Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

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?

Wollery,

- I think that the following was your basic objection in that post:

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.


- I think that my answer to your objection is contained in the first 9 "paragraphs" of http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. It goes like this:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…


- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Card Sharping/Six Guns?/Poor Billythekiddety

<snap>

- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

No.

Do you have anything to discuss that relates to your fictitious post titles, Mr Earp?


Remotely?



Ever?

 

[wollery]

Wollery,

- I think that the following was your basic objection in that post:

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.


- I think that my answer to your objection is contained in the first 9 "paragraphs" of http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. It goes like this:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…


- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

In your link, you state (bolding mine):

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.

Humots,
- I gotta say, this is why I "love" probability -- it provides such great mental challenges. But then, I gotta admit that sometimes I'm not up to the particular challenge...
- Anyway, take a look at http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php.
- I do use Bayesian statistics in my argument for immortality, but I'm still hoping -- and, to a large extent, thinking -- that the Bayes Theorem doesn't really apply to my cards example. The cards example doesn't have any "background knowledge" to worry about.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

I think it's charming how Jabba manages to combine an attempt to up the traffic to his website with a discussion about his understanding of probability.

 

[Pixel42]

The probability of drawing four aces in a row out of an ordinary pack of cards is exactly the same as the probability of drawing any other 4 cards out of an ordinary pack of cards.

Likewise the probability of the lottery machine spitting out 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is exactly the same as the probability of it spitting out any other combination of balls.

We may attach significance to what happens to be written on particular cards or balls, to the laws of probability they are all just cards and balls with marks on them.

And no, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the Turin Shroud either.

 

[wollery]

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

So you aren't going to answer my question then.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

- I also gotta admit that I'm running into a problematic aspect of my different opinions -- but then, it's our long-winded debate that has made me recognize this troubling aspect...
- I'm finding that whereas I've read a particular claim from several different authors, often they are referring to the same research paper, and there's no link to the research paper.
- Sometimes, it's even worse, in that all these authors are referring to the same paper, which in turn was referring to one research paper -- for which, again, there is no link.
- So far, that's what I'm finding about the serum clot retraction rings... I'm still looking and will buy that one research paper if I have to, and can.
- Maybe, one of you has access to Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981)?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

So you aren't going to answer my question then.

Wollery,
- I already gave the best answer I have (4081).
--- Jabba

P.S. But then, how many aces would you have to draw before you started getting suspicious and turned over the deck?

 

[wollery]

Wollery,
- I already gave the best answer I have (4081).
--- Jabba

P.S. But then, how many aces would you have to draw before you started getting suspicious and turned over the deck?

But you're not drawing aces.

I asked why you are suspicious of the second deck, because I've already explained the category error you made with the example of drawing all aces.

In fact your entire hypothetical is flawed because it's perfectly possible to do the experiment you suggest (i.e. drawing one card at a time, replacing it, shuffling the deck, and drawing another card) and get nothing but aces by pure chance from a normal deck of cards. It's incredibly unlikely, but absolutely possible.

 

[Garrette]

- I also gotta admit that I'm running into a problematic aspect of my different opinions -- but then, it's our long-winded debate that has made me recognize this troubling aspect...
- I'm finding that whereas I've read a particular claim from several different authors, often they are referring to the same research paper, and there's no link to the research paper.
- Sometimes, it's even worse, in that all these authors are referring to the same paper, which in turn was referring to one research paper -- for which, again, there is no link.
- So far, that's what I'm finding about the serum clot retraction rings... I'm still looking and will buy that one research paper if I have to, and can.
- Maybe, one of you has access to Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981)?
--- Jabba

This is one of the things we have been saying. You cannot take anyone at their word, but especially not the agenda-drive STUURP people. Have you never, in all your 20 years on the case, thought to check the claims back to their source?

 

[wollery]

Well, I've tried my best to find the paper, but it isn't available through the University accounts that I have access to. It was published in the Journal of the Biological Photographic Association, which is now known as the Journal of Biocommunication.

Their website has this to say;

JBC Editors

Each member association of The Journal of Biocommunication may select one Editor, whose responsibility it is to secure manuscript material and assure technical accuracy, validity, and usefulness of the Journal's content. Each Editor works with an Editorial Review Board selected by the sponsor association. Members of the Editorial Review Board critique and edit articles, and provide other editorial assistance, at the request of the Editor. The JBC accepts unsolicited materials for consideration. Unsolicited Materials may be submitted to the Managing Editor or to any of the Association Editors for consideration. For more information, please see contributors.

As well as this;

The Journal of Biocommunication welcomes unsolicited materials for consideration. Such materials are reviewed by selected referees for the Features, Columns, Gallery, and Calendar sections and the Cover. Through submission of manuscripts, authors warrant that articles have not been published previously and that they will assign copyright for the article to the JBC with a signed "transfer of copyright." Additionally, authors are asked not to submit articles concurrently to the JBC and to another journal or publication.

Also, I can't find it in any impact factor listing.

 

[Humots]

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

In fact, I do agree that:

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

And as for

Humots,
- I gotta say, this is why I "love" probability -- it provides such great mental challenges. But then, I gotta admit that sometimes I'm not up to the particular challenge...
- Anyway, take a look at .../Act2Scene2.php.
- I do use Bayesian statistics in my argument for immortality, but I'm still hoping -- and, to a large extent, thinking -- that the Bayes Theorem doesn't really apply to my cards example. The cards example doesn't have any "background knowledge" to worry about.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

Bayes' Theorem does most definitely apply to your card example, whatever you hope or think. I don't know what you mean by the card example not having any "background knowledge".

As for your argument on immortality, your argument is pure numerology. All you are doing is writing out an "equation" and assigning values to get the results you want.

By the way, if you are actually using Bayes' Theorem in your argument, shouldn't the initial formula for your probability be (assuming P(NR) + P(R) = 1.0)

P(NR|me & k) = P(me & k|NR)P(NR) / (P(me & k|NR)P(NR) + P(me & k|R)P(R))?

 

[Lucian]

Seconded.

 

[Olowkow]

Oh, sorry. Posted in error.

I don't actually have anything to add to this astute observation.

But, but you're the TLA Language Award award winner! If you can't do "astute" who can??

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

Wollery,
- That was my point. There is nothing special about the second deck -- but there is about the first deck. Why there is something special about the first deck is a little hard to explain, but if you kept drawing aces, at some point you'd get suspicious. And, you'd be suspicious because you've developed a new plausable hypothesis -- this might be a deck of all aces!
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Wollery,
- That was my point. There is nothing special about the second deck -- but there is about the first deck. Why there is something special about the first deck is a little hard to explain, but if you kept drawing aces, at some point you'd get suspicious. And, you'd be suspicious because you've developed a new plausable hypothesis -- this might be a deck of all aces!
--- Jabba

What had this got to do with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, other than to attempt to divert attention from your failure to address it?

Remember:

 

[Jabba]

Avatar

- As far as I know, it's legal to use this picture of Jabba the Hut(?) as my avatar. Am I right?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

What had this got to do with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, other than to attempt to divert attention from your failure to address it?

Catsmate,
-I was using probability to support my claim that the carbon dating is invalid. I was then accused (in effect) of not knowing my probability from a hole in the ground. Here, I need to show, if I can, that I do.
--- Jabba