Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist.

Just as well, since, as already pointed out, they don't prove anything of the sort. You've yet to show that they exist, let alone produce a chain of logic to show how they would prove your assertion.

Now, back to the carbon dating. Got anything that proves the carbon dating is flawed?
 
If Jabba's a "certified statistician" then I'm the Pope. In which case, I will remind everyone that the shroud of Turin is a medieval relic.
 
Humots,

- This is going to take me awhile, but so far, I can't figure out why we can't just compare the 2 "combined" probabilities -- i.e. combined probability #1) the probability of randomly selecting the ace deck from the total number of decks (.02), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the ace deck has been chosen (1.00), and #2) the probability of randomly selecting a normal deck from the total number of decks (.98), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the normal deck has been chosen (.076923077).
- Consequently, before we get started, the probability of chosing the ace deck and then drawing an ace is .02*1.00, or .02, while the probability of chosing a normal deck and then drawing an ace is .98*.076923077, or .075384615. And, the probability of drawing an ace via the second route is almost 4 times as large as the probability of doing it via the first.

--- Jabba
- The smilie at the top is an accident, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

Because as I understand it, the question is not:

What is the probability that we select the All-Ace deck and draw an Ace?
vs
What is the probability that we select the regular deck and draw an Ace?

It is:

If we draw a card from a deck (and we don't know which one) and the card is an Ace, what is the probability that we drew from the All-Ace deck?

The point is, there are not two separate events, each with its own probability. There is only one event: drawing a card from a deck and the card is an ace.
 
The new stage on the life of Dr. Kouznetsov.

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

Of course, no; I don’t call “science” neither creationism nor sindonism. If you can read Spanish you can visit my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/kuznetsov-el-sindonista-que-surgio-del-frio/ ) where I have quoted the Larhammar’s and others’ work debunking Kouznetsov. You also can find other studies in that sense (Rinaldi and others) in my small bibliography. I have only pointed out how Dr. Kouznetsov is now trying to pave his own way on the ground of normal science. Knowing our hero’s exploits in the past I’m expectant. To be continued.
 
- I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree for now about the relevance here of serum clot retraction rings.
--- Jabba

"I threw something against the wall it did not stick, buggers I will now ignore again the elephant oin the room and switch to throwing somethign else on the wall hoping it wills ticks"

He does not even have the minimum rationality to recognize that whiping people was done all over time/place, or admit that his 10 year (or was it 20) was just spent mind-masturbating over the same argument without even really checking if those made sense or not. If he had, he would have the reference handy. But he does not have any of those and his arguments are weaker than walls made of bread crumbs.

Remind me a lot of those guy creationist JAQing off. Hoping from argument to the next having none worth a fart in an elevator.
 
Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.
- The argument I'm putting aside for now is that SCRR's are relevant.
--- Jabba

Does this mean you will be addressing the 14C dates?
 
I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.

I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.

So, 100 pages and we're still waiting for some reason to doubt the dating of the shroud to the 14th century.
 
I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.

So, 100 pages and we're still waiting for some reason to doubt the dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)
 
Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)
It is reasonably certain that the shroud exists, though if it were claimed only by the Sindonologists I would doubt it.

Here is the entirety of the pro-authenticity argument, though it is dressed up impressively in sciency sounding terms and walls of text:

There is objective, unrefuted scientific proof that the shroud is a hoax as already demonstrated by the historical evidence. On the other hand, there is subjective speculation supported only by the biblical imaginings of a group of biased activists. Obviously, the speculation wins.
 
It is reasonably certain that the shroud exists, though if it were claimed only by the Sindonologists I would doubt it.

Here is the entirety of the pro-authenticity argument, though it is dressed up impressively in sciency sounding terms and walls of text:

There is objective, unrefuted scientific proof that the shroud is a hoax as already demonstrated by the historical evidence. On the other hand, there is subjective speculation supported only by the biblical imaginings of a group of biased activists. Obviously, the speculation wins.

That's the point I was (badly) trying to highlight. The pro-camp haven't found or produced any new evidence about the shroud at all. Their contribution to human knowledge has been zero. It wouldn't be unreasonable to accept that if a group intensively investigated a subject they could find out something novel, but it appears that having a belief completely disrupts rational process. A similar effect is seen in other belief areas such as alt-med.
 
Of course, no; I don’t call “science” neither creationism nor sindonism. If you can read Spanish you can visit my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/kuznetsov-el-sindonista-que-surgio-del-frio/ ) where I have quoted the Larhammar’s and others’ work debunking Kouznetsov. You also can find other studies in that sense (Rinaldi and others) in my small bibliography. I have only pointed out how Dr. Kouznetsov is now trying to pave his own way on the ground of normal science. Knowing our hero’s exploits in the past I’m expectant. To be continued.
Yes there are many fields of woo for him to expand his fraud into...
Thanks for the link. However my Spanish is non-existent.

I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.
Well he's alleged there is blood on the shroud before, without being able to support it.
Just more of his efforts to avoid dealing with reality.

Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, evidence for what in particular? They ignore/distort the radiocarbon evidence, allege blood (unsupported by evidence), allege MidEast pollen (unsupported by evidence) et cetera.
 
"I threw something against the wall it did not stick, buggers I will now ignore again the elephant oin the room and switch to throwing somethign else on the wall hoping it wills ticks"

To be fair to Jabba, it's quite hard to even hit the wall when there's an elephant in the way.
 
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Because as I understand it, the question is not:

What is the probability that we select the All-Ace deck and draw an Ace?
vs
What is the probability that we select the regular deck and draw an Ace?

It is:

If we draw a card from a deck (and we don't know which one) and the card is an Ace, what is the probability that we drew from the All-Ace deck?

The point is, there are not two separate events, each with its own probability. There is only one event: drawing a card from a deck and the card is an ace.
Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba
 
Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

Are you claiming the shroud was used as a table cover during a poker game?
 
Last edited:
Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba
Your statistic arguments are as weak as your pseudo lawyer debate style.
 
Your statistic arguments are as weak as your pseudo lawyer debate style.
Yes. I've been involved with this thread for months, and it seems Jabba wants an ordered discussion on the Shroud, as if it was a matter for a jury. And then we've to come to a decision either by majority vote, like a Scottish jury, or by consensus, like an English one. And what would that prove? "Verdicts" in matters of physical science are determined by observation and experiment. And the observations say the Shroud is mediaeval, so that's the end of the matter until and unless a more precise observation is performed. There simply isn't anything else to be said!
 
I notice, Jabba, that you haven't responded in any way shape or form to this post of mine which addresses the fundamental problem with your card analogy.

Why is that?

I've just reread the whole screed and although it doesn't specify when you get to the 50 pack part that the aces are returned and the deck shuffled it does appear that this is what he's doing. In that case his argument is flawed. Although the probability becomes incredibly small after a few aces are drawn it never formally becomes zero.

So his maths isn't the problem, it's his application of it that is.

If you read the next two webpages you'll see that he then applies this reasoning to the anthropic principle.

The problem is that the anthropic principle is a posteriori reasoning.

Jabba compares the probability that he was born to drawing an ace from the pack. He reasons that he's the ace of spades, his mother was the ace of diamonds and his father was the ace of clubs. the problem is that in reality he's the three of clubs, his mother was the six of diamonds and his father was the seven of hearts.

Jabba, I don't expect you to understand this, but give it a try. You were born because a certain sperm from your father joined forces with a particular egg from your mother. Now suppose that it had been a different sperm and a different egg a month earlier. Instead of getting Jabba your parents would have had a girl called Muriel who went on to be an English teacher. Let's suppose it's the same egg but a different sperm. Then your parents got a boy called James who became an engineer.

You're just an ordinary card drawn from an ordinary deck.

Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck.

In the example of the cards that you give we know a priori that there's a deck made entirely of aces. but suppose that you don't know that. Suppose that you have no idea how many packs there are or what cards are in those packs to start with. All you know is that you get a pack of cards and draw cards from it. What's the probability that the cards you draw are from a special pack? You have no way of knowing. You don't know what cards are supposed to be in a normal deck, you don't know how many decks there are and you don't know whether there are any special decks.

The probability that any given pack will be in a specific order is 8x10-67. And yet every single time you shuffle a deck it appears in an order with a probability of just 8x10-67. Does that mean that every single shuffle of a pack of cards is guided by a higher intelligence? Of course not.

When you shuffle a deck of cards it has to have one, and only one, configuration. Which configuration that happens to be is pure random chance (unless you're a very good magician!), but the probability of that specific configuration occurring was 8x10-67.

So the approach that Jabba takes in arguing that the probability of his being born is vanishingly small without a guiding intelligence is a red herring. The probability that Muriel would have been born was identically small, as was the probability that James would have been born.

Someone was going to be born, it just happened, by pure random chance, that it was Jabba. That's the way the standard deck of cards was shuffled. No supreme guiding intelligence required.
 
Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

In your link, you state (bolding mine):
So, once you draw the ace, to determine what the probability is that you drew from the ace
deck, you need to compare the two composite probabilities
, and ultimately you end up being about 4 times as likely -- .075385/.02 -- to have drawn from the normal deck…

This is wrong. The event is not "drawing from the Ace deck or the normal deck". It is drawing an ace, and there are two possible ways to do this: "from the Ace deck or from the normal deck".

The question is, what is the probability that an ace, once drawn, came from the Ace deck?

One composite probability value is about four times the other, but that does not mean the probability of drawing from the ace deck once an ace has been drawn is as you state.

Determining this probability is a bit more complicated than simply comparing one composite probability against the other.

I'm not a math teacher (nor do I play one on TV) so I can't come up with my own argument in a reasonable time.

So please take a look at the Wiki entry on Bayes' Theorem. I can't give a direct URL (too few posts), but you can copy and paste

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem

into your browser.

See the Introductory Example for a scenario similar to yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom