Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

The thing is, though, wardenclyffe, over the last couple of pages catsmate1 pointed out that over the three independent labs there were some scientists who were 'wanting' or at least expecting a 1st century date.

Agatha,

- That's what Catsmate said they said.

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dinwar,
- The following is my story from 5870, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

- Ian has since commented on those reasons, and I'll respond as soon as possible.Dinwar,

- For whatever reasons, that was the part I was missing. Thanks.

- Whatever, I now accept that the controls were effective for the purpose you give, and that the purpose you give must be the primary purpose for controls in carbon dating in general...
- I now accept that my thinking was incorrect when I said that I thought that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were ineffective -- but then, I'm sure that there is no reason for me to apologize...
- If you wish, let me know, and I'll try to explain.

- Though, I still don't understand how the controls fit into "calibration." When I looked up calibration, it didn't seem to involve the controls. Calibration seemed to simply use the typical effects on the C14 of potential localities and time periods -- e.g. Palestine, 2000 years ago and France 700 years ago -- as provided in standard "calibration curves."


--- Jabba

So your "thinking" led you to think that you could assume that the ¹⁴C dates were subjective enough to be no more than a matter of opinion, leaving the scientists who got what you consider the "wronG" date to be dishonest enough to substitute the date they wanted for the date they actually found...

And you do not feel that you calm assumption of conspiracy, incompetence, or dishonesty, fueled by bias, applied in an impossible way to a process you do not understand, and baldy stated as something you think everyone involved agrees with?

Imagine the ire that would be unleashed if one were to go on one of the hard-core sidonist sites and post, "I think that everyone who says they believe the medieval cloth to be the True Shroud^TM actually agrees that there is no way that could even plausibly be possible, given all of the anatomical, historical, physical, and artistic failures of the image on the cloth."

I am astonished that you are not ashamed. (Or, at the minimum, a bit embarrassed and contrite.)

 

[Akri]

- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural?

Not necessarily--plenty of scientists are religious (and many of those are Christians). Besides, even if all of them were biased against believing in the supernatural it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I'd add that when the Vatican (which runs its own laboratories and has plenty of scientists of its own) chose scientists to date the Shroud, it might well have been biased towards choosing scientists who were Christians and hoping for a first-century date. I have no evidence this was the case, but it makes at least as much sense as assuming they were all atheists and biased in the other direction.

 

[pgwenthold]

- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural?

Wait a minute - are you saying that there is something about the shroud that is supernatural?

If the shroud itself is supernatural, then there is no reason to waste time to talk about natural investigations of it.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.

In what way do you see this alleged "lack of subconscious objectivity" as having affected the results of the C14 testing?

- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural?

Carbon dating does not test for the supernatural.

How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

Approximately 8.938315.

Why do you ask?

 

[Olowkow]

This just in.
A Critical Review of Giulio Fanti’s New Book: Unreliable Results Because of Inadequacy of Methods

Fanti has obtained some antique fabrics from different eras of approximately known date. He conducted three sets of measurements using three different methods. In the first and second series he measured certain alterations of cellulose using spectroscopic methods – Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy. For spectroscopic analyses Fanti turned to two more professors, Anna Tinti of Bologna and Pietro Baraldi of Modena. In the third series he measured a set of mechanical parameters, for example the behavior of fibers under tension and the breaking load (with the assistance of a doctoral student, Pierandrea Malfi).

Fanti says that he has not found in the literature similar calibration curves for these three methods, and supposes that they have been introduced by him for the first time.

Bottom line:

In short, I believe that the results are unreliable, not for any doubts about the origin of the material, but for the inadequacy of the methods used.

 

[catsmate]

<much snippage>1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding;

Untrue. As has been explained to you many times. When proper scientists, i.e. not STURP, joined the planning for the radiocarbon dating the "blinding" was dropped. For the reasons I've explained several times.

Agatha,

- That's what Catsmate said they said.

If you don't believe me I suggest you do some reading. Most of the better books on the process cover the reactions of those involved.

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

Sigh. Not every believer needs the shroud to be genuine to prop up their beliefs. It's entirely possible to be an xian and accept the reality of the shroud being a medieval fake.

Not necessarily--plenty of scientists are religious (and many of those are Christians). Besides, even if all of them were biased against believing in the supernatural it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date.

Indeed.

 

[Lucian]

Agatha,

- That's what Catsmate said they said.

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

- Did anyone else briefly wonder if "21 carbon dating" is a new dating method?
- Also, what do my expectations concerning the supernatural beliefs of the scientists have to do with anything?
--- Lucian

 

[Jabba]

Not necessarily--plenty of scientists are religious (and many of those are Christians). Besides, even if all of them were biased against believing in the supernatural it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date.

Akri,

- I agree, "not necessarily." But, I would expect a significant probability of a significant majority of skeptics in the groups -- especially amongst those leading the groups...
- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential? What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious).
- I just think that we humans are very poor at keeping our biases at bay if there is any room at all for their expression.
- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Control samples.

FYI. Regarding the three control samples used during the radiocarbon dating.

Two of the three were provided by Professor Michael Tite, of the British Museum's research laboratory, and the third [referred to as Sample 4 in the documentation and being threads of the cope of St. Louis of Anjou, who died in 1297CE] by Gabriel Vial, from the International Center for Study of Ancient Textiles in Lyon. The reason for Vial providing the third control sample was the difficulty in Tite obtaining a reliably dated fabric sample from ~1300CE.

