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

[bobdroege7]

Unless you were doing radiocarbon dating, you were not performing the same test.


The chi-squared test as used in radiocarbon dating is not identical to the general statistical chi-squared test. They both use the chi-squared distribution, which is not the same thing.

I said similar, the equation has two variables, radiocarbon testing holds one variable constant, while half-life testing holds the other variable constant. Similar issues with conducting either test, you have to make sure that you are dealing with only one thing. In the case of radiocarbon dating you have to make sure all of your sample is from one age. The chi^2 whatever as performed in the Damon paper shows that was not the case.

They did it, it failed, deal with it.

 

[JayUtah]

Well he was a Masters student and the President of the Chess Club! What else do you need?

All seriousness aside, I need a straight answer.

We're told we have to pay attention to what various people say because they have such impeccable credentials. Not necessarily academic or professional credentials, but some kind of bona fide that means their offering should be afforded suitable gravitas and deference.

Ray Downing appears to be a reasonably talented artist. But when he's billed as a computer scientist doing science, that simply doesn't match the facts. Those aren't his qualifications and that wasn't what he was purporting to do in the program we were directed to. The honest response to that rebuttal would be, "Whoops, I misstated his qualifications and mischaracterized his work." But that's not the response we got. The response we got was essentially, "How dare you think you're qualified to critique my sources!"

David Rolfe was billed as an atheist who was converted by the weight of shroud evidence. That's a bona fide; I would certainly listen to someone explain how evidence changed his mind. But there's no evidence he was ever an atheist, and quite a lot of evidence that he's been a believing Christian for his whole adult life. Again @mikegriffith1's claims about the authority of a source don't conform to the facts we can discover about the source. Again, the honest rejoinder would be, "Whoops, I guess he wasn't as remarkable a convert as I originally said." Instead we don't get any answer.

And then we arrive at the most egregious example: David Ford. He's billed as a professor, which is quite bit more prestigious and expert than a student. The honest rejoinder would have been, "Whoops, I guess I misread the heading of the article." Or in this case it could also be, "Here's evidence of his appointment and practice as a professor, as claimed." But instead we get a very red-flag answer: a pair of irrelevant claims trying very hard to rehabilitate a foundation of expertise on false terms. I used to be an officer in the American Guild of Organists, but that has bugger all to do with my academic degrees or professional pursuit. Once we've crossed over from sloppy reporting to deliberate misrepresentation, the presumption of good faith is gone.

It was insinuated that we should ignore the kerfuffle over Ford's claimed qualifications and just address the content no matter the purported authority of the source. First, that's a major pivot. If you start out by saying we have to respect the content not on the merits but on the gravitas of its author, then it's a tap dance to say we have to ignore the misrepresented credentials of the authors and focus only on the merits of the content. Second, it's a double standard. If someone can write out a meritorious review of a source, it's disingenuous to pivot back and say, "Unless you have the right qualifications, there's no need to address the content."

By now you can recognize the motte-and-bailey rhetoric.

 

[JayUtah]

I said similar, the equation has two variables, radiocarbon testing holds one variable constant, while half-life testing holds the other variable constant.

I understand that, but the Ward and Wilson test doesn't apply in your case. You seem to be trying to establish your own foundation of expertise. It therefore helps to conduct a little void dire before we decide to let you do that.

The chi^2 whatever...

Uh huh, the chi-squared "whatever."

In your haste to be the teacher, you directed people to an irrelevant explanation. The Ward and Wilson method uses the chi-squared distribution, but it is not the same as the various tests of categorical covariance that you directed us to. You're the one trying to tell us the Damon findings rise to a particular level of suspicion that should be alarming. Our confidence in your judgment is shaken when it seems you're bluffing your way through the statistics. More likely you've just been told by others that the Ward and Wilson metric is suspicious, and you've decided to believe that. That's fine, but you have to contend with the notion that those who have suddenly decided that the Ward and Wilson metric is fatal to the radiocarbon dating findings are disproportionately those who seem to have other reasons for wanting the shroud to be authentic.

