Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Belz...]

All this waffle, but blood and limestone remain irrelevant to the age of the CIQ

I think blood means the Shroud is a dog, or something.

 

[GuitKitty]

I think blood means the Shroud is a dog, or something.

Or a waffle.

I think I might have lost the thread of the conversation, though.

 

[The Sparrow]

Basically, the fact that the cloth is not an ocean liner is circumstantial evidence that it is the 'authentic' shroud.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Basically, the fact that the cloth is not an ocean liner is circumstantial evidence that it is the 'authentic' shroud.

No, the fact that is not the True Shroud^®©TM is circumstantial evidence that it is, in fact, an ocean liner.

Or an elephant.

I think.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Our "honest seeker of truth regarding the CIQ's authenticity" seems to have spent a lot of time reading the thread just now

 

[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.

I said I would accept it if you showed me the math. You appear to be trying to aggregate the probabilities of all things ~Dog into one category and then subtracting the obvious loss of all things ~Quadruped but you haven't demonstrated that the rising probability of all things ~Dog but Quadruped don't make up for the difference in relationship to Dog. Hence, show me the math. Right now, as far as I can tell, you only believe this to be true, you don't know it to be.

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

 

[abaddon]

Fido is the nickname of the elephant. Now what?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much misstatement>

My Dear Mr. Savage:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11140966#post11140966

 

[zooterkin]

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

Then we find it is grey and weighs 5 tons. We can no longer pretend it might be a dog.

 

[elbe]

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

Jabba,

I'm afraid we're at an impasse. I asked for math but instead of demonstrating any you just repeated the same claim. Interestingly through a quick experiment there might be some math to support your conclusion that Dog increases while ~Dog decreases (assuming my terribly statistics skills are working), but you've failed to provide the math to support your conclusion.

Still, even if Dog was 75% while ~Dog was 25 percent, which I don't think is even possible here since I think Dog cannot be more than 50% and that assumes there are only two quadrupeds in existence, you can't actually make a conclusion unless you have real evidence, and we already know it weighs 12000 lbs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Leaving aside your mischaracterizations of "enormous" increases, what, in your, opinion, constitutes "finding out that [THING] has [NAME:FIDO]" anent the CIQ?

BTW: Ever watch "George of the Jungle"?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Our "honest seeker of truth regarding the CIQ's authenticity" seems to have spent a lot of time reading the thread just now

The reason for doing so being.... THIS

He is copy/pasting your responses to his Idiotic shrouddebates.com as you speak!

Seriously, look at the length of that one page alone. I'd be mighty pissed off if I were on his list of approved speakers and appeared on that page.

 

[pgwenthold]

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

And it's still 12000 lbs, so, no, it's not a dog.

That was easy.

 

[elbe]

The reason for doing so being.... THIS

He is copy/pasting your responses to his Idiotic shrouddebates.com as you speak!

Seriously, look at the length of that one page alone. I'd be mighty pissed off if I were on his list of approved speakers and appeared on that page.

I certainly don't remember to consenting to his use of my posts for his own private use.

 

[abaddon]

I certainly don't remember to consenting to his use of my posts for his own private use.

He doesn't care

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[pgwenthold]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Leaving aside your mischaracterizations of "enormous" increases, what, in your, opinion, constitutes "finding out that [THING] has [NAME:FIDO]" anent the CIQ?

I agree. What is the evidence that is akin to "sits on command" and "Fido"?

We've already got blood = four legs and limestone = tail. He's also made the assertion that it barks, but that's clearly nonsense.

We've also got "12000 lbs" = 14C dating and "medieval weave" = gray. I'm sure we could also find analogs for all the evidence for the fake that has been listed recently.

But I am curious, Jabba, what part of the shroud do think think is akin to "sits on command" and "Fido" in your analogy?

 

[elbe]

I don't know, "medieval weave" might be a bit closer to "prehensile nose".

But I am curious, Jabba, what part of the shroud do think think is akin to "sits on command" and "Fido" in your analogy?

I'm going to say... "sits on command" = "apparent crucifixion wounds" and "Fido" = "Jesus". Both are only assumed to be true but that's good enough for Jabba.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know, "medieval weave" might be a bit closer to "prehensile nose".



I'm going to say... "sits on command" = "apparent crucifixion wounds" and "Fido" = "Jesus". Both are only assumed to be true but that's good enough for Jabba.

I nominate

[ABSURD ANATOMY] for [~CHICKEN]

and

[¹⁴C DATING] for [EXTINCT SINCE AT LEAST THE JURASSIC]

...It's a Tyrannosaur!

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't know, "medieval weave" might be a bit closer to "prehensile nose".



I'm going to say... "sits on command" = "apparent crucifixion wounds" and "Fido" = "Jesus". Both are only assumed to be true but that's good enough for Jabba.

Fido can't be Jesus, because the whole argument that it is Jesus is based on the "apparent crucifixion wounds." You can't say a dog is named Fido just because it sits on command.

 

[elbe]

I was mostly just mocking Jabba's decision to just throw in some new assumptions by claiming one of his assumptions was that it was Jesus, therefor it's evidence that it was Jesus.