Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Slowvehicle]

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

My Dear Mr. Farey:

Your response to the Dread Angel's post seems odd, even disingenuous, given that you seem to be giving notice that you will be adopting
la méthode sauvage as far as addressing responses to your (off-topic) musings.

As an example, you return to the incorrect term, "non-authenticist", even after my polite objection. In this thread about the "miracle" of the CIQ, the very construction "non-authenticist" gives aid and comfort to those who hope to reverse the burden of proof. In the same way that one particular poster actually made the claim that Mme. F-L's statement that she was 99.9% certain that the CIQ was, in fact, medieval meant that she was of the opinion that the cloth was likely older than the ¹⁴C dating indicated; the term "anti-authenticist" gives a spurious semblance of standing to the claims of "authenticity".

I concur with the Dread Angel that, if you must have a label for the "have-not-bent-the-knee-to-woo!" position, perhaps "realist" would do.

As far as your point about a-theism, there are other threads where the misuse and abuse of that term would be topical; this is not that thread. (Use the search function to find, for instance, any thread in which a member nymed "skyrider44" has participated.)

What you are missing about what JayUtah has done is that he has made his points about what and why people will swallow in the context of a thread(s) in which committed sidonists take umbrage at being called "committed sidonists". Context is key. As with your facile accusation that I was "over-depending" on the KJV for the actual words of the 'god'spiel, context can even lead you away from error.

You are certainly welcome to take your feelings about what this poly-thread is about, and start another thread on that subject. In my opinion, absent the context of the claims of sidonists, such are off-topic here. (And, yes, I am aware of the irony of such a long off-topic digression about being off topic...it's topics all the way down.) This thread is, and should be, about the CIQ, and the paucity of any actual evidence indicating that it is a cloth ever used to wrap a body; to say nothing of which body.

I am also curious: What "stronger argument" do you think is to be presented that the CIQ is the actual cloth used to wrap the actual body of the actual "son" of an actual 'god' after its crucifiction?

Through it all,

I remain,

Fascinatedly yours &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

If it could be confirmed that it was 1st century blood, then it would certainly favour authenticity...

But that would conflict with the dating of the cloth upon which we find it. Since the testable substance of the "blood" exists in microscopic quantities only, while we have kilograms of cloth, why would you place so much confidence in the dating of the blood?

In any case you're talking about hypotheticals. The identity of the substance is not secure. The dating of it is purely hypothetical. We know what the cloth is and we have securely dated it. The evidence is extremely clear in this case. This is why people are baffled at your approach. You seem to be egging Jabba on in what amounts to nothing more than handwaving attempts at making a non-argument seem more than it is.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.
- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.
- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.

The "accused" was "born" at least 1250 years after the "murder," a crime for which there is no evidence.

 

[Craig4]

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.
- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.
- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.
- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.
- 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 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 (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

None of this matters since the cloth dates to 1290. If it is blood, it has to have been deposited on the cloth after that date. The blood cannot be on the cloth before the cloth was made.

 

[JayUtah]

My comment was made with this specifically in mind.

You seem to have understood my statement in mostly the way I intended it. You were asking why we were still putting Jabba to the test when it was widely admitted he was intractable. But notably absent in your approach is why you aren't asking Jabba why he's still plugging away when it's painfully obvious his critics are similarly intractable.

One of the tactics of metadebate in fringe argumentation is shaming one's critics away from replying.

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.

He is in no way correct, and neither are you.

This isn't the first time he's tried this same approach he's using now. He's not even using different material. He's simply replaying the same pat presentation for what he suspects is a new crop of critics. This is why skepticism must persist: because fringe thinking persists. When faced with reason, it runs away and hides for a time and then comes back out when the coast is clear to deploy the same old broken arguments all over again.

And no, he is doing a horrible, piss-poor job of explaining how circumstantial evidence can be convincing. First, because he has no evidence -- circumstantial or otherwise. What he mistakenly calls "circumstantial evidence" is nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking. Second, because he's not testing the evidence. He -- with your help -- is ignoring the evidence and trying to find some circuitous, illogical, misguided method for making statements that seem convincing but which have no probative value whatsoever.