No statistic is inherently determinative. In fact, to suggest so is contrary to the very nature of statistics as a tool for inference. For example, in terms of p-values for science, we arbitrarily say that p < 0.05 is the threshold for significance. That's a threshold only because we adopt it as a norm, not because there is something numerically magical about the value 0.05. In a purely statistical sense, there is little difference between p = 0.0499 and p = 0.0501. But one makes a theory according to scientific convention while the other is merely, "Hm, nice try." It's not unreasonable question the arbitrariness of the distinction in such a case.

As you were told by the actual statistician you chased off, the threshold of significance is best established according to context. In science writ large, there is considerable debate over whether a one-size-fits-all p-value is helpful. One edge of that sword is the argument that the nature of some sciences make 0.05 an unreasonable goal. The other is that p-hacking has rendered the norm essentially irrelevant as an assurance of correctness. In these cases we turn to the practitioners for advice. And when everyone is okay with the Damon findings—Ward and Wilson notwithstanding in the one instance—except for those who have ulterior reasons to be disappointed by the radiocarbon date, we can put the statistic in a more helpful context.

You're quite welcome to continue believing that one outlier dooms the whole process. It's your privilege to resolve the uncertainty measured in the statistic in that way. But there's no justification for insinuating that the only scientifically justified interpretation is that the findings must be rejected because of some mathematical bulwark named [waves hands elaborately] ..."chi-squared whatever."

 

[catsmate]

The contamination is not magic, it's due to repairs, reweaves, or mending. You can continue to ignore the science if you wish, not my monkey.

I'm not the one ignoring the science remember.....


You, and you fellow shroudies, have failed to produce actual *evidence* of any magic contamination,the invisible re-weaving et cetera, and also explain the nature of these contaminants,and how they evaded the expert inspection of the Lirey cloth by the textile experts,

Where did I flounce? You are imagining things.

Right........

And no, you have not patiently explained anything to me.

Yes I have, as have others.

As reported in the Damon paper, the chi^2 fails, deal with it, do not ignore it.

Except, as has been pointed out, you're ignoring reality in order to try and support your idiotic beliefs.

 

[catsmate]

I said similar, the equation has two variables, radiocarbon testing holds one variable constant, while half-life testing holds the other variable constant. Similar issues with conducting either test, you have to make sure that you are dealing with only one thing. In the case of radiocarbon dating you have to make sure all of your sample is from one age. The chi^2 whatever as performed in the Damon paper shows that was not the case.

They did it, it failed, deal with it.

1. Do you accept that your claim of a secret radiocarbon dating (or two) is untrue? If not, please present your evidence for this assertion.
2. Will you be providing evidence for your claim that herringbone weave cloth was in use in first century Palestine?
3. Will you be showing how your claimed room temperature Maillard can occur?

 

[bobdroege7]

1. Do you accept that your claim of a secret radiocarbon dating (or two) is untrue? If not, please present your evidence for this assertion.
2. Will you be providing evidence for your claim that herringbone weave cloth was in use in first century Palestine?
3. Will you be showing how your claimed room temperature Maillard can occur?

I have already posted evidence for those three things, you rejected that evidence.

 

[bobdroege7]

I understand that, but the Ward and Wilson test doesn't apply in your case. You seem to be trying to establish your own foundation of expertise. It therefore helps to conduct a little void dire before we decide to let you do that.


Uh huh, the chi-squared "whatever."

In your haste to be the teacher, you directed people to an irrelevant explanation. The Ward and Wilson method uses the chi-squared distribution, but it is not the same as the various tests of categorical covariance that you directed us to. You're the one trying to tell us the Damon findings rise to a particular level of suspicion that should be alarming. Our confidence in your judgment is shaken when it seems you're bluffing your way through the statistics. More likely you've just been told by others that the Ward and Wilson metric is suspicious, and you've decided to believe that. That's fine, but you have to contend with the notion that those who have suddenly decided that the Ward and Wilson metric is fatal to the radiocarbon dating findings are disproportionately those who seem to have other reasons for wanting the shroud to be authentic.

No statistic is inherently determinative. In fact, to suggest so is contrary to the very nature of statistics as a tool for inference. For example, in terms of p-values for science, we arbitrarily say that p < 0.05 is the threshold for significance. That's a threshold only because we adopt it as a norm, not because there is something numerically magical about the value 0.05. In a purely statistical sense, there is little difference between p = 0.0499 and p = 0.0501. But one makes a theory according to scientific convention while the other is merely, "Hm, nice try." It's not unreasonable question the arbitrariness of the distinction in such a case.

As you were told by the actual statistician you chased off, the threshold of significance is best established according to context. In science writ large, there is considerable debate over whether a one-size-fits-all p-value is helpful. One edge of that sword is the argument that the nature of some sciences make 0.05 an unreasonable goal. The other is that p-hacking has rendered the norm essentially irrelevant as an assurance of correctness. In these cases we turn to the practitioners for advice. And when everyone is okay with the Damon findings—Ward and Wilson notwithstanding in the one instance—except for those who have ulterior reasons to be disappointed by the radiocarbon date, we can put the statistic in a more helpful context.

You're quite welcome to continue believing that one outlier dooms the whole process. It's your privilege to resolve the uncertainty measured in the statistic in that way. But there's no justification for insinuating that the only scientifically justified interpretation is that the findings must be rejected because of some mathematical bulwark named [waves hands elaborately] ..."chi-squared whatever."

You are using ellipses to deceive.

I said whatever chi^2 test as performed in the Damon paper.

The Ward and Wilson method can not be confirmed to be the method used by Damon, however it is the method used in this paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331956466_Radiocarbon_Dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud_New_Evidence_from_Raw_Data#pf4

Which I have already cited. They find surprising heterogeneity in the Damon data.

I note you go on and on about the p value, that's not the point, it's the high value for the chi^2 test or distribution, however Damon et al used it. Then Casablanca et al got a much higher value for the chi^2 and they used all the data.

It passed for the control samples, all three of them at all three labs.

It is too high, it indicates the shroud samples as tested were not homogeneous, do I need to explain what that means?

It means all the sample was not from the same date, so the dating is invalid.

From Casablanca et al

"The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories,
show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test
requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not pos-
sible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’that the calendar age
range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."

And I did not chase of any statistician, he is welcome to produce statistical knowledge that is better than mine.

 

[JayUtah]

You are using ellipses to deceive.

I said whatever chi^2 test as performed in the Damon paper.

Okay, I see what you mean. To me it seems awkwardly worded, but there we are.

The point is that you don't actually know what test was performed or how it works. You thought it was something else. That's why I'm not really interested in your misinformed opinion of how properly to interpret it.

It is too high, it indicates the shroud samples as tested were not homogeneous, do I need to explain what that means?

Really? You're going to double down on the condescension?

And I did not chase of any statistician, he is welcome to produce statistical knowledge that is better than mine.

He did.

 

[bobdroege7]

I'm not the one ignoring the science remember.....
View attachment 61324

You, and you fellow shroudies, have failed to produce actual *evidence* of any magic contamination,the invisible re-weaving et cetera, and also explain the nature of these contaminants,and how they evaded the expert inspection of the Lirey cloth by the textile experts,

Right........

Yes I have, as have others.

Except, as has been pointed out, you're ignoring reality in order to try and support your idiotic beliefs.

Except there is no evidence of magical contamination or invisible re-weaving, there was threads of cotton, silk, and satin, and there was only one textile expert.

Edited by jimbob: 

Rule 0 breech removed

 

[bobdroege7]

Okay, I see what you mean. To me it seems awkwardly worded, but there we are.

The point is that you don't actually know what test was performed or how it works. You thought it was something else. That's why I'm not really interested in your misinformed opinion of how properly to interpret it.


Really? You're going to double down on the condescension?


He did.

It doesn't matter if I know what test was performed or how it works, that's irrelevant.

I am following Casablanca et al's interpretation of the data. You might try reading it more closely.

Which show heterogeneity of the data, which means the samples were not all from the original shroud, so that busts the Damon paper, whether I understand it at all.

Mix two things of different ages, and there is no way you can perform a valid radiocarbon dating on the item.

I get condescension from you, I give it back, you deserve it.

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't matter if I know what test was performed or how it works, that's irrelevant.

I'll be the judge of what criteria I apply to the credibility of the claims you make. You keep hammering the chi-square claim again and again and again. You fringe-reset on it. You use it as a dodge when you get cornered in other avenues of evidence. Turns out you don't really lknow what you're talking about. Yes, you're obviously just repeating what you read somewhere, and you've decided to believe it.

 

[bobdroege7]

I'll be the judge of what criteria I apply to the credibility of the claims you make. You keep hammering the chi-square claim again and again and again. You fringe-reset on it. You use it as a dodge when you get cornered in other avenues of evidence. Turns out you don't really lknow what you're talking about. Yes, you're obviously just repeating what you read somewhere, and you've decided to believe it.

Well you are welcome to read the Casablanca paper and debunk it if you can.

Then there are at least three other papers that have the same conclusion, but if you debunk one, you have debunked all of them.

 

[JayUtah]

Well you are welcome to read the Casablanca paper and debunk it if you can.

If you were really so up on Tristan Casabianca's work, you might consider spelling his name right. He's neither a statistician nor an archaeologist. He's an "independent researcher" whose field is the philosophy of religion. Your claim, your source, your burden of proof. Justify why he should be the gold standard of interpreting radiocarbon dates in this case.

 

[bobdroege7]

If you were really so up on Tristian Casabianca's work, you might consider spelling his name right. He's neither a statistician nor an archaeologist. He's an "independent researcher" whose field is the philosophy of religion. Your claim, your source, your burden of proof. Justify why he should be the gold standard of interpreting radiocarbon dates in this case.

Sorry, you are correct, it is Casabianca. So he is wrong because he is an independent researcher in the philosophy of religion, is that what you are saying? Because that would be an ad hom attack.

He is also the lead author, others helped with the paper.

They also used the Ward and Wilson method.

Nice dodge though.

He is not the gold standard, even though several others agree with him. If you read the paper you will note that there was some serious malarky going on in the Damon paper.

I'll just assume you can't debunk his paper.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, you are correct, it is Casabianca. So he is wrong because he is an independent researcher in the philosophy of religion, is that what you are saying? Because that would be an ad hom attack.

You're posturing him as an expert in radiocarbon dating and statistical analysis for archaeology. That purported foundation would be greatly improved if he had any sort of training or experience in those pursuits.

He is also the lead author, others helped with the paper.

None of whom was an archaeologist or had had any prior experience with radiocarbon dating. What makes their judgment in those fields worth considering?

They also used the Ward and Wilson method.

Anyone can read Ward and Wilson's paper. That doesn't mean those who do will apply it correctly and interpret the results appropriately for the relevant field.

Nice dodge though.

Not a dodge—voir dire. You're posturing people as experts who have no relevant academic training and no relevant professional experience. Why should their judgment be given any authority?

He is not the gold standard, even though several others agree with him.

Sure, a lot of people want a pseudoscientific reason not to believe the radiocarbon dating. Is Casabianca considered any sort of expert in the field by other practitioners who don't have anything to do with the shroud? Is his judgment regarding the Ward and Wilson test accepted by people who don't have some stake in the shroud?

If you read the paper you will note that there was some serious malarky going on in the Damon paper.

In whose judgment?

I'll just assume you can't debunk his paper.

Do not reverse the burden of proof. It's your source. It's your obligation to establish that it really is what you purport it to be. You have to lay its foundation. But you don't seem to know anything about the authors. You don't understand the method. So I'll just assume you're tossing it against the wall blindly to see whether it intimidates your critics. The paper goes into tedious detail applying the Ward and Wilson test. That's a lot of impressive-looking math with graphs, tables, etc. But then at the end it boils down to the authors' judgment that this result is unacceptable in the field none of them practices. It's typical of a lot of shroud scholarship: lots of unremarkable (but complex-looking) science followed by a conclusion pulled out of a hat.

