands of Julius Caesar, I think it is as well for the scientist to be able to respond, even if he is not under any technical obligation to do so. But I take your point.

 

[Stuart]

Elegantly put, and fair enough. If, however, an objection is published that the interwoven nylon was put there by a mischiefmaker, and that a painting exists of the cloth in the hands of Julius Caesar, I think it is as well for the scientist to be able to respond, even if he is not under any technical obligation to do so. But I take your point.

Taking this example, I would suggest then that the testable evidence for such an event should be supplied.

 

[Olowkow]

Elegantly put, and fair enough. If, however, an objection is published that the interwoven nylon was put there by a mischiefmaker, and that a painting exists of the cloth in the hands of Julius Caesar, I think it is as well for the scientist to be able to respond, even if he is not under any technical obligation to do so. But I take your point.

Nope. It would be like Dawkins debating Ray Comfort--pointless without any demonstrable evidence from the evangelist.

I worked with world class chemists for many years. If they had been even the slightest bit concerned with crackpots with no evidence making wild unsubstantiated claims about their research, they would have never accomplished much.

However, if your hypothetical "mischiefmaker" hypothesizer were to present his case accompanied by DNA from the sweat of the hands or drool from the jowls of the pilfering polymerist, which in turn led to a confession by a disgruntled atheist Dupont employee bent on destroying Christian beliefs, then we would expect the DNA experts to be engaged, not the gas chromatography experts. The GC chemist is no longer on the hook for any apologetics concerning the nature of his findings unless his analysis is questioned by competent research.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts

...
I'm not surprised Jabba has stepped back. It was quite brave of him to step forward, as he does not seem to be bringing anything new to the discussion...

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

 

[Craig B]

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

This isn't helpful. Your being impressed with room, however apparent, isn't very conclusive. And if you haven't dug anything up, why tantalise us with baseless innuendo, and then go away? Dig the stuff up, and then come back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

The thing you simply fail to understand is that it does not do for you to simply assert that there "must have been" errors, simply because you choose to hope, without evidence, that the ¹⁴C must be "erroneous".

If you are going to claim that the "vanillin degradation" protocol is a valid dating technique, an assertion will not do; you will need to demonstrate cases in which the "vanillin degradation" protocol yields dates that agree with ¹⁴C dating, to demonstrate that the kitchen test can show actual problems with the ¹⁴C dates of the CIQ.

If you are going to trot out your "some patching" canard, an assertion will not do; yoou will need to explain why no one who has ever handled the CIQ, or has taken pictures of the CIQ, has ever detected any such; to say nothing of needing to explain how the "patching" came to mimic the reasonable date so closely.

If you are going to repeat your allegations of collusion, or incompetence, or dishonesty, you will need to provide support.

Simply repeating your assertions will not do.

 

[Dinwar]

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

I've more or less quit the site, but broke my rule for this post.

Radiocarbon dating isn't perfect. No dating method is. However, the thing Jabba is trying to get the peanut gallery to not notice is that scientists know what can affect the measurements. We know that marine organisms show a clear bias, and even have a name for it. We know that various processes can introduce dead carbon into the system, and have a name for that, too. We know that more C14 can be made, via radiation interacting with N14, and we have all KINDS of ways to detect that (seeing as how it's foundational to the whole concept).

There are two posibilities for a mistake with C14 dating of the shroud. The nearly infinitely more likely source is dead carbon from the burning of fossil fuels--meaning that carbon from coal fires or oil lamps burning petroleum products could become integrated in the cloth. This is a widely known issue and there are specific protocols for addressing it. Second--and the ONLY way that C14 dating can be biased in such a way as to support Jabba's conclusions--is if the shroud were irradiated with exactly the right amount of exactly the right type of radiation, converting the N14 into C14 and artificially lowering the age. I suppose the shroud may have reached its closing temperature for C14, but without offgassing there's really nowhere for the C14 to go, and even if it did the offgassing would alter the ratio of C14 to C12/C13, which means we could back-calculate it. (That's something Jabba will never tell folks: we don't just use one dating method, even for the same sample--we use a number of them combined, such as lookign at parent/daugher ratios AND ratios of parent isotopes to stable ones. Look at U/U dating and concordance for more information.)

We know that neither was a singificant factor, because we have at this point firmly established the provenance of the shroud. It did not exist before the Middle Ages. This is the second thing Jabba wants to hide from the peanut gallery: the C14 dating has been confirmed by other dating methods. There is NO way that the same process can bias both of these methods, so they act as an independent test of one another.

Finally, the sheer hypocracy of accepting a test of dubious value conducted under uncontrolled conditions, while demanding rigorous yet routine tests to be held to unobtainable standards in order to accept their results, clearly shows that Jabba is basing his acceptance of tests on whether they agree with his a priori conclusion or not. The issue was never whether the C14 tests were valid or not--they got an answer that Jabba disagrees with, so he is hunting for an excuse to dismiss them. He is looking for a "Gotcha!" situation, where he can formulate an excuse to dismiss the evidence while pretending to be operating within the accepted manner of science.

In science, it is simply not enough to explain why you are right, you must also explain why those who disagree with you are wrong.

You left out quite a bit here. For example, if the reason you're wrong is general knowledge (remember that general knowledge in a group of experts is different from general knowledge of the population as a whole), there is no need to discuss your claim. And if your claim has already been refuted, referencing the refutation is an acceptable method for "explain[ing] why those who disagree with you are wrong".

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

You can better spend your time providing evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old. Do that, and you're half-way home.

