Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[hugh farey]

I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.

There is a sense in which you are perfectly correct, Jabba. However, whether it applies in this case depends very much on the exclusivity of the link. For example, the Shroud reportedly carries numerous particles of limestone, and Jerusalem is built on limestone. But then, so are many other places, and many other cloths from different places also carry limestone particles. Ah! but the Shroud limestone is a particular type of limestone - aragonite - which is the kind of limestone that Jerusalem is built on. But again, so are many other places, including the French countryside just east of Troyes. So far, so uninspiring. However, some Shroud investigators would like to think that the limestone on the Shroud was of a particular isotopic composition entirely exclusive to Jerusalem. There is currently no evidence that this is true, but if it were, it would certainly support the Middle Eastern Origin hypothesis (although not, directly, the First Century AD hypothesis).

I find your 'supportive of innocence; supportive of guilt' idea quite attractive, and suspect that corroborative evidence of the kind you suggest carries a lot of weight in a court of law, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. In a court, we consider the circumstances surrounding a single case; the murder of a man, say, or the theft of some jewels. Evidence either supports a case or it doesn't. For the Shroud, however, we must consider two mutually exclusive cases simultaneously, and it is not clear what is on trial. Does the appearance of blood on Shroud support its being wrapped around a dead body better than it supports its being painted in the 13th century? In those bald terms, I think not. If we carry out experiments to show that the blood flows exactly resemble those from a crucified man, then perhaps we think the blood better supports authenticity, but if we observe that it is still pink after hundreds of years, we may think it better supports the forgery.

Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.

I can't altogether agree with this. I think finding blood on a relic, whether real or forged, is quite likely, so finding it cannot be said to strengthen the probability of either side at the expense of the other.

I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color...

The red colour is widely used by non-authenticists as supporting their case, and rather weakly explained by Heller and Adler, and more recently Adrie van der Hoeven to support authenticity. I look forward to your ideas regarding it.

 

[abaddon]

There is a sense in which you are perfectly correct, Jabba.

Why must you insist on enabling Jabba's non-argument?

Your persistence in this has me convinced that you are in fact a sindonist.

 

[godless dave]

Just in case Jabba missed that Monza answered Jabba's most recent question to him.

No, I don't accept that at all. There is no logical line of reasoning. It is no more evidence than saying, "Gee, the guy on shroud looks kinda like I would expect Jesus to look like." Such "evidence" is no more supportive of authenticity than it is of in-authenticity. As I said before, it gets you no where.

Why do you think blood could only have come into contact with the shroud in the first century AD and not at any time after that?

 

[abaddon]

Just in case Jabba missed that Monza answered Jabba's most recent question to him.

Waste of binary data. Jabba will not respond.

 

[hugh farey]

Why must you insist on enabling Jabba's non-argument?

Your persistence in this has me convinced that you are in fact a sindonist.

I don't insist, and I'm not a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud. In your, surely culpable, ignoring of everything I write, in your belief that I secretly think the Shroud is genuine, your attitude is exactly that of Jabba himself, who cannot rid himself of the belief that Shroud is authentic in the face of some quite detailed and reasonable counter-arguments. How diverting!

In response to Nonpareil's passionate but clearly mistaken cry of 'No one cares', I wondered why, in fact, so many people who long ago gave up any hope of persuading Jabba to change his mind, cared enough to continue flogging the dead horse. The answers were sensible and varied, and one of them was JayUtah's "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." My comment was made with this specifically in mind. This is the first time that Jabba has attempted to explain how circumstantial evidence can be used to persuade people towards one view or another, and in many ways, as I said, he is perfectly correct.

 

[Sideroxylon]

“The discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations. For if we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmation, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence* in favour of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.” - Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism

*Or a barely perceptible tilting of scales.

 

[John Jones]

There is a sense in which you are perfectly correct, Jabba. [...]

There is no sense in which Jabba is perfectly correct.

Stop supporting him when you know perfectly well that his evidence, arguments and logic are worthless and/or totally absent.

Jabba doesn't know any better, but you most certainly do.

 

[John Jones]

[...] This is the first time that Jabba has attempted to explain how circumstantial evidence can be used to persuade people towards one view or another, and in many ways, as I said, he is perfectly correct.

Look what you wrote!

You must be new to this discussion. :facepalm:

 

[Beady]

Discussion? It looks more like a life style.

Oh crap!

 

[catsmate]

<snippage of irrelevant nonsense>

So Jabba, where's the evidence? Rather than this rubbish.