One of the tactics of metadebate in fringe argumentation is defining how the debate "must" proceed, ostensibly in order to provide fresh perspective but really to avoid any meaningful scrutiny.

 

[Mojo]

-Viscious circle ensues.

Is that supposed to be "vicious" or "viscous" (the latter seems particularly appropriate to this thread)?

 

[JayUtah]

None of this matters since the cloth dates to 1290. If it is blood, it has to have been deposited on the cloth after that date. The blood cannot be on the cloth before the cloth was made.

But that's the point, you see. If the "blood" on the cloth can be dated to the 1st century, then that's another chemically-determined date that would have to be reconciled with the 13th century date for the cloth. It's still all about undermining the definitive radiocarbon date.

But again, hypothetical. The case for it being blood at all is dubious. And there is no date for the material, whatever its identity. It's all just a matter of conjecturing how the debate might play out if there were any actual evidence. But there isn't any evidence for authenticity, so the evidence is all on the side of medieval forgery.

Of course none of that matters, because our proponent and his cheerleader seem to have little if any understanding for the lack of rational relationship in their lines of reasoning between the presence of blood and the case for authenticity.

 

[Mojo]

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.

What you or Jabba think about "how circumstantial evidence can be used to persuade people" is irrelevant here, because the circumstantial evidence is that the cloth first appeared at around the time it has been carbon dated to. It is in no way supportive of authenticity.

And the discussion of how arguments could be used to sway some sort of hypothetical jury to decide in favour of authenticity looks rather like an attempt to make an end run around the evidence.

 

[hugh farey]

Well, that's better.

In the context of the Shroud, I shall continue to use the term non-authenticist. Realist, it is true, is shorter, but a bit vague (is the Shroud not real?) and as I use the term non-authenticist in other forums, I shall maintain it for consistency, in case anybody follows me from one site to another.

I'm sorry you thought my comments about your selectivity with bible texts facile. You must know that Matthew, Mark and Luke do not use the word 'othonia' (which usually means bandages) and you must know that John's gospel is usually thought of as being the last to written, and you probably know that such archaeological and literary evidence as we have does not support the use of bandages in 1st century Jewish burials. You chose John's 'othonia' in support of your case without considering the alternative evidence. "The discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations," as Sideroxylon quoted from Popper. I, on the other hand, tried to understand why John might have used a term different from the others. Perhaps the tradition from which his gospel derived was more accurate that those of the others, but it seems unlikely in view of the archaeological evidence, meagre though it be. Perhaps his own culture did use bandages, and he did not realise that Jesus's culture didn't. Or perhaps he was trying to describe a long thin sheet rather than a short wide one. I've no idea, but I am at least considering all the possibilities. You did not respond to that post.

At this point, various onlookers will be sharpening their quills in horror that I might be 'encouraging' Jabba, or 'trying to present authenticist evidence', as if there was something wrong in trying, and failing, to discover refutations. Well, I'm with Popper. And I'd like Jabba to learn how to present his evidence.

When I said that "so far his arguments have not been very strong", I was not suggesting that there were hidden refutations of the non-authenticist arguments which he might suddenly foist upon this thread, causing everybody to change their minds. I referring to his method of presentation, in that an idea is usually tentatively proposed and unsupported by references. If I were convinced, as many are, that the Shroud was authentic, I would be able to explain firstly to myself, and then to others, why. You might care to look at theshroudofturin.blogspot, by typing "The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic" for how to present an argument strongly.

It is frequently stated by the more naive commenters on this thread that since the radiocarbon dating is irrefutable, there cannot be any evidence in favour of authenticity. This view, of course, is only available to those already convinced. If a young person, say, only recently becoming aware of, and interested in, the Shroud, tries to discover whether it is authentic or not by searching the internet, then being told that since the radiocarbon dating is irrefutable there is no evidence in favour of authenticity is unlikely to hold much water. Contrary evidence only becomes worthless after the verdict, and a great many people have not yet made up their minds. "Other people exist. They need to learn too", said JayUtah. If we are to teach them, arguments presupposing non-authenticity are as bad as those presupposing authenticity, even if we know what the final conclusion ought to be.

