• 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.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

bobdroege7 said:

Look at table two, and the reported X^2 value of 6.4.

That's where the inhomogeneity comes from.
Click to expand...
I suggest re-reading my initial post in this thread (#98) and considering each of the "if"s in the final paragraph.

In addition,
  1. In that table two the chi^2 analysis was "under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation". That assumption is extremely questionable and is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
  2. A "conventional" chi^2 test is not applicable to continuous data, such as age estimates. I see Damon et. al. used "the recommended procedure of Ward and Wilson". I haven't had time to read this carefully, but even on a quick scan, a couple of assumptions leaped out as questionable in this circumstance (emphasis added):
Ideally one should manipulate age estimates which have been derived by comparable procedures, and which can be shown to have comparable sampling distributions. In the following discussion we shall assume this to be the case. However, while this certainly should be a valid assumption for determinations supplied by the same laboratory, its validity may well be questionable for determinations supplied by different laboratories.
Click to expand...

If one assumes that the only sources of errors are due to the counting procedure and that these errors are comparable, as discussed above (noting that appropriate changes must be made if this is not the case), ...
Click to expand...
So overall, you base your conclusion of heterogeneity on a p-value of 5%, calculated under some highly questionable assumptions. Can you not see that this is extremely weak evidence?

I suggest that you try to deepen your statistical understanding, or collaborate with a statistician, before depending on such weak statistical evidence.
 
KAJ said:
I suggest re-reading my initial post in this thread (#98) and considering each of the "if"s in the final paragraph.

In addition,
  1. In that table two the chi^2 analysis was "under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation". That assumption is extremely questionable and is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
  2. A "conventional" chi^2 test is not applicable to continuous data, such as age estimates. I see Damon et. al. used "the recommended procedure of Ward and Wilson". I haven't had time to read this carefully, but even on a quick scan, a couple of assumptions leaped out as questionable in this circumstance (emphasis added):



So overall, you base your conclusion of heterogeneity on a p-value of 5%, calculated under some highly questionable assumptions. Can you not see that this is extremely weak evidence?

I suggest that you try to deepen your statistical understanding, or collaborate with a statistician, before depending on such weak statistical evidence.
Click to expand...
How about a paper with two statisticians contributing?

 
bobdroege7 said:
I claimed it was not a painting, that applies to portraits too.
Click to expand...
No you didn't. A forger could make a painting showing the 3-D splaying. The issue was 2-D portrait rendition versus 3-D draping distortion. The face should have been distorted to nearly twice it's width, and back to the OP, if there was a crown/cap.of thorns left on the corpse for whatever reason, the space between the front and back images would have been yet longer, to cover the additional space.
 
JayUtah said:
In order for this paper's conclusions to hold, your hypothesis that the archbishop switched the samples would have to be abandoned.
Click to expand...
Why?

The samples heterogeneity could be explained by the switching of the samples.

Any reasons why that conclusions of that paper do not hold?
 
Thermal said:
No you didn't. A forger could make a painting showing the 3-D splaying. The issue was 2-D portrait rendition versus 3-D draping distortion. The face should have been distorted to nearly twice it's width, and back to the OP, if there was a crown/cap.of thorns left on the corpse for whatever reason, the space between the front and back images would have been yet longer, to cover the additional space.
Click to expand...
Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be a very good relic if it was a painting...
 
bobdroege7 said:
That's actually irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Why would you think so? But I'm guessing your evasion is best explained by the proposition that you didn't.

bobdroege7 said:
Can you explain why it is wrong?
Click to expand...
I will continue discussing it when you can explain how the assumptions in the paper are consistent with your claim that the archbishop switched the samples.
 
JayUtah said:
Why would you think so? But I'm guessing your evasion is best explained by the proposition that you didn't.


I will continue discussing it when you can explain how the assumptions in the paper are consistent with your claim that the archbishop switched the samples.
Click to expand...
Because I claimed the archbishop switched the samples because they were heterogeneous.
The paper concludes the tests are heterogeneous.
The two are consistent, and the paper does not rule out that the archbishop switched the samples, doesn't confirm it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom