Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

It still requires an interpretation of the results. If each of the three samples throws out a different estimated age, skill is needed to age it perfectly.

I understand carbon testing is exceedingly accurate.

To demontrate that, why baulk at the idea of mass retesting?

You need to address that to the owners of the shroud.

 

[Aepervius]

The > 1.5m people who visited Turin to see the shroud do not seem to be convinced.

What better antidote to idolatory than to convince them?

And >40% people in the US disbelieve theory of natural selection for which we have more evidence than there are human in the US.

So what ? Believer will continue to believe and dismiss evidence contrary to their belief.

Heck , I remember back in France some statistical study showing you do not get more "cure" or getting slightly better out of Lourde visitor than your average spa. And yet people continue to go there for a miracle.

Again , there is no worst blind than the one which do not want to see.

 

[Giordano]

The > 1.5m people who visited Turin to see the shroud do not seem to be convinced.

What better antidote to idolatory than to convince them?

Why would they become convinced on further testing? And even if I was able to convince them that the Shroud was a fake? Should I then try to convince them the the Bible is also full of lies? That they shouldn't give their hard-earned money to the Church?

I think all religion is fiction. But I recognize that in practice many people will believe in their religion no matter what one says or proves. If someone, believer or not, does want to argue about facts, I am happy to do so. But if one just wants to believe in something on faith, rather than facts, and it doesn't affect other people's live, that is okay by me.

 

[Dinwar]

Bit puzzled about this. Please cite where and when.

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.

The highlighted is an attempt to discredit me by calling into question my objectivity. It is a personal attack. The fact that it grossly misrepresents my argument is a relatively unimportant side issue.

 

[John Jones]

If you suggested this to an archeologist they would laugh. You don't need to because we know the constant rate of decay.

I'm only a chemist, and I'm laughing.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

No. I explained if you want to find out the average height of a population you need a reasonably large sample, minimum random 200. We know height is a normal distribution, so we can tell if our sampling is accurate by how well it correlates to the Gaussian curve.

And I explained why your analogy was inapplicable.

Come on, if you're an accountant you must have learned about appropriate sample techniques.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

No. I explained if you want to find out the average height of a population you need a reasonably large sample, minimum random 200. We know height is a normal distribution, so we can tell if our sampling is accurate by how well it correlates to the Gaussian curve.

And I explained why your analogy was inaccurate.

Come on, if you're an accountant you must have learned about appropriate sampling techniques.

 

[Vixen]

This is true OF A POPULATION. The shroud isn't a population, therefore this requirement is not needed. You may as well be talking about batting averages for all the relevance this has to the topic at hand.

Secondly, if you think you'll get a bell-shaped curve you know little about population dynamics. Biology seldom provides normal distributions; they are usually fairly skewed one way or the other. If you're going to bring up irrelevancies, you could at least not do so badly.

You will only get a bell-shaped curve with a normal distribution.

In the case of cloth testing, if different tests and labs come out with various different age estimates, then increase the number of labs testing so that you can say with almost absolute statistical certainty the exact age of the cloth, together with standard deviation, correlation with each other and analysis of variance.

So, if two or three rogue labs (say, settings out of sync, or human error) throws out a result radically different from the others then you can safely ignore them as being way outside the range of probability.

The aim is transparency. Nobody could argue about the age again, as it will be absolutely nailed.

 

[abaddon]

The highlighted is an attempt to discredit me by calling into question my objectivity. It is a personal attack. The fact that it grossly misrepresents my argument is a relatively unimportant side issue.

To be frank, neither you, nor I nor anyone else posting here has expressed any objection to further testing beyond the fact that it would be pointless "makework" generating the same results as before. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure everyone here would be all good with undertaking such an effort. Except the Vatican who aren't here, but effectively veto any and all attempts to do so.

Vixen is attempting to purloin that fact as OUR reluctance. It isn't.

 

[Vixen]

you don't understand random sampling, right ?

Firstly you have to understand what you are speaking about when talking about sampling. Asking for 200 "fixed number" sampling for most analyzes is NEVER done. Why is that ? because for most analyzes we can estimate the probability that the population considered. Why is that ? Because of the work of previous scientist those guy you dismissed.

That is why we know we do not need to take 200 sample of a cylinder to check the metal mass spectro. That is why we do not extract 200 blood probe from your blood. And that is why you do not take 200 radio carbon sample from the cloth. Because the "relative" underlying uniformity of the material preclude the necessity of 200 sample and averaging : the distribution is more or less flat. On the other hand you cannot do that for a human population with a gaussian or poisson distribution.

But it is not a 200 fix number, you calculate depending on the expected variance how many sample you would need, and IIRC (i could be wrong) that is around in single % or sub percent depending on the distribution and the max population. Think about it as if using the monte carlo method : you need a certain number of sampling from your distribution.

In this case what you are asking for , 200 sample display a thorough ignorance on the statistical significance and the variation expected over the cloth especially since it was examinated. Since the cloth fiber are expected to be from the same time period whatever it is, you do not need in any way shape or form 200 sample.

As for your kip about the scientist "I said the high-tech is thanks to the human brain.
Not created by scientists. " well the scientist came up with the laws of physic, chemistry biology (and maths if extended to mathematician). Not the general population. Thus whatever high tech you are using, is principally because the work of scientist over quantic physic , normal and organic chemistry, semi conductor etc....