The three samples were split into three (for the three labs) during the same process where the shroud sample was taken, and in the presence of the same people. They were then packaged, in foil and steel tubes, similarly to the shroud samples.

 

[Agatha]

View Post
The thing is, though, wardenclyffe, over the last couple of pages catsmate1 pointed out that over the three independent labs there were some scientists who were 'wanting' or at least expecting a 1st century date.

Agatha,

- That's what Catsmate said they said.

Indeed, I attributed the words to catsmate1 in my post which you yourself quoted.

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

Personally, I don't think it matters whether all 21 scientists were young earth creationists or hard atheists or anything in between - as long as they followed the scientific method and performed the work they were tasked to do objectively.

You are the one suggesting, rather rudely as far as the scientists posting in this thread are concerned, that some kind of 'subconscious bias' on the part of the scientists affected all three laboratories in a way that made them all (including the two which introduced a step of blinding at the final analysis stage) magically come up with the same wrong date. Your claim, you need to support it with facts instead of insinuations and suppositions.

With radiocarbon dating there is no subjective evaluation at any part of the process - what you get out is hard numbers. The analysis equipment, like a calibrated thermometer, is not susceptible to bias; you get a number and that is it.

How do you suggest this 'subconscious bias' affected all the scientists - both those who were interested and hoping for a 1st century date, as well as those who were hoping for a more modern date? In what way did this 'subconscious bias' affect the actual numbers produced by the radiocarbon testing process?

I don't know if it's projection or just a lack of proper understanding, Jabba, that is causing you to see liars, incompetents and cheats at every turn and at every step of the radiocarbon dating process. But until you can come up with a way in which three separate laboratories could all arrive at the same range of incorrect dates, despite two of them not knowing which were the questioned samples at the final stage, then all you have is unfounded supposition based on nothing more than a desire to believe that a piece of cloth is something which it is not.

I really, really would like to believe that my bank account has a million pounds in it, but reality doesn't work that way. Every time I log into my internet bank account I am disappointed anew at the lack of funds in there, but I don't accuse my bank manager and all the staff of a 'subconscious bias' to keep me poor. Instead, I accept that reality is not the way I would like it to be.

 

[Akhenaten]

<pointless nattering>

- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

Your arguments are a sad, tired joke.

It's been obvious from the beginning that the above is all you were ever likely to bring to this discussion.

Thank Isis for the many others who have had something useful to add, although I'm starting to wonder if it hasn't backfired a little in having ended up encouraging you to make more and more bizarre claims for no better reason than the attention they bring you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Akri,

- I agree, "not necessarily." But, I would expect a significant probability of a significant majority of skeptics in the groups -- especially amongst those leading the groups...
- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential? What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious).
- I just think that we humans are very poor at keeping our biases at bay if there is any room at all for their expression.
- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

How are you not embarrassed to continue to allege that the people doing the testing were so incompetent, so dishonest, so--well, "stupid" applies--to "ignore" a "patch" (or "some patching") as "inconsequential"? STURP's photographs show that the corner is of a piece with the rest of the cloth.

I understand that you want, no, need to believe that the cloth is the True Shroud^TM, but that does not give you leave to simply decide that the testers were incompetent, deluded, or simply dishonest (and all in the same direction, and to the same degree), with no evidence other than your desperate need. How is your faith supported by obdurate, dishonest character assassination?

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,

- That's what Catsmate said they said.

- I'm not suggesting any dishonesty on the part of Catsmate -- as pretty much always, I'm suggesting a lack of subconscious objectivity on everybody's part (mine included), and a need to see the sources.
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

Nobody was asking them to believe in the supernatural!!!. If it had dated to the first century AD, there's nothing supernatural about that!!! One of the control dated to the first century. That doen't make the control supernatural!!!!

This also has been explained to you repeatedly.

If you repeat this example of fuzzy thinking again, I shall reply with even more exclamation marks and some boldface fonts!!!

 

[Akri]

- I agree, "not necessarily." But, I would expect a significant probability of a significant majority of skeptics in the groups -- especially amongst those leading the groups...

Based on what? Aside from you wanting a reason to distrust them, I mean.

- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential?

There is no patching, so this is an impossibility.

What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious).

Then they would be guilty of fraud. Are you accusing them of fraud?

- I just think that we humans are very poor at keeping our biases at bay if there is any room at all for their expression.
- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

Just because you can't keep your biases at bay doesn't mean others can't.

 

[IanS]

- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural? How many is some -- or even, several?
--- Jabba

They were not of course being asked to determine whether anything was supernatural. They were only asked to use their C14 instrumentation to date a piece of the cloth.

The only question was - what would the date be? Would it be from around the time Jesus, or not?

 

[Belz...]

Akri,

- I agree, "not necessarily." But, I would expect a significant probability of a significant majority of skeptics in the groups -- especially amongst those leading the groups...
- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential? What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious).
- I just think that we humans are very poor at keeping our biases at bay if there is any room at all for their expression.
- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

Ah, I see you are still accusing the scientists of being biased and evil. There is no hope for you to be honest in this debate.

 

[IanS]

- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation.

Well of course there is and explanation. The explanation is very obvious. The explanation, which was stated by all three labs, is simply that they all found that the cloth dated from 1260-1390AD.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Did anyone else briefly wonder if "21 carbon dating" is a new dating method?

--- Lucian