• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

For a continuous scale measurement, three samples are statistically significant. However, you cannot use statistics this way. The C14 is not a random observation, it is a calibrated measurement with a well-established repeatability and uncertainty.

I'm sorry, but the C14 result is valid.

Hans
 
I was going to respond to Vixen's response to me, but not only have others done so, but Vixen's non-responses and increasingly demonstrated lack of knowledge coupled with her apparent unwillingness to learn, make it seem pointless.

Ah, well. It was an interesting thread again for a very short time.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. No. No. That is not how statistics work.

Sorry, you are totally off.

Hans
 
Dinwar said:
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).
Click to expand...
Well the 1988 tests used about 16 sqcm so Vixen's ridiculous demand about 0.1sqm. There's no way that would be acceptable so he has an out.
BTW I don't have Radiocarbon to hand, do you know if there are 200 AMS labs in operation?
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because it is not necessary. We do not need to know the age of the shroud within a decade. We need to know it within a factor of three!

For this discussion it means nothing whether it is 200 years or 1000 years old. We have shown, without any sensible doubt, that it is NOT 2000 years old.

Hans
 
Mashuna said:
And I explained why your analogy was inaccurate.

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

That was an example of why you need an adequate sanple size. Any fule kno height is radically different from a cloth.

I did sampling myself for my psychology lab reports and in desiging an attitude test. One of the final exams was in applied statistics, as it is no good designing an experiment and claiming your results are meaningful, if you haven't followed the accepted procedures.

In this case, you had back results from three laboratories. They seemed to agree the date was between 900 and 1200. However, with just three, how do you know it is not just pure chance. For example, if you roll a dice, you expect a 1/6 chance of any particular number. So to predict you will get three x one number, you can see that would be 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/16.

The fact that it happens doesn't mean it didn't happen purely by luck (as it did).

The more labs testing, the higher the probabilty the result is significant, and not just due to random chance.

Caveat: as AMS is based on hard science, there is a lower margin of expected error, given it is based on predictable natural laws.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That was an example of why you need an adequate sanple size. Any fule kno height is radically different from a cloth.

I did sampling myself for my psychology lab reports and in desiging an attitude test. One of the final exams was in applied statistics, as it is no good designing an experiment and claiming your results are meaningful, if you haven't followed the accepted procedures.

In this case, you had back results from three laboratories. They seemed to agree the date was between 900 and 1200. However, with just three, how do you know it is not just pure chance. For example, if you roll a dice, you expect a 1/6 chance of any particular number. So to predict you will get three x one number, you can see that would be 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/16.

The fact that it happens doesn't mean it didn't happen purely by luck (as it did).

The more labs testing, the higher the probabilty the result is significant, and not just due to random chance.

Caveat: as AMS is based on hard science, there is a lower margin of expected error, given it is based on predictable natural laws.
Click to expand...

What was the probability of error in the three carbon tests? What is the probability of their agreement?
 
catsmate said:
Well the 1988 tests used about 16 sqcm so Vixen's ridiculous demand about 0.1sqm. There's no way that would be acceptable so he has an out.
BTW I don't have Radiocarbon to hand, do you know if there are 200 AMS labs in operation?
Click to expand...

Meh. For giggles, I did the calculation and it comes out at 0.38 sqm approx. not counting inevitable losses. This is, of course. a ludicrous proposition. Yes, that's heading for hlf a square meter of the CIQ destructively tested just to satisfy arbitrary claims. That is exactly what Vixen demands.
 
Dinwar said:
You are presenting this as a sampling plan, when in reality it is quite obviously an attempt to eliminate any possibility of ever accepting any radiocarbon date.

Now that I've responded to multiple demands that I explain things to you, please find one or two requests for explanation that I've made.

Let's start simple: Please explain the marine bias as it applies to C14 dating.
Click to expand...

