Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

No, only 200 randomly selected ISO standard labs.

How much cloth would that take? I want precise answers, please.

You are proposing a multi-BILLION dollar effort here. One that would require international cooperation. The MINIMUM you are required to provide is a detailed outline (this is based off of standard regulations for sample plans, by the way).

 

[Vixen]

It's nothing you should be proud of. Ali was boxing just to box. He wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything.

In debate, however, the goal is to be persuasive. You're simply throwing out ideas, retreating from some facts when confronted, shifting to a vaguely different idea, pushing some facts when opposition seems to have died down, feigning ignorance, and (when all else fails) feigning indignation. You're not persuading anyone of anything.

Indignant? How dare you call me indignant! <g>

Seriously though, please show an example of my being indignant, as I am perfectly laid back. I do not care whether the shroud is real or not. However, from a historical POV I would be interested in establishing the truth of the matter.

 

[abaddon]

No, only 200 randomly selected ISO standard labs.

And you are still left with the problem that such a testing schedule would consume unfeasible amounts of the CIQ, the Vatican would never agree and you are still setting the bar so high as to be unreachable.

That is your agenda. Set the evidentiary bar so high that it can never be attained, and the faithful can remain comfy in the delusion of authenticity.

 

[Dinwar]

Indignant? How dare you call me indignant! <g>

Seriously though, please show an example of my being indignant, as I am perfectly laid back. I do not care whether the shroud is real or not. However, from a historical POV I would be interested in establishing the truth of the matter.

This is a lie. The truth of the matter has been established, via processes that exceed all standard expectations for data accuracy and sample handling.

What YOU want is to establish thresholds for acceptance that are irrationally high, so as to preclude ever achieving an answer.

You may use a laid-back tone, but the message is not. You are accusing the radiocarbon dating community as a whole of gross incompetance and negligence, based on your complete lack of understanding of the field. At minimum, this is not laid-back.

 

[Garrette]

Indignant? How dare you call me indignant! <g>

Seriously though, please show an example of my being indignant, as I am perfectly laid back. I do not care whether the shroud is real or not. However, from a historical POV I would be interested in establishing the truth of the matter.

Then you will be happy to know that the truth has been established. It's an artifact from the Middle Ages. The radiocarbon dating, the artistic analysis, and the historical provenance all converge.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, my. Even I, as another admitted layman, can see the silliness of this.

1. Sample size to guarantee randomness is dependent upon the population; it is not a flat number. Suppose the population is only 100. How does one get 200 out of that?

2. The cloth is not a population; it is an artifact. You are implying that it comprises a population of discrete pieces. Pray tell how many there are, and of what size are they?

3. You are further implying that the age of the cloth varies across the shroud. Please demonstrate why you think this.

The population is the testing laboratories. A statistically significant figure will age the cloth perfectly, rather than calculating a crude average estimate of three labs.

ETA Some arguments claim some parts of the cloth are more contaminated/scorched/ chemically affected than others.

So, take a range of samples from a range of areas.

 

[Garrette]

The population is the testing laboratories. A statistically significant figure will age the cloth perfectly, rather than calculating a crude average estimate of three labs.

And now your lack of knowledge is really showing. The population is most certainly not the the instrument that measures it.

You are a layman in statistics, too, then, yes?

 

[Garrette]

Just to add on: you are saying that both the sampling size and the population equal 200. So your determination of randomness requires 100% sampling.

 

[Dinwar]

The population is the testing laboratories. A statistically significant figure will age the cloth perfectly, rather than calculating a crude average estimate of three labs.

Perfectly? Sheesh! You are incompetant at both C14 dating and statistics!

What you are proposing, if I understand this new line of attack correctly, is a test OF THE LABS, to determine if they are capable of producing accurate results. Fine, fair enough--it's not an unreasonable request. Which is why it's done on a regular basis (accredited labs need to maintain that status), but whatever. We need not use the shroud for that. We can use any artifact, paleosol, or ancient log we want to do it.

If you want to use THE SHROUD as your "population", you are setting the bar irrationally high etc etc.

To establish that we must perform more sampling you must prove that the samples already tested are not representative. Until you do that, you have given no better reason than "But I want it!!!!!!" Arguments of two-year-olds are not substantive in scientific discourse, nor are the irrational expectations of uninformed people binding in any way to those of us who are knowledgeable.

 

[Mashuna]

You have misquoted me and out of context.

Two hundred is accepted as the statistically random number of samples, or subjects, to aim for. This irons out results that are outwith ± 2.15 standard deviations. Unless you have enough samples, you will have difficulty calculating the 98% siginificance level.

For example, I might set out to discover average height in London, and the first 20 people I pick out at random could all be over 6' tall. Do you understand the need to sample a few more than that?

Although in this case you're setting out to discover the height of one person in London, and asking two hundred people to measure him/her.

 

[Vixen]

In biology, perhaps. In sampling? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. This is COMPLETELY unrealistic, is NEVER done, and offers NO additional value.

This is an area I'm particularly knowledgeable in, as sampling is about half of what I do in my company. I'm in charge of sampling on one of our larger sites (the field side, anyway). I'm giving you the professional opinion of someone knowledgeable about both C14 and field procedures. For free, by the way--normally this would cost you between $150 and $300.

Why do we need to the 98% significance level? In paleontology anything above 75% is considered exceptionally good.

You do not understand the system in question, as is obvious by everything you say about sampling procedures, and you are refusing to accept this self-evident fact.

Radiometric dating is not biology. Do you understand the significance of that?

Dinwar, I get it you are a carbon dating professional.

What I do not get is your insistence the cloth should not be retested, given your scientific objectivity. It should not worry you.

 

[Craig4]

You have misquoted me and out of context.

Two hundred is accepted as the statistically random number of samples, or subjects, to aim for. This irons out results that are outwith ± 2.15 standard deviations. Unless you have enough samples, you will have difficulty calculating the 98% siginificance level.

For example, I might set out to discover average height in London, and the first 20 people I pick out at random could all be over 6' tall. Do you understand the need to sample a few more than that?

This is nonsense. At this risk of critique from Dinwar, I'm going to explain this to you. N14 is floating along in the upper atmosphere minding it's own business. All of a sudden, (cue theme to Fantastic Fore Movie) cosmic rays hit it and without so much as a by your leave turns, it into C14. The N14 was happy and feeling fulfilled in it's life as nitrogen. So, it goes an a long quest entering living organisms and radiating energy like subplots in a road trip movie, trying to get back to that place it was before (cue the Eagles). As it radioactively decays the carbon converts back to nitrogen and we measure the ratio of nitrogen to carbon. As we know the rate of radioactive decay we can determine when whatever the organic material is stopped ingesting C14. If the rate of decay was unknown we might have to take an average. However it's not, so we don't.

 

[Vixen]

How much cloth would that take? I want precise answers, please.

You are proposing a multi-BILLION dollar effort here. One that would require international cooperation. The MINIMUM you are required to provide is a detailed outline (this is based off of standard regulations for sample plans, by the way).

Do you know how much the Vatican is sitting on?

Have you heard of the parable of the man selling everything he's got to find the treasure in his field?

Cutting some cloth and then testing it does not cost as much as you claim, as I assume these labs already have the plant, machinery and staff in place.

Trust me, I am a chartered accountant.

 

[Dinwar]

ETA Some arguments claim some parts of the cloth are more contaminated/scorched/ chemically affected than others.

So, take a range of samples from a range of areas.

The argument has been made that there was an invisible patch in that area. The fact that an argument can be made IN NO WAY establishes that it is valid.

Scorching does not affect C14 dating; that's why we can date charcoal.

Chemical alteration cannot affect C14 dating; the carbon 14 atoms remain carbon 14.

Contamination sufficient to produce your desired results (and you DO have obviously desired results) would constitute more than the actual sample. We did the math. Anything less, and the C14 dating would still prove it's not authentic. Plus, there were cleaning techniques used as part of the sample prep that would remove any such contamination.

You still have given no substantive reason to re-sample.

What I do not get is your insistence the cloth should not be retested, given your scientific objectivity.

You clearly don't undestand WHY I reject your nonsensical and obviously dishonest proposal, that's for sure.

I base my assessment of the validity of the testing on the quality of the testing itself (orders of magnitude more dups than required, for one thing!), and an understanding of standard sampling practices. Additional sampling would provide NO additional data, and WOULD destroy a huge portion of the cloth. There is NO reason to continue sampling; the results are valid, they clearly present a Medieval date, they have been duplicated more than ANY C14 sample I have ever encountered, and there is NO reason to suspect that the sample area was not representative.

Until you disprove at least one of those reasons, I remain firm in my rejection of re-sampling.

Attacking me personally--and you DID attack me--does not change the basic facts, which you have failed to even attempt to address.

 

[John Jones]

Broadly speaking, if you want to ensure your sampling is truly random, two hundred is a good figure to aim for. It will give you a meaningful range of standard deviation, allow you to see what type of statistical distribution it is (eg, normal, poisson, etc) and most importantly you can check whether your results are statistically significant, rather than by random chance.

This is a ludicrous requirement.

 

[Vixen]

Just to add on: you are saying that both the sampling size and the population equal 200. So your determination of randomness requires 100% sampling.

No. Say you have a normal distribution, such as height. If your sampling doesn't give you a bell-shaped curve, there is likely an error in your sampling.

This is why we are advised to find a random sample of, say 200, in a cross section of the population, as a minimum figure if you want your figures to be reasonably accurate.

 

[Belz...]

You have misquoted me and out of context.

Explain.

Two hundred is accepted as the statistically random number of samples, or subjects, to aim for.

Citation needed.

Once you've done that, please address the fact that it's impossible.

For example, I might set out to discover average height in London, and the first 20 people I pick out at random could all be over 6' tall. Do you understand the need to sample a few more than that?

Yeah, except that in a better analogy, you're only trying to measure a single person's height. How many measurements do you need before you decide on an average ?

 

[Dinwar]

Do you know how much the Vatican is sitting on?

Irrelevant. You have not justified the expense, or even honestly attempted to do so.

Cutting some cloth and then testing it does not cost as much as you claim, as I assume these labs already have the plant, machinery and staff in place.

You really know NOTHING about this, do you?

Cutting the cloth is the least expensive part--and that's going to run you $1k-$2k per person-day. The machinery and staff are in place, sure, but they still have overhead and sallaries and the rest; you're not getting these samples ran cheaply (I will leave you to obtain estimates). Then there is data validation. THEN you have the statisticians. Then drafting the reports--which require multiple rounds of comments and responses. I assume you'll want it rushed, which is even MORE expensive (two to three times as much).

Trust me, I am a chartered accountant.

First, I find that hard to believe. You make too many basic errors for me to accept that you work with numbers.

Second, I take samples for a living. I RUN sampling events. Which if us do you think is more familiar with the costs associated with sampling procedures?

 

[Belz...]

You said all our fantastic advanced technology is due to science.

I said the high-tech is thanks to the human brain.

Not created by scientists.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Vixen]

Although in this case you're setting out to discover the height of one person in London, and asking two hundred people to measure him/her.

One of the criticisms of the 1988 tests is that only three labs were involved.

So, increase the number of labs testing. If your hypothesis is robust, i.e., the shroud is dated 1260, why should you be resistant to retesting?

The Vatican can afford it.