Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

I've seen it before. A documentary it ain't. In the interest of fairness I'm watching it again now. Twenty minutes into it, I'm not impressed.

I saw it a while ago, I remember a mish-mash of all the claims we've seen in this thread all presented in a breathless, awed manner with the obligatory"Needs moar testing" as a conclusion.

 

[Belz...]

You take a sample of a known substance with known date which visually looks identical, and give both sample to the same lab to testing without sayign which is which. You can do the same with the resultings burnt gas too.

Usually not done in physic because there is usually no experimenter bias, you only read an instrument results. Unlike in medicine where there can be influence of experimenter onto patient and patient himself.

Ok but in order to be useful we have to assume that the scientists ignored data, not merely misinterpreted it. In other words, that the scientists are frauds.

 

[John Jones]

I saw it a while ago, I remember a mish-mash of all the claims we've seen in this thread all presented in a breathless, awed manner with the obligatory"Needs moar testing" as a conclusion.

This.

Every claim of 1st century authenticity is accepted. Every bit of scientific evidence to the contrary means that science is wrong or incomplete.

Shroudies are as obstinate as Moon Hoax Believers

 

[Dinwar]

Just on a practical point between the rest of us, although it may be of no interest to Jabba and JabbaPapa - in most research labs, the experimental equipment is operated by technicians or by post docs (sometimes by post grads), rather than by the senior profs or scientific head of the lab.

It's a common joke that the more prestige you get in science, the less science you actually do. I was doing Lake Erie water testing as an undergrad; the only time the professors involved in the project came into my lab was when I asked them to, and I usually spent a day fixing things once they left!

And I got MAD when they let the grad students in....There was an acetalyne torch atomic absorption spectromiter attached to my graphite furnace one, and the grad students broke the regulator on the acetalyne tank. I couldn't work for three days, and was really, really nervious the fourth day when I had to show a professor how it worked.

Professor: "Why did you exhale like that? Is everything all right?"
Me: "Well, the fact that we're not a smoking crator means everything's just fine. Now, let's talk about your students using my equipment!"

heck even as a foreigner i know the history channel turned to crap entertainment channel some times ago .

When Deadliest Warrior came out the folks at Armor Archive (a forum for armor makers) offered to donate historically accurate armor for various parts of the show--mostly for the Medieval/Roman/Greek time period stuff (though some of the Japanese armourers are doing amazing things with historically accurate samuri armor!). This is an astounding offer--we're talking thousands of dollars worth of armor, because these people thought this was a show that was worth making. They were told, essentially, "Thanks but no thanks. Your stuff is too authentic."

That was the last time I had any respect for The History Channel. Anyone who has the audacitiy to claim that something is "too authentic" has lost more credibility than Jabba has.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

At least Deadliest Warrior has some value as a "turn-off-your-brain-and-watch" entertainment show.

A show on the shroud of Turin? Not so much.

 

[wardenclyffe]

OK, I'm going to write something that might not be all that popular around here. I think if the standards applied to the 14C testing of the shroud had been applied to the testing on homeopathy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcBHKMJDHaU, we would not be very pleased.

I do not believe that it alters (or should alter) the outcomes of the three separate shroud tests, nor do I believe that there were any shenanigans nor do I see motive for any shenanigans.

I'm just saying that if the same standards in the shroud test had been allowed in the homeopathy test, we would not be happy with such a test.

Ward

 

[IanS]

It's a common joke that the more prestige you get in science, the less science you actually do. I was doing Lake Erie water testing as an undergrad; the only time the professors involved in the project came into my lab was when I asked them to, and I usually spent a day fixing things once they left!

And I got MAD when they let the grad students in....There was an acetalyne torch atomic absorption spectromiter attached to my graphite furnace one, and the grad students broke the regulator on the acetalyne tank. I couldn't work for three days, and was really, really nervious the fourth day when I had to show a professor how it worked.

Professor: "Why did you exhale like that? Is everything all right?"
Me: "Well, the fact that we're not a smoking crator means everything's just fine. Now, let's talk about your students using my equipment!"

.

Yep. In the first year of my PhD I was in a large chemistry lab synthesising a particular group of compounds that I wanted to study. To check each stage of the synthesis I used a lot of 1H and 13C NMR. You could run the spectra yourself if you wanted to, but we had a couple of full time NMR technicians who were so much better that it was just counter-productive to do it yourself - you could spend all weekend trying to get a well resolved spectrum, only for one of the technicians to drop in and get a better resolved spectrum in minuets, simply because they knew very precisely how to tune the spectrometer perfectly for different samples.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm just saying that if the same standards in the shroud test had been allowed in the homeopathy test, we would not be happy with such a test.

And if the standards used in beer-brewing were used to construct a skyscraper the death toll would be in the thousands.