I suggested a statistical template. The scientists involved would know better than me what would be a reliable sample size.

Remember, the 1988 protocol wanted seven labs to test the shroud, unexpectedly whittled down to three due to constraints.

I consider myself to be a scientist. It's not mutually exclusive.

 

[Vixen]

Again, irrelevant. Why would they want to part with that money for an enterprise that will only confirm that the Shroud shouldn't attract tourists ?

No. The argument was it would cost multi billions (not mine).

 

[Giordano]

To be frank, neither you, nor I nor anyone else posting here has expressed any objection to further testing beyond the fact that it would be pointless "makework" generating the same results as before. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure everyone here would be all good with undertaking such an effort. Except the Vatican who aren't here, but effectively veto any and all attempts to do so.

Vixen is attempting to purloin that fact as OUR reluctance. It isn't.

I'm fine with the extra testing if the Church is willing, anyone could find the number of expert labs proposed, someone would pay for it, and it would not interfere with the same effort and money that could be spent on more important things. Under the concept, "It is worth doing if someone else is willing to do it." Just as it is okay by me if someone collects old bottle caps- if it gives them pleasure, that's okay by me. But neither bottle cap collecting nor reanalysis of the Shroud will change the fact that it is not old enough to be the burial cloth of Christ, that the knowledgeable agree, but that some people will never accept that conclusion.

 

[Dinwar]

You will only get a bell-shaped curve with a normal distribution.

Yeah--and biology is almost always skewed.

In the case of cloth testing, if different tests and labs come out with various different age estimates, then increase the number of labs testing so that you can say with almost absolute statistical certainty the exact age of the cloth, together with standard deviation, correlation with each other and analysis of variance.

Nonsense. C14 is b ased on physical constants. If different labs got substantively different results, someone has screwed up royally.

At this point, you are basing your arguments off of unsubstantiated accusations of incompetance on the part of the C14 labs. Substantiate those accusations or withdraw them.

So, if two or three rogue labs

Everything after the highlighted word is speculation, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

The aim is transparency.

This is the most well-controlled and transparent sample I have ever heard of. Demanding more transparency is irrational.

Nobody could argue about the age again, as it will be absolutely nailed.

There is no rational argument against it NOW, it's been absolutely nailed. Your criticisms are not rational.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure everyone here would be all good with undertaking such an effort.

I'm not, but that's because I err on the side of denying destructive sampling of any artifact absent substantive reasons to do so. It has nothing to do with the shroud, it's just SOP. That said, I've given specific information that I would need to accept re-sampling as advisable, so I think I've avoided the guilt of irrational reluctance.

 

[abaddon]

You will only get a bell-shaped curve with a normal distribution.

Good luck applying that to a sample size of 1.

In the case of cloth testing, if different tests and labs come out with various different age estimates, then increase the number of labs testing so that you can say with almost absolute statistical certainty the exact age of the cloth, together with standard deviation, correlation with each other and analysis of variance.

Done already. The age came out pretty much the same. Your argument fails.

So, if two or three rogue labs (say, settings out of sync, or human error) throws out a result radically different from the others then you can safely ignore them as being way outside the range of probability.

"Rogue labs"? "Outside the range of probability"? What on earth is that about? Are you returning to your as yet unevidenced +/-1000 years baloney?

The aim is transparency. Nobody could argue about the age again, as it will be absolutely nailed.

And it has been done. What exactly you think would be achieved by your messed up protocol, consuming something in the region of 1/3 of the CIQ in the process would achieve is beyond all rational reckoning.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. It is what you said. If that is not what you meant, so be it.


The age of the shroud is not a distribution, and this does not address the criticism. There is no problem with making an error as you did, but failing to admit it indicates another problem.

And still you ignore the actual criticism. What if the population is only 1? And, no, the labs are not the population.

The range of ages thrown out by the different labs indicates the larger the number of labs testing, the more statistically significant we can make our results.

Most statistical tests are based on deviations from the average. With just nine results from three labs, it becomes difficult to do any meaningful statistical analysis at all.

What we are testing is the reliabilty of the labs, not the cloth.

 

[Dinwar]

The scientists involved would know better than me what would be a reliable sample size.

Yes, we do. You refuse to listen to us.

 

[Giordano]

I suggested a statistical template. The scientists involved would know better than me what would be a reliable sample size.

Okay, counter estimate: 3 labs, multiple repeats each. Should yield, when done correctly, estimated ages well within +/- 100 years, which if the estimated dates fall within the early 1000 AD, would be more than enough to convincingly prove the Shroud to not be authentic. And we will look at the actual data after it is collected by using statistics to confirm if we indeed used a reliable sample size.

Okay?

 

[Vixen]

Because it's been established already (Isotopes: Principles and Applications for reference). Secondly, because you are dishonestly presenting your proposal. Third, all the other reasons I've given for why such sampling is impractical and not necessary.

Please explain.

 

[Belz...]

My view is, if people cannot accept the 1988 results, then why not test it again?

Because the problem with these people isn't the data, but the result, which runs counter to their faith. They cannot be convinced.

 

[Vixen]

I'm sure the Vatican can well afford to do it. It simply refuses.

Why couldn't some independant entity do it at their own expense? Because the Vatican refuses that too.

You seem very keen to paint the Vatican as all agog to get some testing. They're not. They don't want it at all.

That implies to me they know it won't stand up to scrutiny.