 

[hugh farey]

You really must try to read more than just the first line of my comments if you are to understand them enough to be able to comment. Jabba is correct in that information which supports the possibility of one argument rather than another can be, and often is, used to persuade people of the truth of the matter. I do not believe he has discussed this as a concept before. He has said many times, to your considerable frustration, that he thinks some information or other (in this case the determination that the blood actually is blood) has a bearing on his belief in authenticity, but I do not recall him saying why. In this particular case, of course, as I said, the mere appearance of blood on the Shroud does not favour one explanation over another. If it could be confirmed that it was 1st century blood, then it would certainly favour authenticity; if medieval, then the matter would rest as it does now. With respect, I must decline John Jones' somewhat peremptory command. If this thread is ever to rise above its normal tedious and monotonous repetition of the same remarks by Jabba and his detractors, a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" seems to me worthwhile.

 

[ComfySlippers]

... If this thread is ever to rise above its normal tedious and monotonous repetition of the same remarks by Jabba and his detractors, a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" seems to me worthwhile.

I'm going to be naughty here. Perhaps a tad un-jaunty. My own fault; blackcurrent tea can never replace coffee in the morning.
** I am going to agree **

In any thread where the topic is utter claptrap the following occurs:
-The level of claptrapyness is explained by well meaning individuals
-The reasons for it being claptrap are explained
-Experts in their field say why the claptrap is nonsense
-Patient people keep attempting the above over and over
-Latecomers to the thread start the process all over again
-Viscious circle ensues.

Ideally, after stage three, hugh farey's *a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" * would then begin.

Unfortunately that would mean creating a new thread because, for example, this particular thread is about proving claptrap not discussing why people believe such claptrap.

The same goes for all the other threads about claptrap. The Bigfoot nonsense started to show promise when theories were introduced in an attempt to explain why grown adults pretend to believe in magic invisible monkey men.

I must now drink much coffee and return to JauntyMode.

 

[jond]

You really must try to read more than just the first line of my comments if you are to understand them enough to be able to comment. Jabba is correct in that information which supports the possibility of one argument rather than another can be, and often is, used to persuade people of the truth of the matter. I do not believe he has discussed this as a concept before. He has said many times, to your considerable frustration, that he thinks some information or other (in this case the determination that the blood actually is blood) has a bearing on his belief in authenticity, but I do not recall him saying why. In this particular case, of course, as I said, the mere appearance of blood on the Shroud does not favour one explanation over another. If it could be confirmed that it was 1st century blood, then it would certainly favour authenticity; if medieval, then the matter would rest as it does now. With respect, I must decline John Jones' somewhat peremptory command. If this thread is ever to rise above its normal tedious and monotonous repetition of the same remarks by Jabba and his detractors, a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" seems to me worthwhile.

Here's the problem, Hugh: while I agree with your position, John Jones is very correct about one very important thing. Jabba has proudly proclaimed that he only reads the first Q/C of any post. Which means that JJ's response was precisely the same as Jabba's. That is to say, every thing you wrote after "There is a sense in which you are entirely correct..." will be ignored by Jabba and he will read it as you agreeing with his entire post, which you obviously didn't.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You really must try to read more than just the first line of my comments if you are to understand them enough to be able to comment. Jabba is correct in that information which supports the possibility of one argument rather than another can be, and often is, used to persuade people of the truth of the matter. I do not believe he has discussed this as a concept before. He has said many times, to your considerable frustration, that he thinks some information or other (in this case the determination that the blood actually is blood) has a bearing on his belief in authenticity, but I do not recall him saying why. In this particular case, of course, as I said, the mere appearance of blood on the Shroud does not favour one explanation over another. If it could be confirmed that it was 1st century blood, then it would certainly favour authenticity; if medieval, then the matter would rest as it does now. With respect, I must decline John Jones' somewhat peremptory command. If this thread is ever to rise above its normal tedious and monotonous repetition of the same remarks by Jabba and his detractors, a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" seems to me worthwhile.

My Dear Mr. Farey:

You really must try to read more than the last hundred posts in this thread-a-thon if you are going to understand it well enough to be judgmental.

For weal or for woe, this thread is about the "authenticity" of the CIQ; the "miracle", if you will. Truth is, absent a "miracle", the CIQ is, manifestly, a medieval artifact.

If you find the thread "tedious", or monotonous", praps you should consider a different tamalada.