Medical testing is a completely different situation than C14 dating, and applying the standards of one situation to the other is a serious fallacy.

The main issue is that medical work requires dealing with a variable population, and subjective data. Everyone reacts differently to medication, based on their unique biochemistry. In contrast, C14 is C14 is C14--it doesn't matter where it's from. So sampling a small subset is more than sufficient for proving the whole cloth's age.

By the standards of C14 dating, the shroud's samples were more than ample. In fact, they are the apex of the standards applied by those who sample C14 dating--multiple times over and above what is required to provide good data. When we look at the samples in terms of the appropriate protocols, they are superb.

 

[The Norseman]

OK, I'm going to write something that might not be all that popular around here. I think if the standards applied to the 14C testing of the shroud had been applied to the testing on homeopathy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcBHKMJDHaU, we would not be very pleased.
I do not believe that it alters (or should alter) the outcomes of the three separate shroud tests, nor do I believe that there were any shenanigans nor do I see motive for any shenanigans.

I'm just saying that if the same standards in the shroud test had been allowed in the homeopathy test, we would not be happy with such a test.

Ward

What standards are those that were in the video that you believe should have been applied in the TS case?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Dinwar and Norseman,

The homeopathy testing on the Horizon show was not on patients, it was objective testing on samples.

And I'm not saying that the standards from the homeopathy test should have been applied to the shroud tests, I'm just saying that if the shroud test standards were applied to the homeopathy tests, then we would not be happy.

I'm trying to look at it from Jabba's point of view.

From the skeptic's point of view, the basic scientific standards for a 14C test were followed properly and three different labs performed the test independently.

The homeopathy test had extra blinding and scrutiny. The shroud believers probably want the same thing for the 14C tests, but that's gonna be hard since medieval samples, like the shroud, will look different from 1st century samples like the controls.

Ward

 

[Belz...]

Shroudies are as obstinate as Moon Hoax Believers

But not half as entertaining.

 

[Belz...]

I'm trying to look at it from Jabba's point of view.

That's going to be long and painful. See you in 30 years.

 

[The Norseman]

Dinwar and Norseman,

The homeopathy testing on the Horizon show was not on patients, it was objective testing on samples.

And I'm not saying that the standards from the homeopathy test should have been applied to the shroud tests, I'm just saying that if the shroud test standards were applied to the homeopathy tests, then we would not be happy.

I'm trying to look at it from Jabba's point of view.

From the skeptic's point of view, the basic scientific standards for a 14C test were followed properly and three different labs performed the test independently.

The homeopathy test had extra blinding and scrutiny. The shroud believers probably want the same thing for the 14C tests, but that's gonna be hard since medieval samples, like the shroud, will look different from 1st century samples like the controls.

Ward

Okay, I think I understand. My rebuttal to that is that two of the three labs did, in fact, use blinded sampling/testing and according to Dinwar (especially so) it was the most scrutinized sampling ever in the history of the machine. Sorry for the hyperbole.

 

[The Norseman]

That's going to be long and painful. See you in 30 years.

LOL

Yeah, and don't forget to show up completely unprepared.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm trying to look at it from Jabba's point of view.

Oh, that's simple. Jabba came to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic before examining any data. Now he's attempting to find data to support that notion. Anything which does not support it, he is trying to find ways to dismiss. It's a very common logical error.

The problem with the homeopathy thing is, blinding simply isn't necessary. It looks like the gold standard from the outside, but it offeres nothing to experiments that do not include a subjective component. All it does is offer another point where error can occur. What would blinding do? What difference does a sample ID make to a nuclear reactor? As long as the reactor is running right (which the standard samples proved) and the data is tied to the correct sample ID, the data is what it is.

There are two better ways to ensure accuracy, both of which were done in this test: people with different biases (meaning desires to see different outcomes) analyzed the data and agreed that it was good, and duplicate samples were take--2 duplicates for every 1 sample, or 20 TIMES what the EPA calls for for environmental sampling. They literally took the standards, added a zero to the end, and then doubled it just to be sure.

Blinding is like safe words: it appears absolutely necessary to people who are interested in the subject, but to people who actually know the subject it's one tool among many, and over-reliance upon it can actually cripple research.

 

[IanS]

Dinwar and Norseman,

The homeopathy testing on the Horizon show was not on patients, it was objective testing on samples.

And I'm not saying that the standards from the homeopathy test should have been applied to the shroud tests, I'm just saying that if the shroud test standards were applied to the homeopathy tests, then we would not be happy.

I'm trying to look at it from Jabba's point of view.

From the skeptic's point of view, the basic scientific standards for a 14C test were followed properly and three different labs performed the test independently.

The homeopathy test had extra blinding and scrutiny. The shroud believers probably want the same thing for the 14C tests, but that's gonna be hard since medieval samples, like the shroud, will look different from 1st century samples like the controls.