 

[Craig4]

But that's the point, you see. If the "blood" on the cloth can be dated to the 1st century, then that's another chemically-determined date that would have to be reconciled with the 13th century date for the cloth. It's still all about undermining the definitive radiocarbon date.

But again, hypothetical. The case for it being blood at all is dubious. And there is no date for the material, whatever its identity. It's all just a matter of conjecturing how the debate might play out if there were any actual evidence. But there isn't any evidence for authenticity, so the evidence is all on the side of medieval forgery.

Of course none of that matters, because our proponent and his cheerleader seem to have little if any understanding for the lack of rational relationship in their lines of reasoning between the presence of blood and the case for authenticity.

As near as I can tell, he hasn't proposed dating the blood, should it exist. All I've seen so far is that he wants to show that the material is probably blood. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing Jabba wanting to carbon date the blood if he can find any. The results might be a bridge too far, even for him.

 

[hugh farey]

As near as I can tell, he hasn't proposed dating the blood, should it exist. All I've seen so far is that he wants to show that the material is probably blood. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing Jabba wanting to carbon date the blood if he can find any. The results might be a bridge too far, even for him.

I think you're right. However, imagine, for a moment, an exactly similar scenario to the 1988 sampling of the Shroud, perhaps with Professors Jull and Ramsey and any others of the original team still active, this time working on fresh samples, extracted, as were Perluigi Baima Bollone's in 1978, from a 'blood-soaked' area of the Shroud. Imagine, with rather more sophisticated techniques, that minute flakes of this 'blood' were radiocarbon dated, by the same three laboratories, and that the dates were as convincingly 1st century as the previous ones were 14th century. That would cause a bit of head-scratching. Without knowing which date was wrong, authenticists and non-authenticists would have to fall back on the other evidence to make up their minds as objectively as they could. What fun that would be!

 

[JayUtah]

At this point, various onlookers will be sharpening their quills in horror that I might be 'encouraging' Jabba, or 'trying to present authenticist evidence', as if there was something wrong in trying, and failing, to discover refutations.

There is something wrong with proposing to be a centrist, yet employing a distinctly one-sided method.

Well, I'm with Popper. And I'd like Jabba to learn how to present his evidence.

Explain how questioning his critics' motives and methods accomplishes that.

It is frequently stated by the more naive commenters on this thread that since the radiocarbon dating is irrefutable, there cannot be any evidence in favour of authenticity.

Straw man.

The less naive approach is that the conjectural lines of reasoning put forward for what we should do if evidence for authenticity is ever produced must still account for contrary evidence already on the table. The cloth is dated conclusively to the 13th century. Any theory for how the image got there must account for that fact.

Again, you seem to take great delight in exposing the sins of Jabba's critics, if only the naive ones, but you seem to disregard his best critics, and you seem reluctant to, put bluntly, call Jabba himself on his crap. One wonders how you plan to correct his approach if you never correct his approach. And yes, your favoritism is suspicious. That's not to say you're lying or that you're a closet sindonist. It's to say it's raising eyebrows about your motives for entering the debate.

"Other people exist. They need to learn too", said JayUtah. If we are to teach them, arguments presupposing non-authenticity are as bad as those presupposing authenticity...

You're getting a lot of mileage out of quoting me on that point. My statement was narrowly directed. You questioned people's motives based on the apparent presumption that the discussion mattered only to you and Jabba. You insinuated that since you had already made up your mind, and that Jabba was failing to make his point, our continued criticism must have some other, possibly sinister motive. I was simply saying it's not all about you. Taking it beyond that is a stretch.

Requiring a new argument for authenticity to explain clear, extant evidence of forgery is not at all presuppositional. A line of reasoning that fails to account for contrary evidence is insufficient and therefore fails.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think you're right. However, imagine, for a moment, an exactly similar scenario to the 1988 sampling of the Shroud, perhaps with Professors Jull and Ramsey and any others of the original team still active, this time working on fresh samples, extracted, as were Perluigi Baima Bollone's in 1978, from a 'blood-soaked' area of the Shroud. Imagine, with rather more sophisticated techniques, that minute flakes of this 'blood' were radiocarbon dated, by the same three laboratories, and that the dates were as convincingly 1st century as the previous ones were 14th century. That would cause a bit of head-scratching.

Yeah. And imagine pigs could fly, would bacon then count as poultry meat?

I'm sorry, Hugh, but Jabba several times tried these derails into fantasy land and was reported for it, so in the name of justice, I'm going to report your post.

Nothing personal, I assure you.

Hans

 

[Craig4]

I think you're right. However, imagine, for a moment, an exactly similar scenario to the 1988 sampling of the Shroud, perhaps with Professors Jull and Ramsey and any others of the original team still active, this time working on fresh samples, extracted, as were Perluigi Baima Bollone's in 1978, from a 'blood-soaked' area of the Shroud. Imagine, with rather more sophisticated techniques, that minute flakes of this 'blood' were radiocarbon dated, by the same three laboratories, and that the dates were as convincingly 1st century as the previous ones were 14th century. That would cause a bit of head-scratching.

But that's not the situation we are presented with. What we are presented with is a well done carbon dating of the cloth by three labs who gave us consistent dates. Why do more destructive testing when you have such solid results?

 

[JayUtah]

Imagine, with rather more sophisticated techniques, that minute flakes of this 'blood' were radiocarbon dated, by the same three laboratories, and that the dates were as convincingly 1st century as the previous ones were 14th century. That would cause a bit of head-scratching.

Why do you live in a world of hypotheticals? Yes, if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. This line of reasoning duplicates the wishful thinking that has pervaded this discussion here for years. These hypotheticals form the only identifiable basis for the "circumstantial evidence" we're supposed to consider.

Why do you have such a problem with those of us who draw our conclusions based on what the evidence is, not what the evidence could hypothetically be? We've been asking for pro-authenticity evidence until we're blue in the face. That's because skepticism feeds on evidence. If you give us actual evidence, then you'd stand a chance at making us change our minds. But knowing that you don't have any, you and Jabba in concert try to drive the discussion off into some hypothetical scenario, with the apparent goal of "making us all think."

And that in turn tells us a great deal about why you're really here.

 

[hugh farey]

But that's not the situation we are presented with. What we are presented with is a well done carbon dating of the cloth by three labs who gave us consistent dates. Why do more destructive testing when you have such solid results?

Solid for whom? There are many for whom the radiocarbon results are wholly unreliable. I would confidently put money on a 13th/14th century date for any new test, but I know of plenty of people who would happily take me on, knowing I would lose.

Why do you live in a world of hypotheticals? Yes, if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. This line of reasoning duplicates the wishful thinking that has pervaded this discussion here for years. These hypotheticals form the only identifiable basis for the "circumstantial evidence" we're supposed to consider.

Hypotheticals can be fun. That's all.

Why do you have such a problem with those of us who draw our conclusions based on what the evidence is, not what the evidence could hypothetically be?

I don't have a problem with you at all.

We've been asking for pro-authenticity evidence until we're blue in the face.

That's what I have a problem with. Why do you bother? Declaring the Shroud a forgery - I understand that. Explaining why Jabba is wrong - I understand that. But endlessly asking for something you proclaim doesn't exist - that's weird.

If you give us actual evidence, then you'd stand a chance at making us change our minds.

I don't want to change your minds. I agree with you. I want to change Jabba's mind, and working with his style of discussion is far more likely to achieve that than demanding what you know you won't get.

But knowing that you don't have any, you and Jabba in concert try to drive the discussion off into some hypothetical scenario, with the apparent goal of "making us all think."

If anybody here has actually read any of my posts, they will know that the idea that Jabba and I are working in concert is farcical.

And that in turn tells us a great deal about why you're really here.

Woooo-oooo! Beware the enemy within.... ROFL

 

[JayUtah]

As near as I can tell, he hasn't proposed dating the blood...