For the record, I cannot be called one of Mr. Savage's "detractors"--I will continue to point to him out the things that make it impossible (short of "miracles") that the representational image on the manifestly medieval artifact is the "imprint" of the "son-of-'god'-crucified-for-our-sins"; in a manner much more patient and polite than the manner in which he deals with, and dismisses, me. Mr. Savage speaks of his "many opponents". In reality, he has but one opponent; reality itself.

FWIW, the term "non-authenticist" is as silly as the term, "non-footer"; Without evidence, there is no reason to "believe" in 'Squatch; without evidence ther is no reason to "believe" in the "authenticity" of the CIQ. I am not a "non-authenticist". I am an amateur painter, an amateur weaver, a dab hand at "unapologetics", and a science teacher.

Your final proposal would be OT for this thread. Feel free to start another; I would be fascinated.

I remain,

Honestly yours, &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm going to be naughty here. Perhaps a tad un-jaunty. My own fault; blackcurrent tea can never replace coffee in the morning.
** I am going to agree **

In any thread where the topic is utter claptrap the following occurs:
-The level of claptrapyness is explained by well meaning individuals
-The reasons for it being claptrap are explained
-Experts in their field say why the claptrap is nonsense
-Patient people keep attempting the above over and over
-Latecomers to the thread start the process all over again
-Viscious circle ensues.

Ideally, after stage three, hugh farey's *a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" * would then begin.

Unfortunately that would mean creating a new thread because, for example, this particular thread is about proving claptrap not discussing why people believe such claptrap.

The same goes for all the other threads about claptrap. The Bigfoot nonsense started to show promise when theories were introduced in an attempt to explain why grown adults pretend to believe in magic invisible monkey men.

I must now drink much coffee and return to JauntyMode.

:

 

[hugh farey]

...this particular thread is about proving claptrap not discussing why people believe such claptrap...

...this thread is about the "authenticity" of the CIQ; the "miracle", if you will.

Is it? Is it really? Over the years there have been some well argued reasons to accept a medieval origin for the Shroud, and few, often less well argued reasons to accept authenticity, but these form a minute fraction of the total contributions. JayUtah suggested, if I read his remark ("Other people exist. They need to learn too") correctly, that maintaining a non-authenticist position was important in case other people should visit the thread looking for a skeptical opinion, and Slowvehicle, also reasonably, suggested that if we do not continuously respond to our opponents, that our very silence could be interpreted as surrender. No, I feel that although this thread is superficially about the authenticity of the Shroud, it is much more about the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" (Thank you, JayUtah, for such a well worded phrase). It is not apparent that many of the commenters are interested in the Shroud at all, let alone whether it is authentic or not. Jabba is, of course, but so far his arguments have not been very strong, so there has not been much incentive for anybody else to argue strongly back, although over the years I have learnt things here that I had not found elsewhere. No, this thread is not about the authenticity of the Shroud; it is not, in fact, about the Shroud at all; it has become a self-referential exercise in intellectual trench-warfare, the original point of which, although it is still the ostensible title, has long since become almost irrelevant to most posters.

If you find the thread "tedious", or monotonous", praps you should consider a different tamalada.

Indeed, I probably shall, but an alternative would be to attempt to make it slightly less tedious and monotonous. After all, I am hardly alone. Dozens of posts consist of nothing more than a demand for evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old, without any expectation of a reply of any kind, let alone some of the evidence, and dozens more are no more than dismissive comments.

For the record, I cannot be called one of Mr. Savage's "detractors"--I will continue to point to him out the things that make it impossible (short of "miracles") that the representational image on the manifestly medieval artifact is the "imprint" of the "son-of-'god'-crucified-for-our-sins"; in a manner much more patient and polite than the manner in which he deals with, and dismisses, me.

Indeed, your formality is commendable.

FWIW, the term "non-authenticist" is as silly as the term, "non-footer"; Without evidence, there is no reason to "believe" in 'Squatch; without evidence ther is no reason to "believe" in the "authenticity" of the CIQ. I am not a "non-authenticist". I am an amateur painter, an amateur weaver, a dab hand at "unapologetics", and a science teacher.

I use the term merely as shorthand for 'one who does not think the Shroud is authentic', a phrase I occasionally feel I need. If you can suggest an alternative, I might go with that. Another reason is that on another website I have been condemned to hell for being an "anti-authenticist", a term which implies that I have some hostility towards those who do not hold the same beliefs as I do, which is untrue. The term 'atheist' is often condemned, by atheists, for a similar reason, but it serves a useful purpose in some circumstances.

