Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I almost agree with your statement. I should have said that several knowledgeable people have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary, and have given me their reasoning.
--- Rich

No, Rich--just no.

You do not "almost agree" with my statement. You repudiate it on its face.

Your attempt to characterize what, for instance, Dinwar has explained to you about how blinding is not routinely done with radiometric dating, and what control samples are used for, and how calibration works, as "claiming that blind testing is unnecessary", is dishonest, stubbornly obdurate, and wrong.

Dinwar did not "claim" that blind testing is "unnecessary"; instead, he demonstrated to you, from real-world, practical, professional experience, why blinding is not done.

You want there to be evidence of impropriety; you need someone to have been incompetent, dishonest or venal, so that you can dismiss the date you do not like as "wrong".

You really, really, ought to face facts.

 

[Lucian]

I hadn't previously read the Nature paper because I assumed it would be written in science, a language I neither speak nor read, but everyone else seemed to be reading it, and I didn't want to be left out. So, after a brief argument with my library's databases, I had the paper in my hot little hands. It seems to me that most of the major objections made to the dating are already pre-answered in that paper. For instance, the shroud was examined by a bunch of people, including two textile experts, and the sample was taken in an area "away from any patches or charred areas" (612). And, as has been mentioned repeatedly, each lab thoroughly cleaned the samples, using different methods, and yet they came up with remarkably similar results. Thus, it seems to me that most of the objections amount to saying, "Hnuh uh!" Am I missing something?

The only burning question that remains is, where did the upper-case "u" in STURP come from? Please tell me it's not from TUrin.

 

[Belz...]

If this keeps up, the level of dishonesty will be so high in this thread that we'll have to wear NBC suits to participate.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Could I have a copy of the paper by PM too, please?

 

[pgwenthold]

Am I missing something?

Other than the fact that some folks refuse to admit reality?

No.

 

[The Norseman]

Ian,
- Several people here have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary in C14 testing for the reason you give. What they have said makes sense, and I suspect that they, and you, are correct -- just that, without doing a LOT of time consuming thinking about it, I can't fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process...
--- Jabba

Slowvehicle,
- I almost agree with your statement. I should have said that several knowledgeable people have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary, and have given me their reasoning.
--- Rich

Good thing that two of the three labs did exactly what you're complaining about anyway, and all three came up with amazingly similar results. Thus, NO BIAS CREPT INTO THE RESULTS. So why do you still continue with this "line of reasoning"?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Good thing that two of the three labs did exactly what you're complaining about anyway, and all three came up with amazingly similar results. Thus, NO BIAS CREPT INTO THE RESULTS. So why do you still continue with this "line of reasoning"?

Clutching at straws, to try to avoid the inevitable: accepting that the results are just fine. Well, more like the singular, straw. Heck, not even that. More like a single, tiny, dried up blade of gras. A virtually decomposed one at that...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[catsmate]

I hadn't previously read the Nature paper because I assumed it would be written in science, a language I neither speak nor read, but everyone else seemed to be reading it, and I didn't want to be left out.

Because of their intended audience many Nature papers are 'chewy' rather than 'crunchy' with regard to their technical content.

So, after a brief argument with my library's databases, I had the paper in my hot little hands. It seems to me that most of the major objections made to the dating are already pre-answered in that paper. For instance, the shroud was examined by a bunch of people, including two textile experts, and the sample was taken in an area "away from any patches or charred areas" (612). And, as has been mentioned repeatedly, each lab thoroughly cleaned the samples, using different methods, and yet they came up with remarkably similar results. Thus, it seems to me that most of the objections amount to saying, "Hnuh uh!" Am I missing something?

I suspect Jabba, and most shroudies have never bothered to read it.
Talking of shroudies I wonder will JP be returning or has he gone off in a huff.

The only burning question that remains is, where did the upper-case "u" in STURP come from? Please tell me it's not from TUrin.

Hmmm, good question. I don't know. I've only ever seen it written as STURP never STuRP.

Could I have a copy of the paper by PM too, please?

This Dropbox link should work.

 

[Belz...]

Because of their intended audience many Nature papers are 'chewy' rather than 'crunchy' with regard to their technical content.

Er.. what ?

 

[Agatha]

The only burning question that remains is, where did the upper-case "u" in STURP come from? Please tell me it's not from TUrin.

It is from TUrin.

The only thing Jabba has left is to stamp his foot and say "but I want it to be real!" in the manner of a small child upset because he has to wait until his birthday to open his presents. It doesn't make the birthday come any quicker, and it doesn't change the accuracy of the shroud dating results.

 

[IanS]

-- just that, without doing a LOT of time consuming thinking about it, I can't fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process...
--- Jabba

If we ask for a need to "fully dismiss the possibility" in anything, then we ask for the impossible.

