Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Garrette]

hughfarey,

In response to this portion of my post (snipping is yours):

You insist the scientists were both biased and unwilling to control for bias. ... Further, you choose to continue misrepresenting the actual science. ... You do this while ... calling all the scientists in question liars and incompetent fools.

You replied:

I didn't notice this in Jabba's last post.

--snip--

2.1.4.2. I ultimately concluded that
2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.
2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.
2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).
2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.
2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.
2.1.4.3. Surely there was a lot of ego involvement re the outcome of all this, and most likely the carbon dating scientists were happy to date only one small piece and not open the floor to the potential for “outliers” and doubt.[/COLOR][/B]

If you cannot see the obvious subtext of biased and incompetent scientists then you have either not read enough of the thread or are misreading Jabba.

I will, however, grant you that my point about Jabba misrepresenting the actual science in this instance is a small stretch, and while I think my sentiment reflects Jabba's overall approach accurately, I will retract with apologies for this specific statement.

 

[Garrette]

No problem. And what's more, I won't call you a liar or dishonest,

That's quite fine. I assume you will stick to this standard even when you conclude that Jabba is lying and dishonest. The rest of us, however, have chosen to characterize his behavior honestly and accurately. If that strikes you as poor sportsmanship then it becomes a different discussion, but it does not make your form of interaction a superior one merely because it avoids discomforting truths.

and if I find reading your posts a waste of time, I won't waste even more time telling you what a waste of time it was. If you say something I disagree with, I won't tell you you are silly or embarrassing or a crackpot or talking nonsense (even if you are!)

It might behoove you to read what several people have posted in this thread on more than one occasion about their real motives for posting. I seem to recall we had a similar discussion already. A waste of time in regard to its expected impact upon Jabba does not equate to a waste of time in other regards. Your indirect insults are misplaced.

but explain where and why I disagree, with references to primary sources if I can.

So you will do what has been repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly done. Excellent. Perhaps Jabba will respond positively to the 54th time simply because it comes from you. Worth a shot.

Even if the reference has been given before, I will give it again, rather than simply say it's already been done pages ago.

Huzzah.

I will even try and make sense of all those numbers, which are a discourse layout method completely new to me, and, I have to say, not so far particularly edifying.

They actually are decipherable. What they are not is edifying.

Others, I feel sure, will be shaking their heads sadly and saying to themselves "He's wasting his time; we've gone through all this before; Jabba's an incalcitrant liar and will drive our latest convert to the brink of madness." Well, so be it. I only joined in on page 650 or so and am still fresh in mind and body. Maybe I'll end up in petty bickering, but for now, on with the show!

I don't think it's a waste of time. I will cheer you on and hope that together you can do what the rest of us have failed to do and bring Jabba to accept an evidence-based conclusion over a faith-based conclusion and in the course of it to gain a greater understanding of the scientific method and to cease his spurious claims about the motives and capabilities of the involved experts. I doubt it will happen, but if it does I will congratulate you.

It is not your intended interaction with Jabba that caused me to respond to this post; it is your apparent assumptions about everyone else's motives and methods to date. While we have none of us been perfect or completely objective at all times, we have been very patient and informative just as you plan to be now. Just stop thinking that your approach is novel to the rest of us.

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh,

Thanks for your response. I'll try to deal with one point at a time.

My current understanding is that the participants at the different meetings might have all been scientists, but that some of them represented the Church. Ballestrero, Riggi and Gonella all represented the Church.

How does that fit with your understanding?

Rich

Archbishop Ballestrero was certainly 'church,' but I think certainly not 'science.' His involvement with the science of the shroud was coincidental with his being the Archbishop of Turin at the time. After the dating, he was apparently happy to accept the 14th century date, although in old age he was quoted as claiming the whole process to have been a masonic plot.
Giovanni Riggi was 'science.' A stamp collector by trade, his interest in the shroud was technical rather than religious. I don't know what his view was of the date of the shroud, before or after its sampling. Gove suggests he was writing a book deploring the use of only one sampling site. That may have been what he was arguing with Gonella about, although his original involvement with the shroud came about because he was a personal friend of Gonella's.
Luigi Gonella was definitely both 'church' and 'science,' being both a Professor of Physics at Turin Polytechnic and Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop. However his interest in the shroud during 1988 appears to have been mainly political, and mostly typified by his antipathy to Carlos Chagas, of the Pontifical Academy of Science, who 'outranked' him until Gonella managed to have him ostracised. Gonella appears to have accepted the C14 date, although had hoped for authenticity.
Of these three, only Gonella was involved in meeting the other scientists. It could be said that he 'represented the church.'

 

[Belz...]

If no one is left, so be it.

However, if someone IS left, maybe we can 1) begin to understand each other, 2) actually make some progress towards resolving our differences and 3) show that actually effective debate between persons with "central" differences of opinion is not just possible, but is something we can deliberately do.

I'm hoping that Hugh will stick around. If he does, I think we can get somewhere.

The only "somewhere" we need to go is to a place where you admit that the C14 dating is incontrovertible proof that the shroud of Turin is a medieval fake.

 

[hugh farey]

Just to satisfy my own curiosity--did you read the entire thread, or just jump in @ 650?

After coming across Jabba incidentally in another world, I turned up on page 650, and read posts from about 550 onwards to try to join the highway at a decent speed. Later I started from the beginning and reached about page 50. I think I've probably read most of the other 500 pages by now, but doubt if I've covered them all!

ETA: Sorry, confused. See below. Turned up on post 6500, read 5500 onwards. Then started at the beginning and read the first 50 pages.

 

[Dinwar]

However, if someone IS left, maybe we can 1) begin to understand each other, 2) actually make some progress towards resolving our differences and 3) show that actually effective debate between persons with "central" differences of opinion is not just possible, but is something we can deliberately do.

See, here's the thing, Jabba--we aren't the barrier to any of those. YOU have ignored our arguments, YOU have insisted on continuously re-hashing arguments you yourself have admitted have been disprove, YOU have insisted on evading the central issues. YOU, Jabba. Not us--YOU.

If you would actually address the issues we presented, we may get somewhere. But as long as you continue to indulge in the fantasy where it's all our fault, it's hopeless. YOU are the one holding back this conversation.

 

[Olowkow]

Just to be certain that you have all the information, Hughfarey, these forums, and no doubt other blogs etc, contain endless repetitions of Jabba's claims.

http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4279
http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=225&start=360
http://shrouddebates.com/?author=1

 

[tsig]

No problem. And what's more, I won't call you a liar or dishonest, and if I find reading your posts a waste of time, I won't waste even more time telling you what a waste of time it was. If you say something I disagree with, I won't tell you you are silly or embarrassing or a crackpot or talking nonsense (even if you are!) but explain where and why I disagree, with references to primary sources if I can. Even if the reference has been given before, I will give it again, rather than simply say it's already been done pages ago. I will even try and make sense of all those numbers, which are a discourse layout method completely new to me, and, I have to say, not so far particularly edifying.

Others, I feel sure, will be shaking their heads sadly and saying to themselves "He's wasting his time; we've gone through all this before; Jabba's an incalcitrant liar and will drive our latest convert to the brink of madness." Well, so be it. I only joined in on page 650 or so and am still fresh in mind and body. Maybe I'll end up in petty bickering, but for now, on with the show!

Having only joined on 650 how can you be so dismissive of everything that's gone before?

 

[John Jones]

What is this 650 number anyway? I'm seeing more than 7400 posts spread-out over 186 pages? I believe I've got all the default settings for the forum.

 

[Olowkow]

For those who have difficulty using Google Translate, ....

Post #6459 was his first. For me, that's page 162.

 

[The Norseman]

If you don't want to engage with Jabba, then don't. If you do, you must do so on his terms to make him understand your point of view.

Does Jabba not also owe some responsibility to understand a differing point of view?

 

[zooterkin]

Post #6459 was his first. For me, that's page 162.

10 posts per page is a possible setting, though not the default.

 

[hugh farey]

Post #6459 was his first. For me, that's page 162.

Oh yes, quite right. I'm confusing my thousands and my hundreds and my posts and my pages.
Replay: Joined on page about 162, post about 6500. Read from post 5500 to catch up. Later read pages 1 - 50. Now thoroughly confused!

 

[hugh farey]

http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4279
http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=225&start=360
http://shrouddebates.com/?author=1

Goodness me. I didn't even know those existed! I'll have a look.

Having only joined on 650 how can you be so dismissive of everything that's gone before?

No you misunderstand. I can see many of you have had a good innings but have by now got rather tired of it all. I didn't want to be disrespectful of your earlier enthusiasm.