 

[bobdroege7]

You're posturing him as an expert in radiocarbon dating and statistical analysis for archaeology. That purported foundation would be greatly improved if he had any sort of training or experience in those pursuits.


None of whom was an archaeologist or had had any prior experience with radiocarbon dating. What makes their judgment in those fields worth considering?


Anyone can read Ward and Wilson's paper. That doesn't mean those who do will apply it correctly and interpret the results appropriately for the relevant field.


Not a dodge—voir dire. You're posturing people as experts who have no relevant academic training and no relevant professional experience. Why should their judgment be given any authority?


Sure, a lot of people want a pseudoscientific reason not to believe the radiocarbon dating. Is Casabianca considered any sort of expert in the field by other practitioners who don't have anything to do with the shroud? Is his judgment regarding the Ward and Wilson test accepted by people who don't have some stake in the shroud?


In whose judgment?


Do not reverse the burden of proof. It's your source. It's your obligation to establish that it really is what you purport it to be. You have to lay its foundation. But you don't seem to know anything about the authors. You don't understand the method. So I'll just assume you're tossing it against the wall blindly to see whether it intimidates your critics. The paper goes into tedious detail applying the Ward and Wilson test. That's a lot of impressive-looking math with graphs, tables, etc. But then at the end it boils down to the authors' judgment that this result is unacceptable in the field none of them practices. It's typical of a lot of shroud scholarship: lots of unremarkable (but complex-looking) science followed by a conclusion pulled out of a hat.

How do you know Casabianca has no training in those disciplines?

Others have gotten the same results.

Yes it is my claim, I have provided evidence, it is your burden of proof to show that it is wrong. You don't or can't debunk it, that's fine.

Ad hom attacks on me are not convincing, surely you can do better than that.

You have made a claim about a hat, it is up to you to support that claim.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'll just assume you can't debunk his paper.

I'll just assume that you know what happens when you assume.

Since you like to summarize other people's posts, I'll do the same for yours: "Some Guy says the radiocarbon date is wrong. Discuss."

In response, Jay Utah and others have sensibly responded: "You first. Who is this Some Guy? How is his opinion relevant?" Until you establish some foundation using your own arguments, then you have presented no pro facie case to refute.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you know Casabianca has no training in those disciplines?

It's your job to show he does, such that his judgment is properly informed.

Others have gotten the same results.

No Gish gallop. You asked me to talk about Casabianca. If you want to withdraw your claims about him and focus elsewhere, that onus is on you.

Yes it is my claim, I have provided evidence...

You've shown no evidence that Casabianca or any of his co-authors is competent in the field to which they have applied their purportedly expert judgment.

...it is your burden of proof to show that it is wrong. You don't or can't debunk it, that's fine.

It's not my problem that the correct criticism of your claim isn't what you expected. You are responsible for laying the foundation of people you proffer as experts.

Ad hom attacks on me are not convincing, surely you can do better than that.

If you believe you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Otherwise do not claim as much for rhetorical effect.

You have made a claim about a hat, it is up to you to support that claim.

Do not reverse the burden of proof. The paper's logic relies on accepting the judgment of the authors regarding the statistical outcome. You have the burden to explain why that judgment should be considered probative.

 

[catsmate]

As you are fond of saying about all scientific evidence of the Shroud's authenticity,

There isn't any.

<>

Oh good grief...... Benford and Marino spouted pseudo-science that has been debunked.

John L. Brown, a physicist and a former principal research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, confirmed Dr. Rogers' findings through a different form of testing

Actually, no.

 

[catsmate]

Well he was a Masters student and the President of the Chess Club! What else do you need?

Then again, I am an actuall professor at my university, and, moreover, I am the faculty adviser of the Tea Appreciation Club, so I got that going for me.

For the record, I don't drink tea.

I need to make a C&S application for next year....