Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Giordano]

I get that it's boring for "experts" to debate with people they see as unqualified.

I am not an expert, but I suspect that "boring" is not the right word. "Silly" strikes me as closer to the problem. There are a lot of people here in this thread who were not trained in radioisotopic dating, but who took the opportunity to learn more about it from the experts in this thread, at least in regard to the Shroud. For the most part, they are not rejecting the opinions of the people who are far more expert than themselves, because they recognize that they don't have the strong knowledge base to do so. It is not a fallacy to recognize greater expertise in a field other than one's own; if I bring my car into an auto mechanic and she tells me that the brake pads need to be replaced, I would feel uncomfortable telling her that the problem is in the carburetor unless I had done a study on cars and their problems first, or unless another mechanic had suggested the carburetor was the problem. You can debate an expert on any issue, here or in the real world, but it is silly to do so without a strong working knowledge of the area under discussion, or at minimum a stron reason to question the impartiality of the expert. The more experts who agree in opposition to my relatively untutored view, the more insecure I would feel about it.

 

[Dinwar]

There is more to the argument than carbon dating.

I would certainly love to hear it. Thus far, you haven't even ADRESSED the carbon dating, at least not in any substantive way. I AM knowledgeable about C14 dating--I'm no expert, but I've got far more than a lay understanding of it.

I have a layman's knowledge of carbon dating and according to several posters, I am therefore barred from even discussing the Turin Shroud.

It certainly places extreme limitations on your capacity to critique the carbon dating. C14 dating isn't exactly simple, and a lay understanding of it is not sufficient, in most cases, to provide sufficient understanding to offer substantive criticisms.

As for addressing the shroud in general, the C14 dating is the first hurdle you must overcome in order to establish authenticity. The rest of the analysis doesn't really matter; a 780 year old cloth cannot have a 2ka image on it. It's impossible; there was nothing at 2ka to put the image onto.

I get that it's boring for "experts" to debate with people they see as unqualified.

No, not really. It's part of the job. What gets boring is repeatedly explaining something to someone, only to have them demand you accept their ignorance as superior to your knowledge.

If we were in C18, likely the "expert scientists" will be arrogantly demanding any contributor to the forum must accept there are "exactly 5,083 stars in the sky", when the Bible correctly states they are innumerable.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. It's trivially obvious that in order to critique something, one must understand the thing well enough to evaluate it. You admit you don't understand the C14 dating process (that's what "layman's understanding" means); therefore you admit, necessarily, that you cannot offer substantive criticism of it.

This isn't expecting you to adhere to some obscure fact in order for your opinion to be acceptable. It's basic scientific reasoning. If you don't understand the system, you can't know when it's gone haywire except in the worst possible cases.

Also, the stars are NOT innumerable. There are just a whole lot of them. "Innumerable" in that context was pretty clearly poetic, not literal.

 

[Vixen]

BUSTED!

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Each lab will carry out AMS testing and FOUR other types of testing (for example, chemistry, material science, art and textile) under controlled laboratory conditions, with an independent professional observer.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

 

[Giordano]

If we were in C18, likely the "expert scientists" will be arrogantly demanding any contributor to the forum must accept there are "exactly 5,083 stars in the sky", when the Bible correctly states they are innumerable.
.

Small point: am I interpreting this correctly as a suggestion that 18th century astronomers believed that there were no more than 5,083 stars in the sky?

If so, you have your facts very wrong in this regard. The 18th century was a very strong era of discovery in astronomy. The use of telescopes on astronomical objects began over a hundred years earlier, in the early 17th century, leading to the discovery of many non-visible-eye stars.

 

[Degeneve]

Quote just for this portion (your quote of Vixen). The more important point is that there is no good evidence that the Hospitaller Knights actually did preserve it as a relic.

If I am well informed there is in fact no evidence at all.

 

[Vixen]

I would certainly love to hear it. Thus far, you haven't even ADRESSED the carbon dating, at least not in any substantive way. I AM knowledgeable about C14 dating--I'm no expert, but I've got far more than a lay understanding of it.

It certainly places extreme limitations on your capacity to critique the carbon dating. C14 dating isn't exactly simple, and a lay understanding of it is not sufficient, in most cases, to provide sufficient understanding to offer substantive criticisms.

As for addressing the shroud in general, the C14 dating is the first hurdle you must overcome in order to establish authenticity. The rest of the analysis doesn't really matter; a 780 year old cloth cannot have a 2ka image on it. It's impossible; there was nothing at 2ka to put the image onto.

No, not really. It's part of the job. What gets boring is repeatedly explaining something to someone, only to have them demand you accept their ignorance as superior to your knowledge.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. It's trivially obvious that in order to critique something, one must understand the thing well enough to evaluate it. You admit you don't understand the C14 dating process (that's what "layman's understanding" means); therefore you admit, necessarily, that you cannot offer substantive criticism of it.

This isn't expecting you to adhere to some obscure fact in order for your opinion to be acceptable. It's basic scientific reasoning. If you don't understand the system, you can't know when it's gone haywire except in the worst possible cases.

Also, the stars are NOT innumerable. There are just a whole lot of them. "Innumerable" in that context was pretty clearly poetic, not literal.

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I understand how it works. Being a layman is not synonymous with = know nothing.

Not literally "innumerable". "As many stars as number of grains of sand." That's far closer than the 5K "expert scientists" used to insist on, not being able to see beyond their telescopes. Bible 1: Scientists 0.