Your final proposal would be OT for this thread. Feel free to start another; I would be fascinated.

I not sure which final proposal you refer to. My suggestion was simply to use this thread as JayUtah says he uses it. I think it went off topic several years ago. I have sporadically during the past week contemplated starting a new thread, about the origin of the Shroud and its religious significance, as suggested by Wardenclyffe, but I have decided not to, as I don't think anybody who contributes to internationalskeptics would be sufficiently interested.

 

[abaddon]

Is it? Is it really?

Yes. Yes, it really is.

Over the years there have been some well argued reasons to accept a medieval origin for the Shroud,

Ya think?

and few, often less well argued reasons to accept authenticity, but these form a minute fraction of the total contributions.

There have been none whatsoever. No actual evidence for authenticity has been presented, ever. This is the issue at hand.

JayUtah suggested, if I read his remark ("Other people exist. They need to learn too") correctly, that maintaining a non-authenticist position was important in case other people should visit the thread looking for a skeptical opinion, and Slowvehicle, also reasonably, suggested that if we do not continuously respond to our opponents, that our very silence could be interpreted as surrender.

And they are correct. Jabba has already declared victory in the past on that very basis.

No, I feel that although this thread is superficially about the authenticity of the Shroud, it is much more about the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" (Thank you, JayUtah, for such a well worded phrase).

Your feelings whatever they might be are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the evidence demonstrates the CIQ to be of medieval origin. No amount of "feelings" can change that.

It is not apparent that many of the commenters are interested in the Shroud at all, let alone whether it is authentic or not.

Where did you attend that mind-reading course?

Jabba is, of course, but so far his arguments have not been very strong, so there has not been much incentive for anybody else to argue strongly back, although over the years I have learnt things here that I had not found elsewhere.

What arguments? Do you have stronger arguments? Are there stronger arguments at all? Feel free to present these stronger arguments that you claim exist.

No, this thread is not about the authenticity of the Shroud; it is not, in fact, about the Shroud at all; it has become a self-referential exercise in intellectual trench-warfare, the original point of which, although it is still the ostensible title, has long since become almost irrelevant to most posters.

Nope. We have been years asking Jabba to present the evidence for authenticity which he claims to have but somehow refuses to share. It hasn't happened yet. Now, you claim to have stronger arguments for authenticity which somehow you also refuse to share.

Indeed, I probably shall, but an alternative would be to attempt to make it slightly less tedious and monotonous. After all, I am hardly alone. Dozens of posts consist of nothing more than a demand for evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old, without any expectation of a reply of any kind, let alone some of the evidence, and dozens more are no more than dismissive comments.

What an odd comment, given that you are actively enabling and encouraging Jabba from the sidelines. Maybe you don't much like that characterisation, but it is what you are doing with your endless ambiguous posts.

Indeed, your formality is commendable.

Because Jabba used informality as an excuse to avoid the hard questions. What did you think would happen? Of course once the excuse was pulled from under him in that respect, he simply flat out ignores responses.

I use the term merely as shorthand for 'one who does not think the Shroud is authentic', a phrase I occasionally feel I need. If you can suggest an alternative, I might go with that.

Realist.

Another reason is that on another website I have been condemned to hell for being an "anti-authenticist", a term which implies that I have some hostility towards those who do not hold the same beliefs as I do, which is untrue. The term 'atheist' is often condemned, by atheists, for a similar reason, but it serves a useful purpose in some circumstances.

Off topic. Your personal feelings about particular terms are not the topic of this thread.

I not sure which final proposal you refer to. My suggestion was simply to use this thread as JayUtah says he uses it. I think it went off topic several years ago. I have sporadically during the past week contemplated starting a new thread, about the origin of the Shroud and its religious significance, as suggested by Wardenclyffe, but I have decided not to, as I don't think anybody who contributes to internationalskeptics would be sufficiently interested.

Just decided that did you?

 

[hugh farey]

I think abaddon's detailed and carefully considered response to my last comment justifies it in its entirety.

 

[abaddon]

I think abaddon's detailed and carefully considered response to my last comment justifies it in its entirety.

Another non-response response.

 

[zooterkin]

JayUtah suggested, if I read his remark ("Other people exist. They need to learn too") correctly, that maintaining a non-authenticist position was important

I'd say "evidence-based" rather than "non-authenticist". If the evidence points to a mediaeval fake, so be it, but that's not the starting point.