Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[JayUtah]

Actually, it isn't even necessary, since the burial practices of the day would have involved washing the body before wrapping it in the shroud.

True, but there's a subtle difference between justifying the expectation and justifying the observation. The cloth has stains on it that purport to be blood. They are arranged on the cloth in conjunction with the image to suggest they should be blood issuing from the wounds described as having been inflicted on Jesus. Hence in this context they must be blood in order for the cloth to be authentic. If there are stains purporting to be blood, but cannot be shown to be blood -- or worse, affirmatively shown to be something else -- then the authenticity claim fails the necessity test and can be rejected.

In a separate line of reasoning, we can say "Should there even be blood on a cloth purported to wrap a 1st century Jew for burial?" Debate around that line of reasoning would center, as it has, on how much we know of those customs, whether washing would eliminate all flow of blood, whether there was time to wash it, etc. Not an uninteresting line of reasoning, but not especially relevant to the line of reasoning Jabba is trying at this moment.

 

[JayUtah]

Finding blood would not be positive evidence, but it would, at least, also mean that there could be said to be less negative evidence.

Indeed, but only in the false dilemma Jabba has foisted on the discussion would that help his case. He has constructed a straw-man two-way race between 700 years old and "authentic." He's trying to use the blood argument (again) to refute the age argument.

real blood → not a forgery
not a forgery → authentic
authentic → 2000 years old
2000 years old → radiocarbon dating is "somehow" wrong

And no, the above is not a valid line of reasoning.

 

[Mojo]

True, but there's a subtle difference between justifying the expectation and justifying the observation. The cloth has stains on it that purport to be blood. They are arranged on the cloth in conjunction with the image to suggest they should be blood issuing from the wounds described as having been inflicted on Jesus. Hence in this context they must be blood in order for the cloth to be authentic. If there are stains purporting to be blood, but cannot be shown to be blood -- or worse, affirmatively shown to be something else -- then the authenticity claim fails the necessity test and can be rejected.

In a separate line of reasoning, we can say "Should there even be blood on a cloth purported to wrap a 1st century Jew for burial?" Debate around that line of reasoning would center, as it has, on how much we know of those customs, whether washing would eliminate all flow of blood, whether there was time to wash it, etc. Not an uninteresting line of reasoning, but not especially relevant to the line of reasoning Jabba is trying at this moment.

What it comes down to is that we don't know whether, if the shroud was authentic, it would originally have had blood on it. We just don't have the information. This means that the presence of blood cannot be considered evidence for authenticity.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, but only in the false dilemma Jabba has foisted on the discussion would that help his case. He has constructed a straw-man two-way race between 700 years old and "authentic." He's trying to use the blood argument (again) to refute the age argument.

real blood → not a forgery
not a forgery → authentic
authentic → 2000 years old
2000 years old → radiocarbon dating is "somehow" wrong

And no, the above is not a valid line of reasoning.

He has a step before that:

An authentic shroud would have blood on it → a shroud with blood on it is authentic

Also not valid reasoning, but a device he used consistently in the immortality threads.

 

[JayUtah]

An authentic shroud would have blood on it → a shroud with blood on it is authentic

Correct. Although invalidly reasoned, the inference drawn above is what gives rise to the necessity/sufficiency problem he's currently grappling with.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Indeed, but only in the false dilemma Jabba has foisted on the discussion would that help his case. He has constructed a straw-man two-way race between 700 years old and "authentic." He's trying to use the blood argument (again) to refute the age argument.

real blood → not a forgery
not a forgery → authentic
authentic → 2000 years old
2000 years old → radiocarbon dating is "somehow" wrong

And no, the above is not a valid line of reasoning.

Obviously not, but ... I don't know about you, but I have long since given up on reaching any kind of conclusion, or even end, of the discussions with Jabba. What we can do is either leave him to chatter to himself, or try to draw some kind of interesting circles.


Hans

 

[Craig4]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

Please, I'm dying to read this. Explain to me how you could put blood on a cloth 1300 years before said cloth was made.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Is it possible that you are simply ignoring the posts in this thread that have answered that very question, numerous times?

If you were ever able to conclusively demonstrate the presence of blood on the CIQ, that would have no bearing, none at all, on the age of the CIQ. Once again, blood has been available wherever, and whenever, humans have been.

I wonder why it is that you are ignoring this, that has been repeated to you...um...repeatedly.

I remain,

Consistently yours &ct.

 

[hugh farey]

No one cares.

What nonsense. Many of the commenters here care enough to waste literally hundreds of comments, all mostly identical, on a thread they consider utterly lacking in progress. It may not be obvious what they care about, but they certainly care a lot. Nonpareil may be an exception, but even he cares enough not only to make the comment that no one cares, but to repeat the same apparently fruitless request for evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old. Just as I consider it an interesting philosophical exercise to try to understand why authenticists believe their claim, it is just as interesting to try to understand why the posters to this thread are so persistent in their continued shaking of a tree that they know very well has no apples on it to fall. Is it the hope that one day Jabba will provide the evidence they have demanded for so long? Is it a nervous tic like a hiccup that they can't help? Fascinating anyway.