How is it dishonest? How is it "obviously an attempt to eliminate any possibilty of ever accepting any radiocarbon date"?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy as is your use of "obviously" (it is not) and "ever/never" false consequence.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
BTW I don't have Radiocarbon to hand, do you know if there are 200 AMS labs in operation?
Click to expand...

A valid question. I'd imagine there are, across the world, but I could easily be wrong here--C14 dating requires a reactor, and that's not something you find in a Crackerjacks box!

Vixen said:
I did sampling myself for my psychology lab reports and in desiging an attitude test.
Click to expand...
This in no way makes you an expert in achaeological testing or statistical analysis of such.

However, with just three, how do you know it is not just pure chance.
Click to expand...
Because unlike psychology, C14 dating is based on physical constants. Plus, we have HUGE numbers of C14 atoms. If you knew anything about C14 dating you would understand this.
 
Giordano said:
Just one more summary as I see it:
1. The image has very wrong proportions for a person.
2. The image is very wrong for any 3D object projected in 2D.
3. The image is of a European and in the style of the Middle Ages.
4. The weave is wrong for 30 AD.
5. The blood spots are not the way real blood would move.
6. The Shroud was found to be a forgery in the Middle Ages by Church officials, apparently due to the forger confessing.
7. The radioisotopic date, obtained in an extraordinarily carefully controlled manner using controls, blinding, analyzed by three different labs independently, on carefully selected samples chosen to be representative by a committee including textile experts and supervised by the Church curators, states that is is Middle Ages.
8. The Church who owns the Shroud has refused to have any further isotopic dating done, at least publicly, for over 25 years.9. The cloth does not match the description in the New Testament.

But nonetheless, we should destroy of the remaining image and have isotopic dating done by 1000 labs (!?!) under many of the same conditions used in the prior dating, and their data analyzed by 200 selected (how?) people to "prove" that it is not authentic.

For what reason? This sounds like a proposal concocted in the absence of any recognition of the many real life aspects that make it impossible, such as getting the Church to agree (I would say impossible based on their actions to date), the damage to the cloth, finding 1000 labs with the correct expertise, finding 200 "unbiased" agreed on people with the skill and knowledge to interpret the data, and the expense. I must have left out some additional issues.

It is clearly a forgery. But even if somehow this proposed immense effort indicates that the cloth may be 2000 years old- so what? Does that leave us any better than before? As Vixen herself pointed out, even if 2000 years old there is no way to prove it was the burial cloth of Christ. If on the other hand (as is very likely) this huge effort simply proves that the date is Middle Ages, will that really convince Jabba? Believe or not, don't propose an enormous waste of time and effort that is meaningless.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the Church, it is very clear about what relics mean - they are an expression of faith and that has nothing to do with authenticity.

The shroud, by virtue of being 800-years, *is* an interesting antique.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they would and I'll give you a hint. It's less than three.
 
Dinwar said:
A valid question. I'd imagine there are, across the world, but I could easily be wrong here--C14 dating requires a reactor, and that's not something you find in a Crackerjacks box!

This in no way makes you an expert in achaeological testing or statistical analysis of such.

Because unlike psychology, C14 dating is based on physical constants. Plus, we have HUGE numbers of C14 atoms. If you knew anything about C14 dating you would understand this.
Click to expand...

I looked and I could only find about 40. The things are huge and suck power like there's no tomorrow.
 
Dinwar said:
No, that's EXACTLY what you are saying. To be sure of the date of one object we must measure it 200 times. This is precisely analogous to measuring the same person's height 200 times before accepting a height measurement.
Click to expand...

Not analogous at all. The correct analogy is that 200 labs up to ISO standard be randomly allocated samples from various different areas, with a further number of labs having a dummy sample, with none of the labs knowing which type they received, together with a control sample which looks identical to the original.

Nowhere did I say one lab should test all of it x 200 times.

(200 is a suggested figure to make statistical analysis robust.)

But then you knew what I meant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom