Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Vixen]

What do you understand the margin of error for carbon dating to be?

Tell me.

 

[Craig4]

That's a bit personal?

No one talks about absolute dates; we talk about date ranges and terminus post quem or terminus anti quem. It's silly to suggest you'll find anyone anywhere who dates things or know about dating things who will give you an absolute date.

 

[zooterkin]

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

Yet you don't appear to be listening when they give you the benefit of their knowledge.

 

[Vixen]

Everyone agrees on it's age. WTF?

"Everyone" = appealing to the crowd: logical fallacy.

 

[zooterkin]

Tell me.

You're the one claiming that more accuracy is needed. Do you even know what accuracy is possible?

ETA: How can I tell you what you understand?

 

[Craig4]

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.

So the only testing you would accept would destroy the shroud?

 

[Vixen]

I am afraid Dinwar's position is not the only subject you do not understand. There are very obviously many others.

"Obviously" = logical fallacy
"Many others" = appealing to the crowd

 

[Craig4]

Darwin's Theory is just that, a "Theory"; albeit it a useful and eloquent one.

You obviously don't know what a theory is.

 

[jimbob]

With your repeated instance that one need 200 sampling and 3 is not enough, contrary to what some scientific in the domain tell you, and your repeated instance to use a debunked source unpublished in scientific literature.... You just did that.

One does not need to explicitely write stuff, when one can simply imply utter incompetence.



Again, testing is in the hand of believer. Everybody else accepted the results and do not see the necessity of further hassle to test as it is as much as extracting teeth from somebody without anesthesia : the believer & owner refuse pretty much more test. it is not as if we DO NOT want the test, it is that the burden is now on other to extract those teeth. Good onto them. And frankly any believer will not accept any result no matter how many you do.
We are speaking of the same people which came up with stupid explanation like micro black hole hovering above the christ body and imprinting the cloth.

Do tell more - I haven't heard that, but it sounds... interesting.

(note that I am British, and there is a translation into international English here)

 

[Sideroxylon]

"Everyone" = appealing to the crowd: logical fallacy.

Experts in the most accurate method we have for dating such things are in consensus. That's no logical fallacy.

 

[Resume]

You obviously don't know what a theory is.

I can't believe that old turd was resurrected, so to speak.

 

[Vixen]

In science, a Theory is the highest altar of reverence. In science, a "Theory" does not equal some WAG.

That you are entirely innocent of this likely tells more than you would wish.

Gravity is "just a theory". Care to chuck yourself off a tall building? Didn't think so.

Gravity is an actual proven law of physics.

Not a "theory".

 

[Vixen]

You did so in a direct attempt to discredit me.

Secondly, it's NOT a scientific principle that all results BE replicated. Such a concept is nonsense. It's a principle that they be replicABLE. There is a difference.

Third, the shroud samples WERE replicated. Multiple times. Far beyond SOP for sampling.

Fourth, I have explained my reluctance multiple times; you have not addressed any of my reasons.

Near as I can tell, Vixen--who believes schler (Futurama reference, before anyone jumps down my throat) mastery of statistics trumps that of all the researchers who have been involved with the shroud C14 testing--is using the existence of error bars to demonstrate a lack of agreement, and therefore as justification for throwing out the data we have.

I did not. I was not even thinking about you.

 

[Dinwar]

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

Okay--so you are saying that to know the height of someone we need 200 people to measure his height. Doesn't make it any more sane.

Gravity is an actual proven law of physics.

Not a "theory".

If you were familiar with science you'd know how idiotic this sounds.

"Everyone" = appealing to the crowd: logical fallacy.

All informed people agree. Uninformed people don't matter. This is not a logical fallacy; uninformed opinions are arbitrary and therefore meaningless. They are epistemologically null.

"Obviously" = logical fallacy
"Many others" = appealing to the crowd

We can add "logical fallacy" to the list of things Vixen fails to understand.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think we might be going nuclear.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, seriously: Normally C14 datings are performed by a single lab. We trust these datings, because C14 dating is a very objective science.

In this case, no less than three labs were used, because the result was potentially controversial, from a religious POV.

Why would you want even more testing? Because you don't like the result? - Sorry, but science does not work that way.

Hans

AIUI they could not agree on which part of the cloth. There was allegedly no witnesses when the samples were put in sealed containers. The samples all came from one part of the cloth.

Do you understand why some people were not satisfied?

 

[Belz...]

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

I'm a computer programmer and I'm laughing.

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

You are wrong. Read what people tell you. You have no excuse for your continued errors.

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

Yes, and they don't want to pay for it. What part of that don't you understand ?

I said nothing of the sort.

This is EXACTLY what you said. Read the exchange again:

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 ?

A minimum random sample of 200.

...so either retract that or admit that you're talking nonsense.

Darwin's Theory is just that, a "Theory"; albeit it a useful and eloquent one.

The theory of evolution is one of the most rigorously-tested and well-evidenced theory in the history of science. I think you should familiarise yourself with the meaning of that word before you throw it around as if it means "opinion".

 

[Dinwar]

I did not. I was not even thinking about you.

~shrug~ I don't believe you, but whatever. I'm not that concerned with attempts on your part to discredit me; I was merely pointing it out.

There was allegedly no witnesses when the samples were put in sealed containers.

Most C14 samples are taken by one person, alone, out in the middle of nowhere. ONE part of this sample process wasn't witnessed. You want to throw it out because of that. The mind boggles.

Do you understand why some people were not satisfied?

Sure--they have no understanding of how these things are generally done, an unrealistic expectation of what should occur, and an obvious agenda to discredit anything that doesn't agree with their preferred answer.

 

[Resume]

Let's stop with the "it's just a theory" ********.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon . . . Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,"

 

[Sideroxylon]

AIUI they could not agree on which part of the cloth. There was allegedly no witnesses when the samples were put in sealed containers. The samples all came from one part of the cloth.

Do you understand why some people were not satisfied?

Some people will never be satisfied with things that contradict cherished beliefs, like the origins of life or the age of the planet.