But I digress. It seems apparent from the last few days' messages that many of the commenters are unaware of the Italian investigation of the Shroud which went on more or less simultaneously with the American one (STuRP), in 1978. While Rogers was delicately extracting a few minute fibres with his sticky tape, together with surface debris which included iron oxide, pollen, insect parts and various other fibres, Perluigi Baima Bollone was pulling out whole threads, complete with all their accumulated gunk. From much larger particles than the few microscopic 'globs' that Heller and Adler worked on, Baima Bollone not only identified blood, but by two different standard immunological techniques, and with appropriate controls, identified it as type AB.

As a good skeptic, of course, I find that there are some reasons to make this identification not wholly incontestable, but coupled to various other studies on red globs found on and around the Shroud, I personally am of the opinion that the blood really is blood.

Not that the presence of blood in itself indicates that the Shroud is any particular age, of course.

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

I think it may be worth looking more closely at what makes people believe one thing rather than another. I'm not sure the word 'logic' is entirely applicable in this case. In the hypothetical court of law sometimes adduced by Shroud investigators (books including Judgment, Inquest and Verdict among their titles), where facts are disputed and evidence challenged, a jury can be swayed almost as much by emotion as by objectivity, and appeals to emotion can be based on evidence as illogical as mere consistency with the case. So, if the appearance of linen, blood or a beard are consistent with the crucifixion of Jesus, and they are demonstrated on the Shroud, then that may be enough to sway someone in favour of authenticity, even though they might also be consistent with a painted image and pipetted blood.

 

[Shalamar]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

Do you accept that my claim that I created the shroud would be a little but supportive of the shroud being fake?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

What nonsense. Many of the commenters here care enough to waste literally hundreds of comments, all mostly identical, on a thread they consider utterly lacking in progress. It may not be obvious what they care about, but they certainly care a lot. Nonpareil may be an exception, but even he cares enough not only to make the comment that no one cares, but to repeat the same apparently fruitless request for evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old. Just as I consider it an interesting philosophical exercise to try to understand why authenticists believe their claim, it is just as interesting to try to understand why the posters to this thread are so persistent in their continued shaking of a tree that they know very well has no apples on it to fall. Is it the hope that one day Jabba will provide the evidence they have demanded for so long? Is it a nervous tic like a hiccup that they can't help? Fascinating anyway.

But I digress. It seems apparent from the last few days' messages that many of the commenters are unaware of the Italian investigation of the Shroud which went on more or less simultaneously with the American one (STuRP), in 1978. While Rogers was delicately extracting a few minute fibres with his sticky tape, together with surface debris which included iron oxide, pollen, insect parts and various other fibres, Perluigi Baima Bollone was pulling out whole threads, complete with all their accumulated gunk. From much larger particles than the few microscopic 'globs' that Heller and Adler worked on, Baima Bollone not only identified blood, but by two different standard immunological techniques, and with appropriate controls, identified it as type AB.

As a good skeptic, of course, I find that there are some reasons to make this identification not wholly incontestable, but coupled to various other studies on red globs found on and around the Shroud, I personally am of the opinion that the blood really is blood.

Not that the presence of blood in itself indicates that the Shroud is any particular age, of course.

I think it may be worth looking more closely at what makes people believe one thing rather than another. I'm not sure the word 'logic' is entirely applicable in this case. In the hypothetical court of law sometimes adduced by Shroud investigators (books including Judgment, Inquest and Verdict among their titles), where facts are disputed and evidence challenged, a jury can be swayed almost as much by emotion as by objectivity, and appeals to emotion can be based on evidence as illogical as mere consistency with the case. So, if the appearance of linen, blood or a beard are consistent with the crucifixion of Jesus, and they are demonstrated on the Shroud, then that may be enough to sway someone in favour of authenticity, even though they might also be consistent with a painted image and pipetted blood.

So, no evidence, then? Okay. SSDD.

 

[JayUtah]

t is just as interesting to try to understand why the posters to this thread are so persistent in their continued shaking of a tree that they know very well has no apples on it to fall.

Because the tree is here asking to be shaken. The reason I and many people continue posting is that we're interested in what constitutes good reasoning and how reasoning is properly tested. In a deeper sense, we are further interested in the phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs. We believe there is value in this exercise in that rational skepticism forms a basis for encouraging the testing of all claims according to the facts.

In the hypothetical court of law sometimes adduced by Shroud investigators ... a jury can be swayed almost as much by emotion as by objectivity, and appeals to emotion can be based on evidence as illogical as mere consistency with the case.

But this is utterly irrelevant to the historical question. I'm inclined to take the emotional approach attempted by some proponents of authenticity as an admission that they cannot prevail according to the facts.

 

[hugh farey]

Because the tree is here asking to be shaken.

Even though you know it's fruitless? I suppose that's generous of you, then.

The reason I and many people continue posting is that we're interested in what constitutes good reasoning and how reasoning is properly tested. In a deeper sense, we are further interested in the phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs. We believe there is value in this exercise in that rational skepticism forms a basis for encouraging the testing of all claims according to the facts.

That's fair enough, although I don't know much one could have learnt over the last half-dozen years or so that one couldn't have learnt in a fraction of the time. it's not the challenge itself that interests me as much as its persistence in the face of such imperturbable intractability.

But this is utterly irrelevant to the historical question. I'm inclined to take the emotional approach attempted by some proponents of authenticity as an admission that they cannot prevail according to the facts.

I think you're absolutely correct.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because the tree is here asking to be shaken. The reason I and many people continue posting is that we're interested in what constitutes good reasoning and how reasoning is properly tested. In a deeper sense, we are further interested in the phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs. We believe there is value in this exercise in that rational skepticism forms a basis for encouraging the testing of all claims according to the facts.

That, and I guess the same reason that people play computer games.

In that context, discussing with Jabba is much akin to playing Wack-a-Mole.

Hans

 

[Slowvehicle]

Even though you know it's fruitless? I suppose that's generous of you, then.
That's fair enough, although I don't know much one could have learnt over the last half-dozen years or so that one couldn't have learnt in a fraction of the time. it's not the challenge itself that interests me as much as its persistence in the face of such imperturbable intractability.
I think you're absolutely correct.

My Dear Mr. Farey:

I do not pretend to speak for others, but I am, by nature, inclination, and profession, a teacher. I am an inveterate constructionist.

In that light, I simply refuse to stop trying to make a point. The only way to get me to give up is to walk away; to abandon the field.

FWIW, do not overlook the fact that, at one point, when posters were no longer responding to him, Mr. Savage declared "victory"...

 

[HighRiser]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

That's going to be damn difficult for Hugh to do.

Please consider the following:

If you hold a position that is logical and reasonable; You should be able to construct an explanation of that position that is understandable to others, using plain language.

It is my understanding, after following this entire debacle, that you have no logical and reasonable position to explain. In fact, it is impossible for me to imagine that any sane person would expect to be successful in the method of endeavour that you have undertaken.

Why not, at long last, define your belief in the authenticity of the CiQ as purely a matter of faith, defend your unbelievable line of purported reason, or dry up and blow away?

 

[JayUtah]

Even though you know it's fruitless? I suppose that's generous of you, then.

You keep measuring the value of the exercise solely in terms of how much the proponent learns.

Jabba's here begging for a debate. People rise to give him one, even if the outcome of the debate is, at this point, pretty much predetermined. The value is in how other people see Jabba behave. They learn what evasion looks like. They learn what desperation looks like. I believe this is valuable.

And of course if Jabba also learns something then that's just so much more a benefit.

That's fair enough, although I don't know much one could have learnt over the last half-dozen years or so that one couldn't have learnt in a fraction of the time.

Other people exist. They need to learn too.

 

[John Jones]

I'm here because I want to see how it all ends. Jabba will never change his tune, IMO, but I'm going to call him on his nonsensical conclusions as long as I'm here.

 

[Nonpareil]

That, and I guess the same reason that people play computer games.

In that context, discussing with Jabba is much akin to playing Wack-a-Mole.

Hans

It is, at least, slightly more intellectually engaging than your average game of Flappy Bird.

Not by much, but still.

 

[HighRiser]

Because the tree is here asking to be shaken. The reason I and many people continue posting is that we're interested in what constitutes good reasoning and how reasoning is properly tested. In a deeper sense, we are further interested in the phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs. We believe there is value in this exercise in that rational skepticism forms a basis for encouraging the testing of all claims according to the facts.



But this is utterly irrelevant to the historical question. I'm inclined to take the emotional approach attempted by some proponents of authenticity as an admission that they cannot prevail according to the facts.

I agree whole-heartedly and thank you for your well spoken and sensible replies in this thread and several others over the years.

Even though you know it's fruitless? I suppose that's generous of you, then.
That's fair enough, although I don't know much one could have learnt over the last half-dozen years or so that one couldn't have learnt in a fraction of the time. it's not the challenge itself that interests me as much as its persistence in the face of such imperturbable intractability.
I think you're absolutely correct.

Jay takes a no-nonsense and direct approach when it comes to addressing those who come here to argue in favor of irrationality. I recommend reading the Apollo Hoax thread(s) as a demonstration of his prowess.