There is always the possibility that things may not be what they seem. That's even true in pure maths - although we talk about "proof" in maths, all such proofs involve some degree of assumption or some if‘s-&-but‘s, even for 1+1=2.

But that does not mean we are at liberty to treat all possibilities as equally likely.

It's not scientifically likely that the sun will stop shining tomorrow (because we understand the science that explains how our Sun "shines"), but still it is just about possible.

So just because there are two opposing claims (eg creationism vs. evolution), does not mean that the two claims are equally likely.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This Dropbox link should work.

It does, thanks. And thanks also to Christian Klippel for the PM.

 

[catsmate]

Er.. what ?

Sorry Terminology used by one of my professors that's stuck with me.
A 'chewy' publication requires basic understanding of scientific concepts but is fairly self-contained in its content.
A 'crunchy' paper or journal is focused at a narrower audience with detailed understanding of the topic and presupposes such knowledge.

 

[Jabba]

If we ask for a need to "fully dismiss the possibility" in anything, then we ask for the impossible.

There is always the possibility that things may not be what they seem. That's even true in pure maths - although we talk about "proof" in maths, all such proofs involve some degree of assumption or some if‘s-&-but‘s, even for 1+1=2.

But that does not mean we are at liberty to treat all possibilities as equally likely.

It's not scientifically likely that the sun will stop shining tomorrow (because we understand the science that explains how our Sun "shines"), but still it is just about possible.

So just because there are two opposing claims (eg creationism vs. evolution), does not mean that the two claims are equally likely.

Ian,
- No disagreement there.
- This is where I'd use the term "reasonable doubt."
- So far, I just think that there is reasonable doubt that subjectivity is precluded from the C14 process. My mind can change -- but, to the extent to which I can read it, I currently find reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

 

[Akri]

Ian,
- No disagreement there.
- This is where I'd use the term "reasonable doubt."
- So far, I just think that there is reasonable doubt that subjectivity is precluded from the C14 process. My mind can change -- but, to the extent to which I can read it, I currently find reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

What makes this doubt reasonable?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- No disagreement there.
- This is where I'd use the term "reasonable doubt."
- So far, I just think that there is reasonable doubt that subjectivity is precluded from the C14 process. My mind can change -- but, to the extent to which I can read it, I currently find reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

...all because you do not "like" the date discovered by three independent labs.

You say your "mind can change"...I'll bite. What would it take to change your mind? What would it take for you to see that it is your subjective need, not the supposed incompetence, dishonesty, or collusion of the technicians, that is the problem? What would it take for you to stop maligning people whose work you are not competent to judge?

 

[Belz...]

Ian,
- No disagreement there.

Ah, then we're done ?

- This is where I'd use the term "reasonable doubt."
- So far, I just think that there is reasonable doubt that subjectivity is precluded from the C14 process. My mind can change -- but, to the extent to which I can read it, I currently find reasonable doubt.

No, you don't. REASONABLE doubt is when you are entertaining a very real possibility. What you are currently doing is entertaining impossible scenarios in order to maintain what you have already admitted is a need to believe the shroud is real. Your doubt is completely UNREASONABLE.

There is nothing left to discuss, since you have A) admitted that the evidence is conclusive and B) that your objections are irrational. So we're done until such time as you decide to let go of your predetermined conclusion and go with the damn evidence, no matter where it leads.

 

[Mister Earl]

What makes this doubt reasonable?

Reasonable only in that it's the last floating plank of the currently sinking good ship "Easy Credulity".

Cast off, Jabba. Swim to shore. The people here on the isle of reason might be unfamiliar to you, but damned if these sandy beaches aren't comfy.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Haha, "reasonable doubt". I'm wondering how that works out for a believer going to a butcher?

Believer: I think your scale is subjective. It's biased against me whenever i buy beef. OK, it seems to fine when i buy saussage, but for beef...

Butcher: Well, lets see... (drops a kilogram of beef on the scale) There, one kilogram. (drops a kilogram of saussage on the scale) See, still one kilogram!

Believer: But no, no! It sure seems biased to me!

Butcher: Alright then, lets send out some beef and saussage packages to other folks and let them weigh it. Here, i make 1 kilogram packages of each. Just for the funsies, i include cheese, pork and even a standard 1 kilogram weight!

<Time passes>

Butcher: OK, see, here it is. Every other butcher got back to me and here is the paper: It says that every one of them meassured the stuff being one kilogram, give or take a bit due to tolerances.

Believer: Hmm, i see. But there still is reasonable doubt! I think your scale is cheating on me when i buy beef here!

....

Do these folks really walk around in the real world and do this? According to what is going on here it must be so....

Greetings,

Chris

 

[catsmate]

- This is where I'd use the term "reasonable doubt."

Do you actually understand what "reasonable doubt" means?