Ward

Which part of that horizon program on homeopathy seems to you to cast doubt on the accuracy of the C14 dating on the shroud?

The link is to an entire TV program. I’ve watched the first 20 min, ie up to the point when the investigators from Nature (inc. Randi) discovered that the +ve effect was apparently due simply to the lab staff knowing which of two samples had been in contact with the dilute homeopathic soln.

However, that particular outcome at 20 min in the program, is clearly not comparable or relevant to the way that C14 dating was done on the shroud.

I don’t want to spend another 30 min. watching a popular TV program about homeopathy, only to find that there is nothing else which undermines the C14 dating of the shroud. So, is there something more in the remainder of that program which you believe to show problems with C14 dating of the shroud?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Blinding is one way to prevent something that is completely nefarious from happening. In the case of the homeopathy tests, I (and I assume other skeptics) expect that the lab had been skewing their own results accidentally or intentionally to make it seem like homeopathy produced positive results in the lab. The blinding in that case helps to prevent that kind of deception.

Shroudies, when you boil it down, believe that scientists are part of a grand conspiracy which includes the Catholic Church. While the machines might all be accurate, there are all kinds of opportunities to pull a switcheroo.

If the shroud controls were used in the homeopathy testing and the homeopathy results were positive, would we accept the results on face value, or would we assume that the pro-homeopathy lab was still skewing the results because they were not properly blinded?

I understand that in the case of the homeopathy test that the lab was a specific proponent of homeopathy and that in the case of the shroud test that the three independent labs had nothing to gain no matter what the outcome. But the shroud authenticity proponents, despite their claims to the contrary, are conspiracy theorists who believe that those three labs were in cahoots with the church to hide the true nature of the shroud. They believe it the same way that we would believe that a pro-homeopathy lab would cheat in order to prove that homeopathy was real.

Their beliefs are wrong and the skeptics are correct, but that's what's at work here.

Ward

 

[Dinwar]

Blinding is one way to prevent something that is completely nefarious from happening.

Not really. Sometimes, it can cause it. SOMEONE has to keep the record of what the sample ID was that was the blind sample.

Ever read the field notes taken by a dislexic? I have. It isn't fun to figure out what samples go with what sample IDs.

In the case of the homeopathy tests, I (and I assume other skeptics) expect that the lab had been skewing their own results accidentally or intentionally to make it seem like homeopathy produced positive results in the lab. The blinding in that case helps to prevent that kind of deception.

Right--the problem is, this is impossible for a C14 test. The data are what they are; there's no way to skew a reactor. You can skew correction factors or calibration curves or whatever, but a careful examination of the final report will easily show that happening whether the samples were blinded or not.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong. What value does blinding a C14 sample add? If there's nothing, than what I've stated is correct. If there is some value, I don't know it.

Shroudies, when you boil it down, believe that scientists are part of a grand conspiracy which includes the Catholic Church. While the machines might all be accurate, there are all kinds of opportunities to pull a switcheroo.

Once you start down that road (at least, in the absence of evidence) the rest of us may as well give up. Unless there is video footage of every second of the process, shroudies will always say "But they COULD have switched it!" And even if there was such footage, they'll claim that it was altered. Even if one of them saw it every step of the way they'd assume it's a magic trick.

NOTHING will satisfy them. That's because, as I said, they're reaching the conclusion first and then trying to find supporting evidence. The conspiracy thing is a symptom, not a cause.

If the shroud controls were used in the homeopathy testing and the homeopathy results were positive, would we accept the results on face value, or would we assume that the pro-homeopathy lab was still skewing the results because they were not properly blinded?

Depends on how the test was run. If it's a test of what the pills contain, blinding is irrelevant--and that's the ONLY analogous test to the C14 sampling (because C14 dating is literally nothing more than looking at how much C14 is in the sample).

 

[Pixel42]

It's quite a while since I saw that Horizon programme but IIRC the homeopathy test required the scientists to visually inspect the samples in a microscope and assign them to one of two categories. Subjective judgement was used, which is why the blinding was necessary. In the case of the C14 dating no subjective judgement is required, it's just a case of taking a reading.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Once you start down that road (at least, in the absence of evidence) the rest of us may as well give up. Unless there is video footage of every second of the process, shroudies will always say "But they COULD have switched it!" And even if there was such footage, they'll claim that it was altered. Even if one of them saw it every step of the way they'd assume it's a magic trick.

NOTHING will satisfy them. That's because, as I said, they're reaching the conclusion first and then trying to find supporting evidence. The conspiracy thing is a symptom, not a cause.

I agree completely, but this is their mindset. If results from a pro-homeopathy lab came back in favor of homeopathy, I think our (or at least my) mindset would be very similar regarding those tests.

Ward