Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[pgwenthold]

I think the dog analogy is effective but when he started ignoring the conclusion and just assumed it agreed with him it felt, at least to me, time to get on with it.

Of course, it highlights just how out of touch with reality he is, because it is so bloody obvious.

Four legs, tail and sits on command means that the 12000 lb weight is likely wrong?

 

[Stuart]

Of course, it highlights just how out of touch with reality he is, because it is so bloody obvious.

Four legs, tail and sits on command means that the 12000 lb weight is likely wrong?

No, no, no - it's just over-weight and the trunk - well that's a mutation of a normal nose. A bit like the mutated chisel head of the image on the shroud

 

[Jabba]

Foundational Stuff

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Despite the patience with which your derail has been treated, and despite the fine contributions of many dedicated and well-informed posters; you are still using the wrong standard.

I say again: "circumstantial evidence" does not apply to questions of fact...

Slowvehicle,
- Sure it does! I must not understand what you're saying...

Jay,
- Do you agree with Slowvehicle? Can you explain?

 

[elbe]

Of course, it highlights just how out of touch with reality he is, because it is so bloody obvious.

Four legs, tail and sits on command means that the 12000 lb weight is likely wrong?

From what I've seen he'd just ignore the already demonstrated weight and since he already assumed it's a dog, he'll then, internally, assume it barks and is man's best friend.

 

[elbe]

Remedial Stuff

Hey, Jabba!

Didn't you tell me that you were going to present evidence that the Shroud existed prior to it's debut?

 

[Mojo]

No, no, no - it's just over-weight and the trunk - well that's a mutation of a normal nose.

How does he smell?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you agree with Slowvehicle? Can you explain?

I've answered that question several times already, with explanations. If you missed it, take some time away from your "shroud debates" blog and re-read this thread. Slowvehicle has made his point several times already. Address it.

 

[Garrette]

Many years ago, at college, we were told the secret to essay writing was three simple stages:-

1. Say what you're going to say
2. Say it
3. Say what you've said

Any chance, Jabba, you can move from stage 1 to stage 2 in the next 5 years? From what I read, we are only at stage 1

The version I learned was "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em; tell 'em; tell 'em what you told 'em."

It still works, though there are times when it is not most appropriate. In academic settings, though, it is nearly always appropriate, and it is what I taught my kids in writing their papers when their schools offered no guidance.

So far, Jabba has not even begun the first step.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

This selectivity is insulting and frustrating to your critics, many of whom are genuinely trying to educate you or show you the error of your thinking. What's most telling is how you treat the outcome of that frustration. When someone throws up his hands in vexation and leaves, you celebrate it as a victory. That speaks very clearly to what you intend to do and how you intend to do it.

--snip--

Exactly. I said it long ago in one of the progenitors of this thread; I've said it in threads on other topics; I've said it on other forums; I've said it in person; and I'm saying it again now.

One of the marks of the incredibly rude, uncivil, and unethical debaters is the veneer of gentility, never saying a crude word and deriding those who do not use the false manners he displays.

Give me the cussing drunkard who calls me names and defames my heritage but who listens to my remarks and addresses his own specifically to the topic. That man is far more civil and far more to be respected than the sober gentleman reeking of decorum who will not discuss the fact that the fish he bought from market stinks until we agree the paper it is wrapped in has the most lively colors which would never be wrapped around stinking fish.

 

[Rincewind]

The version I learned was "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em; tell 'em; tell 'em what you told 'em."

It still works, though there are times when it is not most appropriate. In academic settings, though, it is nearly always appropriate, and it is what I taught my kids in writing their papers when their schools offered no guidance.

So far, Jabba has not even begun the first step.

There's a non-PC equivalent for presentations being like a bikini:
They should be brief, interesting and cover all the important points...

 

[Garrette]

 

[JayUtah]

...the veneer of gentility, never saying a crude word and deriding those who do not use the false manners he displays.

A.k.a. the Dolores Umbridge effect.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- Sure it does! I must not understand what you're saying...
<snip for focus>

In the immortal words of Pogo: "A understatemints ".

As I, and others, have said before, "circumstantial evidence" applies in a Court of Law; which the question of the "authenticity" of the manifestly medieval CIQ is not.

I remain procedurally yours, &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

In the immortal words of Pogo: "A understatemints ".

But let's not mistake understanding for acceptance. It is clear he does not accept what you and I and others have said. But rather than make a case for why it would be unreasonable to accept the inapplicability of circumstantial evidence to an historical question, he couches his objection in "misunderstanding" so that his critics will be compelled to spend yet another page and a half explaining it. This wears down their resolve, and they go away. Then he wins.

 

[Garrette]

A.k.a. the Dolores Umbridge effect.

Perzackly!

 

[Jabba]

Foundational Stuff

- Here's my story, and I'm s-s-stickin to it!

1. An event can be consistent with both an hypothesis and its complement.
2. Being consistent with an hypothesis simply means that the event does not eliminate the hypothesis.
3. But such an event can still support one hypothesis over the other.
4. If one hypothesis is that the 'event' is a dog, and the other is that it's an elephant, having four legs doesn't support one hypothesis over the other.
5. But if one hypothesis is that the event is a dog, and the other hypothesis is that it isn't a dog, having four legs is supportive of the dog hypothesis over the non-dog hypothesis.

6. Our basic question here is how is such determined...
7. For instance fingerprints on the murder weapon is consistent with both guilt and innocence, but it's supportive of guilt.
8. Not that such fingerprints prove guilt, but, they can be added to the guilt side of the equation.
9. To determine that, we compare the likelihood of fingerprints given innocence to the likelihood of fingerprints given guilt.
10. Comparing those two, we get that the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon are more likely if the suspect is guilty than if he's innocent.
11. Consequently, fingerprints support guilt over innocence.

12. Also, they are circumstantial evidence all by themselves -- they don't need any more bits of evidence in order to be considered circumstantial evidence.

13. Also, direct evidence (e.g., witness testimony) can be false.

14. And finally, these principles apply to both science and law.
15. And four legs supports dog over non-dog.

 

[Belz...]

- Here's my story, and I'm s-s-stickin to it!

Shroud, please.

 

[elbe]

5. But if one hypothesis is that the event is a dog, and the other hypothesis is that it isn't a dog, having four legs is supportive of the dog hypothesis over the non-dog hypothesis.

You know what, I'll accept this under one condition: show me the math. Show me that the overall probability of ~Dog goes down when Quadruped is applied. Don't just claim it to be true, demonstrate it.




---obviously you still can't make any real conclusions and when other, specific evidence is applied, such as it's 12000 lb weight we must eliminate those that don't apply, such as Dog, but I want to see where (if) he goes somewhere with this.

 

[godless dave]

Real blood on the shroud would be consistent with both authenticity and inauthenticity, but favors inauthenticity because corpses stop bleeding after a while and Jewish burial customs at that time included washing the corpse.

Fake blood on the shroud would only be consistent with inauthenticity.

Limestone residue on the shroud would be consistent with both authenticity and inauthenticity, and favors neither.

But none of that matters because radiometric dating of 700 years old is only consistent with inauthenticity.

 

[abaddon]

5. But if one hypothesis is that the event is a dog, and the other hypothesis is that it isn't a dog, having four legs is supportive of the dog hypothesis over the non-dog hypothesis.

Fail. Elephant, giraffe, chair, table, desk etc.

Now can you drop it with the dog malarkey.

The topic is the shroud. Any chance you might return to the subject at hand?