The subject came up, one way or another. And Hugh has proposed it now. I already spoke about the difficulty of radiocarbon dating on such small sample sizes. You would not get very reliable results, because the isotope ratios would be one very small quantity against another small quantity. That produces a huge spread in the candidate dates -- i.e., uncertainty. So if the goal is to pit radiocarbon dating of the blood against radiocarbon dating of the cloth, I simply don't see the scientific value. Or the scientific validity.

The simple fact is that anything that's on the cloth can't be older than the cloth itself. This is the rationale for testing the cloth, and not anything else -- especially unknown substances of a possibly inorganic nature that might throw off the results. Dating the entire assembly of materials by dating the cloth has strong scientific validity, not only for the terminus ante quem principle, but because the unadulterated sections of the cloth provide a clean and capacious sample for the test. That gives a narrow confidence interval.

The only reason to attempt to date only the blood is a layman's supposition that this would somehow be good evidence that the cloth dating is wrong. It wouldn't be.

Hugh seems a bit better than Jabba at the game of casting aspersions on one side of the debate, but that's really all that's happening. No, I don't fret about the logical invalidity of some of the pro-forgery proponents, because there is nevertheless an airtight set of rational reasoning to be had on that side. No, I don't fret and wring my hands over the possibility that some other portion of the artifact might hypothetically produce results that conflict with the dating of the cloth.

All those futile jabs seem aimed at making anti-authenticists question the foundation of their evidence and methods. It's not any sort of actual argument. It's just the debate equivalent of pounding one's spear against the shield -- sound and fury, but little significance.

 

[JayUtah]

Hypotheticals can be fun. That's all.

That's not all they are in your argument. In your argument you present them to encourage us to reconsider our position.

I don't have a problem with you at all.

Then justify your one-sided approach.

That's what I have a problem with. Why do you bother?

Asked and answered.

I don't want to change your minds. I agree with you. I want to change Jabba's mind, and working with his style of discussion is far more likely to achieve that than demanding what you know you won't get.

Second time asking: explain how questioning the motivation and methods of Jabba's critics helps him present his claim better.

If anybody here has actually read any of my posts, they will know that the idea that Jabba and I are working in concert is farcical.

Then explain your behavior. You say you are here to correct him, but you spend all your time and energy going after his critics. And the means by which you choose to go after his critics is no different than the handwaving debate voodoo he employs. Jabba certainly considers you his ally and has asked for your help. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't think you're on his side in some fashion.

 

[JayUtah]

What you or Jabba think about "how circumstantial evidence can be used to persuade people" is irrelevant here, because the circumstantial evidence is that the cloth first appeared at around the time it has been carbon dated to. It is in no way supportive of authenticity.

Add to the circumstances that the cloth arose at a time and place quite obsessed with the collection of holy relics, and therefore quite engaged in producing and selling fake ones.

And the discussion of how arguments could be used to sway some sort of hypothetical jury to decide in favour of authenticity looks rather like an attempt to make an end run around the evidence.

Indeed, I'm always a little leery about arguments that rely on how convincing a certain argument is to a person rather than how likely the argument is to determine the truth. I've seen juries persuaded to believe any number of inane things. And naturally we've all seen plenty of ordinary folk persuaded to believe all manner of nonsense.

 

[Craig4]

Solid for whom? There are many for whom the radiocarbon results are wholly unreliable. I would confidently put money on a 13th/14th century date for any new test, but I know of plenty of people who would happily take me on, knowing I would lose.

Hypotheticals can be fun. That's all.

I don't have a problem with you at all.

That's what I have a problem with. Why do you bother? Declaring the Shroud a forgery - I understand that. Explaining why Jabba is wrong - I understand that. But endlessly asking for something you proclaim doesn't exist - that's weird.

I don't want to change your minds. I agree with you. I want to change Jabba's mind, and working with his style of discussion is far more likely to achieve that than demanding what you know you won't get.

If anybody here has actually read any of my posts, they will know that the idea that Jabba and I are working in concert is farcical.

Woooo-oooo! Beware the enemy within.... ROFL

The results are solid for people who study past human physical culture. Do you appreciate how rare it is for an artifact to be carbon dated by more than one lab? Artifacts aren't generally dated with control subjects either. This isn't exactly unproven technology we are talking about here.