Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Belz...]

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

NO !

Are you ever right about anything ?

Scientific consensus isn't a popularity contest.

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

You are in no position to call fallacies. Clean up that beam in your eye first, and get an education in science, and then come back here. Your contributions are worse than useless, they are misleading and insulting.

 

[Belz...]

Once you have the appropriate tool with correct calibration and a person who can use it according to the rules, one single measurement is enough.

Of course it is. I was being needlessly rigorous.

 

[Vixen]

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

Sorry, you are totally off.

Hans

I did not say "that is how statistics work".

I was explaining why sampling works using one example. Any fule kno what works for height doesn't apply to a different context.

Taking height, if you know it should show a normal distribution, then poor sampling will soon show you your error.

This was in reference to the power of sampling not, "this is how statistics work".

 

[Dinwar]

Any fule kno what works for height doesn't apply to a different context.

And yet you insist that we use biology criteria for archaeology work. Guess you don't rise to the level of "fule".

 

[John Jones]

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

No they are not.

 

[John Jones]

Gravity is an actual proven law of physics.

Not a "theory".

Wrong

 

[Vixen]

So the not testing you would accept would destroy the shroud?

Somebody referred to the shroud as "humungous". So now it cannot withstand carefully discreet snips, or even scrapes, without "destroying a holy artefact".

 

[Vixen]

You obviously don't know what a theory is.

"Obviously" = logic fallacy

 

[Mojo]

It's an historical theory.

Nope. It's a physical artifact, which can be, and has been, tested.

 

[jimbob]

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".

Natural selection is more right than the current theories of Gravity.


Obligatory XKCD:

"Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."

If organisms are imperfect copies of their parents, then evolution will happen. Those that manage to reproduce are obviously sufficiently adapted to their environment to reproduce.

Natural selection is more like stating the consequences of a tautology than any other theory.

 

[Vixen]

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

Appealing to authority.

Yes, people who are c14 enthusiasts are in consensus. Being an "expert" in carbon dating is not synomymous with = being an expert in other areas, such as material science or theology.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

1) 200 samples is a (robust) sample size for a non-continuous value, that is, a binary value.

2) A C14 value is continuous measurement. For this, a sample of 15 is considered a robust sample size, however, three is enough to establish statistical significance.

You have no knowledge of statistics, so please stop arguing about it.

Hans

 

[MRC_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?

No, I don't understand that. The sample area was estimated to be representative. If the area used is representative, that is enough.

Hans

 

[Mashuna]

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.

I see - you learnt enough statistics to pass a psychology undergraduate course, and now you're trying to apply it incorrectly to other situations.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I did not say "that is how statistics work".

I was explaining why sampling works using one example. Any fule kno what works for height doesn't apply to a different context.

Taking height, if you know it should show a normal distribution, then poor sampling will soon show you your error.

This was in reference to the power of sampling not, "this is how statistics work".

You do not know how statistics work. Please stop arguing about statistics, because you are making a fool of yourself.

Hans

 

[Monza]

A minimum random sample of 200.

Ok, now I know you're taking the piss.

To clarify: you are saying that, if I want to be confident that a particular person is 170 cm in height, I must measure this person 200 times.

That's ridiculous. 2-3 measurements will do it.

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.

As has been pointed out, what you are proposing is a test of the labs and not the relic. You want to measure the precision error of the C14 machines. All measuring devices have a bias error and a precision error. The height analogy used by Belz is spot on. If only there were a way to verify the accuracy of a measuring device....

I didn't. I reiterated the concerns <whisper it> De Wesselow reiterated in his book. I made no such hyperbole about your industry being incompetent and negligent.

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

Because the testing methods, protocols, etc. are not the reason they do not accept the results. these complaints were only brought forth after the test results were not what they wanted to see.

Other than the destruction of parts of an historical relic, no one is against additional testing. What most are against is that it would just be a waste of time and pandering to people who would not believe the results anyway unless it tells them what they want to hear.

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.

Yes, this was pointed out to you earlier, a few pages ago. As Dinwar stated, labs already do this by means of a standard. As an engineer, when I test a machine I've designed, all of the measuring devices are calibrated against a standard. I don't just test the same machine multiple times to see if I would get the same result.

 

[Vixen]

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



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



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



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



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



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".

It is clear I misread Belz, thinking he asked how many individuals would I suggest measuring to find average height.

But then you knew that.

ETA I didn't notice he sarcastically suggested how many times should one person be measured.

In fact, even tape measures will give different results depending on time of day, posture, gradient, etc.

 

[Vixen]

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



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



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



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



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



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".

It's a theory, not an opinion. I concurred it was a useful one.

BTW Darwin turned to Christianity before he died, so not mutually exclusive.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Dear Mr. Savage:

I had a whole suite of audioneurological testing done today (four hours of bright flashing lights, loud noises, standing-on-one-leg-in-the-dark, and alternating cold and hot water poured in the porches of mine ears), but I will try not to sound too testy.

You are ignoring the fact that the above argument boils down to no more than, "If we ignore the evidence, and assume that the SoO and the CIQ "match", we can assume that the "match" indicates that the CIQ and the SoO may, in spite of the evidence that we are inoring, be ~2000 years old, which is justifiable because we really really want the CIQ to be'authentic' even though it contradicts scripture in nearly every detail (because scripture is part of the evidence we have chosen to ignore."

Let me speak plainly: your decision to ignore the facts so that you can pretend it is "likely" that the CIQ is "authentic" does not, in any honest way, comprise evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. It is evidence, but that of which it is, in fact, evidence does you dispraise.

- 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.

You cannot "negate" the "most scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating ever" by deciding you can pretend that the 1300-year-old SoO, and the 780-year-old CIQ, somehow "match".

If you want that "match " accepted as evidence, it is up to you to demonstrate how a 1300-year -old bit of cloth, and a 780-year-old bit of cloth, neither of which conform to the report of scripture or history, can be said to "match".

What evidence do you have to provide for this claim?

- 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.

Since you are not correct, your decision to assume a "match" between the two bits of cloth does not affect the non-existent "scales" upon which you hope to build your evidence-free argument.

Why not simply present the evidence you have that demonstrates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think this is entirely logical. It's like how my sister and I are 3 year-old twins. You can see the similarities between us, so it's very likely we're twins. As long as you ignore the evidence that we're clearly not three, and that our ages are a decade apart, why, it's practically proven!

Mazel Tov!