 

[Vixen]

If I am well informed there is in fact no evidence at all.

It's an historical theory.

Like the theory as to the reason for the Fall of the Roman Empire.

We can employ erudite speculation.

 

[Vixen]

What are you even doing here, then? You won't read this thread, or any evidence presented herein. What is your point?

Almost everything I have read here is "opinion" not "evidence".

 

[Giordano]

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Each lab will carry out AMS testing and FOUR other types of testing (for example, chemistry, material science, art and textile) under controlled laboratory conditions, with an independent professional observer.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

Obviously silly at the face of it, for the very reasons already explained to you. Both would serve no real purpose for an object already convincingly shown to not be the burial cloth of Christ, and would destroy large regions of a venerated object (whether authentic or not, the Church clearly would never destroy the cloth). Except for your numbers, much of what you suggest as improvements (controls, statistics, etc.) were already incorporated into the Nature test.

And what makes you think that there are 1000 labs in the world able to and willing to do this kind of dating at all, let alone accurately? 200 people to interpret the results? Does that make it nearly 66 times more accurate than the 3 labs that already independently determined essentially the same date?

I honestly thought that you were beginning to recognize the strong basis of the arguments against the authenticity of the Shroud; now I feel like your proposal is so far from logical as to make me despair of any progress.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen seemed to have breathed a little life in this thread but, alas, her contribution is becoming more Jabba-esque with each posting. More's the pity.

'Twas brillig and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimbel in the wabe.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen:


Au contraire...I think I claimed that one needs to take the "trouble" to familiarise themselves with the discussion until now. Readintg the thread from the begining is in fact the easy part...since the "hard work" was already done by the people who made the original posts.

And no, the only reading you have done on the subject is de Wesselow's book and the fact that it contains a bibliography at the end does not automatically translate to "I have read the other books too." Oh...and a bibliography at the end of a book means very little re: the quality of the scholarship in the book.

And Ian Wilson, and some ebooks.

Do keep up, Susheel.

 

[Degeneve]

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

Once this is done there should be almost nothing left from the shroud.

I am furthermore wondering why 200 labs would get to a better result than three different labs, which was - and still is - an exceptionnal procedure.

Are really sure you understand how this kind of tests really works?

 

[Vixen]

Complete and utter nonsense. There is NO reason to run further tests. No one has presented any evidence that newer testing would alter the results substantively, and NO ONE EVER re-runs destructive tests on artifacts. Sorry, but without a major reason to suspect substantive alterations to the date no sane person would agree to further testing.

What are you afraid of? Scientific method involves replication of results, no?

 

[Giordano]

Once this is done there should be almost nothing left from the shroud.

The handkerchief of Turin...

 

[Vixen]

It's like fighting Ali, isn't it? Every time you throw a punch, he's not there.

Now it's like fighting two of him.

It's all to do with reach.

 

[Giordano]

Are really sure you understand how this kind of tests really works?

Is that necessary? It would be sooo much work to find out.

 

[Degeneve]

It's an historical theory.

Like the theory as to the reason for the Fall of the Roman Empire.

We can employ erudite speculation.

Yes, but the theories on the reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire are based on an historical undisputed fact, which is the Fall of the Roman Empire.

Theory of the shroud kept by the knights hospitalers has no hard fact as backup. It is a theory build on another theory itself build on another theory.

 

[Vixen]

It's amazing that, in the 21st century, some people still think they can put faith on the same pedestal as science and knowledge, as if faith put people on the moon, across the atlantic, or allowed people to speak to others on the other side of the planet at the touch of a button.

And it is thanks to the human brain we are able to do it.

 

[John Jones]

Monza,

- Still trying to nail down our exact divergence.
- This is where it gets tedious. I just claim that some tedium is necessary in order to actually get somewhere in debate. Too often, we don't really understand what our opponent is saying.
- I'll try again to show my logic.

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.
- In other words, by accepting the alleged match, we do, in fact, add weight to the not 2000 yrs old side. Agreed.
- I just claim that by accepting a match -- and thereby negating the carbon dating of the shroud -- we subtract more weight from that side than we add to that side.
- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

Wrong again.

 

[Vixen]

Purely a debate problem (but very much shown in this thread). For science it is no problem, and it really should't be for theology, since theology does not concern itself with facts. The problem arises when people like Jabba get the idea into their heads that they want science to confirm thology.


Incorrect. There is no (scientific) belief that Jesus did not exist, and it is not an argument in this discussion, of only because we have not even got to the stage of discussing if it is the shroud of Jesus or of someone else. And this is because the scientific evidence points at the shroud being only 700 years old.



No that is not a problem. If Jabba had proclaimed it a miracle and admitted that his trust in it was simply belief-based, this thread would have been less than 10 posts long.



No, the historical sources are unclear. They do not rule out a historical Jesus, bot they also do not confirm it.



We haven't even got there in the discussion,


No, there is nothing astonishing about it. It is a feirly crude picture of a male person, more or less corresponding to the known idea of how Jesus was supposed to look.



Relics were an important part of worship at the time. Thousands of relics were exhibited in those centuries, by far the most of them fakes.



Irrelevant.



Irrelevant.



With solid evidence to back that scorn, however.



The scorn does not rule it out, but the C14 tests do. They are not pauvre, they are consistent and powerful evidence.



I'm in the fact-based camp.

Hans

So, Hans, let's establish facts once and for all. Three labs running three tests on AMS which was known to be unreliable in 1986 is not good enough.