What is this 650 number anyway? I'm seeing more than 7400 posts spread-out over 186 pages? I believe I've got all the default settings for the forum.

10 posts per page is a possible setting, though not the default.

No you're right, I was a factor of ten out. It must be getting to me too...

 

[Dinwar]

No you misunderstand. I can see many of you have had a good innings but have by now got rather tired of it all.

Problem is, that's not what happened. We played the game. Jabba ignored the rules, and in fact has spent half the time trying to dictate the rules to us. Then the game ended--the C14 dating and lack of patching means that the 14th century side won.

Then Jabba demanded we play the entire game again. We did, and won again.

Repeat 5 or 6 times.

Now he's demanding we go into extra innings.

 

[John Jones]

Post #6459 was his first. For me, that's page 162.

Thank you. That corresponds to my recollections.

 

[John Jones]

Oh yes, quite right. I'm confusing my thousands and my hundreds and my posts and my pages.
Replay: Joined on page about 162, post about 6500. Read from post 5500 to catch up. Later read pages 1 - 50. Now thoroughly confused!

Anyone can get confuzzled. I'm thinking you have missed about 75% of the posts on this thread, but I could have miscalculated. If not, you have got a ways to go before you reach the level of frustration with Jabba that some of us have.

 

[tsig]

Problem is, that's not what happened. We played the game. Jabba ignored the rules, and in fact has spent half the time trying to dictate the rules to us. Then the game ended--the C14 dating and lack of patching means that the 14th century side won.

Then Jabba demanded we play the entire game again. We did, and won again.

Repeat 5 or 6 times.

Now he's demanding we go into extra innings.

While insisting we should play football.

 

[abaddon]

Goodness me. I didn't even know those existed! I'll have a look.

You know, HF, I just fail to believe you, because your agenda is clear.

Archbishop Ballestrero was certainly 'church,' but I think certainly not 'science.' His involvement with the science of the shroud was coincidental with his being the Archbishop of Turin at the time. After the dating, he was apparently happy to accept the 14th century date, although in old age he was quoted as claiming the whole process to have been a masonic plot.
Giovanni Riggi was 'science.' A stamp collector by trade, his interest in the shroud was technical rather than religious. I don't know what his view was of the date of the shroud, before or after its sampling. Gove suggests he was writing a book deploring the use of only one sampling site. That may have been what he was arguing with Gonella about, although his original involvement with the shroud came about because he was a personal friend of Gonella's.
Luigi Gonella was definitely both 'church' and 'science,' being both a Professor of Physics at Turin Polytechnic and Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop. However his interest in the shroud during 1988 appears to have been mainly political, and mostly typified by his antipathy to Carlos Chagas, of the Pontifical Academy of Science, who 'outranked' him until Gonella managed to have him ostracised. Gonella appears to have accepted the C14 date, although had hoped for authenticity.
Of these three, only Gonella was involved in meeting the other scientists. It could be said that he 'represented the church.'

After all your years of research, right.

 

[Olowkow]

Oh yes, quite right. I'm confusing my thousands and my hundreds and my posts and my pages.
Replay: Joined on page about 162, post about 6500. Read from post 5500 to catch up. Later read pages 1 - 50. Now thoroughly confused!

No problemo, that's what I thought you meant.

Dinwar is correct, this game has played itself out at least 6 times on this forum. I had actually set out a few weeks ago to count the iterations, and got so bored I gave up. The same exercise has been carried out for years on other forums. I would frankly advise that you merely stipulate the truth of this, rather than lose brain cells reading it all.

Jabba seems to have adopted a "scorched earth" policy of proselytizing for the shroud anywhere he is able, and he appears to be trying to "win" by sheer attrition. If he bores everyone to death, they quit, and he wins. Preaching to some imaginary choir of fellow zealots, he cares little for anyone's arguments, and simply repeats his claims, à la Hovind, though his Gish gallop style is almost a slow motion variant.

The amazing or curious thing is, he's admitted to being an agnostic theist, though I can't find the post readily. He is not a fundamentalist apparently.

So now he attacks with colored fonts, the last bastion of the zealot. Soon it will be extra large fonts, comic sans, and all caps eventually. His numbering system takes no skill to understand. It is merely a result of an attempt at a highly organized style of an obsessive compulsive person.