Rehashing the failed tactics of the last 3 years isn't likely to win any credibility or accolades for pro-authenticity arguments.

All your interlocutors have to reasonably expect at this point is another fringe reset - where you go back and parrot the same baseless claims made on day 1 of this thread (and its ancestors) as if no time or discussion had taken place.

 

[Giordano]

All your interlocutors have to reasonably expect at this point is another fringe reset - where you go back and parrot the same baseless claims made on day 1 of this thread (and its ancestors) as if no time or discussion had taken place.

Given Jabba's claims to poor memory, I fully expect a complete re-hash of all his prior posts, presented as if they had never been provided here, let alone as if they had never been proven wrong multiple times. I would love to be disappointed, However, given Jabba's claim to not remember posts from a few days prior, the passing of many months is likely to result in a repetitive new cycle just as if the prior cycles never occurred.

Jabba: please prove me wrong! Study the thread already here: it is all there for you (and us) to review. But only present novel information, or convincing answers to the negations and concerns already provided in response to your previous posts. One excellent way to organize it would be for you, in the privacy of your own home, to list each of your arguments in favor of the Shroud, the posted concerns that each of these arguments generated here, and any specific responses you already posted relative to these concerns. Then, please don't present this list here! It is already available on this thread. Instead, only post new (i.e. previously not posted) scientific reasons for rejecting these previously posted concerns.

Even better, if you have new arguments in favor of the Shroud that were not posted previously, please feel free to post these now.

But if you are going to take months to organize yourself as you promised, please spend a week reviewing what has already been covered here. No one needs to see it again. Thanks.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hugh,
- I haven't really stepped back. I'm just slow. My buddies here can vouch for me on that.
- I am surprised that you give the carbon dating so much credibility. I'm currently reviewing the relevant articles on shroud.com, and am still impressed with the apparent room for error...
- I'll eventually get back with what I can dig up.

That's because the carbon dating was carried out meticulously: multiple samples, control samples, three labs. One lab even went so far as to have one person prepare the samples and another to run the tests, because the shroud sample would be recognizable due to its distinct weave. All three labs came back with the same result ranges for all their samples. That includes the control samples and the shroud sample.

I'm not surprised you're trying so hard to discredit the carbon dating. It interferes with your version of reality.

 

[John Jones]

That's because the carbon dating was carried out meticulously: multiple samples, control samples, three labs. One lab even went so far as to have one person prepare the samples and another to run the tests, because the shroud sample would be recognizable due to its distinct weave. All three labs came back with the same result ranges for all their samples. That includes the control samples and the shroud sample.

I'm not surprised you're trying so hard to discredit the carbon dating. It interferes with your version of reality.

It's sad when one has to support the arguments of people one knows are wrong.

 

[abaddon]

Given Jabba's claims to poor memory, I fully expect a complete re-hash of all his prior posts, presented as if they had never been provided here, let alone as if they had never been proven wrong multiple times. I would love to be disappointed, However, given Jabba's claim to not remember posts from a few days prior, the passing of many months is likely to result in a repetitive new cycle just as if the prior cycles never occurred.

Jabba: please prove me wrong! Study the thread already here: it is all there for you (and us) to review. But only present novel information, or convincing answers to the negations and concerns already provided in response to your previous posts. One excellent way to organize it would be for you, in the privacy of your own home, to list each of your arguments in favor of the Shroud, the posted concerns that each of these arguments generated here, and any specific responses you already posted relative to these concerns. Then, please don't present this list here! It is already available on this thread. Instead, only post new (i.e. previously not posted) scientific reasons for rejecting these previously posted concerns.

Even better, if you have new arguments in favor of the Shroud that were not posted previously, please feel free to post these now.

But if you are going to take months to organize yourself as you promised, please spend a week reviewing what has already been covered here. No one needs to see it again. Thanks.

I suspect you will wait in vain. Jabba must know by now that his argument is unsustainable. Regardless, Jabba will present the very same arguments once again. And I still cannot fathom what if anything this may have to do with whatever particular faith he may have. The fact that the tablecloth is a demonstrable medieval fake has precisely nothing to do with whatever religious faith one might espouse.

 

[Peregrinus]

"It's sad when one has to support the arguments of people one knows [your unsupported supposition] are wrong."

It's even sadder when one has to resort to logical fallacies (without evidence) to attack the support others bring to a topic.

JJ, you advance nothing other than your own bias.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"It's sad when one has to support the arguments of people one knows [your unsupported supposition] are wrong."

It's even sadder when one has to resort to logical fallacies (without evidence) to attack the support others bring to a topic.

JJ, you advance nothing other than your own bias.

I'm sorry--what do you mean, here?

 

[John Jones]

"It's sad when one has to support the arguments of people one knows [your unsupported supposition] are wrong."

It's even sadder when one has to resort to logical fallacies (without evidence) to attack the support others bring to a topic.

JJ, you advance nothing other than your own bias.

Huh?

 

[Peregrinus]

sorry

That post was rather a mess, wasn't it? Sorry.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That post was rather a mess, wasn't it? Sorry.

Might you explain? I would appreciate it...

 

[Peregrinus]

So would I! Seem to have lost that train of thought entirely. Again, sorry.

 

[John Jones]

OK then.

Back on topic: Where is the evidence of a 2,000 year old shroud, Jabba?

Presenting that is your first obligation. Forget your failed ¹⁴C objections. You don't understand the science.

Provide evidence supporting your claim of a 2,000 year old shroud.