Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Mojo]

- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't.

Again, even if this is true it doesn't mean that limestone on the shroud makes it more likely that it is authentic.

 

[wollery]

indeed, as you so amply demonstrate.

And who might those be? Clearly Jabba and clearly your good self.

No, that would be flat out lying.

Opinions are useless in the face of actual evidence.

And once again you seek refuge in ambiguity.

I'm sorry abaddon, but I can only conclude from this response to Hugh that English isn't your first language. It's the only explanation I can see for such a massive reading comprehension failure.

 

[Mojo]

For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing.

We can only discuss it if it is presented. Do you have any?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is easy to ignore a statement one thinks is incorrect. For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing. Many people, including Jabba, are of this opinion. If it can be shown that the evidence tending to discredit the radiocarbon dating is unreliable, the more likely they are to decide that the radiocarbon date is irrefutable.

Mmm, I'm not sure I agree on this approach, but since everything else has obviously failed, I suggest we let Hugh have a go at it.

Anyone for popcorn?

Hans

 

[hugh farey]

This is where quite a big sticking point seems to be. Many, many times Jabba has been told that in order to change the minds of people here he must come up with a date of the fabric (around 2000 years old) that has been ascertained though a reliable, accurate and repeatable method.
To date, despite many promises of the evidence "coming soon" he has not been able to do this.

Quite so, although one way of at least opening up the debate would be to discredit the radiocarbon date entirely. This would not, of course, prove anything, but it would mean that other factors for deciding the authenticity would have to be considered - such as the weave, the blood, the limestone, the d'Arcis memorandum, the anatomy etc. etc. rather than being dismissed as irrelevant, they would then become more the focus of interest, and as such, could lead to further investigation into the where, when and how of the Shroud and its image.
So far, of course, I do not think the radiocarbon date has been discredited, but there are many who disagree, so although Jabba would have to discredit it before any of the other evidence would be worth taking into account, in the same way simply taking its infallibility as an axiom is not an argument for authenticity, just a statement of authenticity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Quite so, although one way of at least opening up the debate would be to discredit the radiocarbon date entirely. This would not, of course, prove anything, but it would mean that other factors for deciding the authenticity would have to be considered - such as the weave, the blood, the limestone, the d'Arcis memorandum, the anatomy etc. etc. rather than being dismissed as irrelevant, they would then become more the focus of interest, and as such, could lead to further investigation into the where, when and how of the Shroud and its image.

We have already been there, repeatedly. If you want to promote a new approach, try not to repeat too much of the old.

So far, of course, I do not think the radiocarbon date has been discredited, but there are many who disagree, so although Jabba would have to discredit it before any of the other evidence would be worth taking into account, in the same way simply taking its infallibility as an axiom is not an argument for authenticity, just a statement of authenticity.

I assume you mean inauthenticy?

I think you miss a problem here: The data at hand is ALL we have. If we could borrow the shroud and plan a new series of tests, all this would be very interesting and hightly relevant, but we can't.

The Church has taken the quite pragmatic stand that the shroud is a priceless antique, but that it cannot be declared the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ. I doubt it is interested in supporting further research.

There exists a group of people who want to argue for authenticy, and some of us have decided to spend some time arguing against it, but all we can do is endless massaging of the existing data.

In this existing data, the C14 dating IS an axiom. It is the most scientific test performed. It was performed by no less that three independent labs, who came to concurrent results. It was published in a very reputable, peer-reviewed magazine. None of the attempts at refuting the result have (as you acknowledge yourself) come even near the mark, several of them don't even make sense.

All evidence FOR authenticy is indirect and speculative, and most of it would not even be conclusive if proved true (e.g. the blood).

Hans

 

[abaddon]

I'm sorry abaddon, but I can only conclude from this response to Hugh that English isn't your first language. It's the only explanation I can see for such a massive reading comprehension failure.

And you would be wrong. As far as I am concerned, hugh presents arguments that are no more than niggly little wolf in sheep's authenticist clothing arguments intended for nothing more than prolonging the crap that is propagated by authenticists. I am getting just a little short with the BS.

 

[hugh farey]

...taking its infallibility as an axiom is not an argument for authenticity, just a statement of authenticity.

I assume you mean inauthenticy?

No. I was trying to make a distinction between an argument for, and a statement of, something. The first is open to discussion, the second presents a fait accompli. If I meet an authenticist who says: 'I know the Shroud is authentic, so everything you say must be wrong',then I have nowhere to go. If he says: 'I think the Shroud is authentic because it has blood on it, or because a Crusader described it, or because it is covered in Israeli pollen', then I can begin to query his evidence. I often have discussions in which I begin: 'I think the Shroud is medieval because.....", which can lead to dialogue, unless I stop it dead with one of those cut-offs like: 'I think the Shroud is medieval because the C14 date is irrefutable', which, as I say, is not an argument for, but a statement of.

In this existing data, the C14 dating IS an axiom. It is the most scientific test performed. It was performed by no less that three independent labs, who came to concurrent results. It was published in a very reputable, peer-reviewed magazine. None of the attempts at refuting the result have (as you acknowledge yourself) come even near the mark, several of them don't even make sense.
All evidence FOR authenticity is indirect and speculative, and most of it would not even be conclusive if proved true (e.g. the blood).

The first sentence is not conducive to discussion, or persuasion; it's a take-it-or-leave-it statement leaving no room for any comeback. However, by adding your explanation, you do, indirectly, leave room for query, which is surely what we want. A query suggesting doubt, followed by an explanation of why the doubt is not valid, perhaps followed by another query, and another explanation, and so on - this is what finally convinces people they may be mistaken.

And you would be wrong. As far as I am concerned, hugh presents arguments that are no more than niggly little wolf in sheep's authenticist clothing arguments intended for nothing more than prolonging the crap that is propagated by authenticists. I am getting just a little short with the BS.

Oh, I do hope Mr Fisher is still following this thread.

For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing.

We can only discuss it if it is presented. Do you have any?

This very much depends on what you call evidence. Before a truth is consensually established, there is evidence for and against it, and a discussion ensues. After the truth is decided, there is a sense in which everything which previously constituted evidence against it can no longer be called evidence. If you are one of those who has decided that the C14 dating is wholly irrefutable, then you may think that by that very decision, there cannot be any evidence against it. In which case, no, neither Jabba nor any other authenticist can have any, and no further discussion can ensue. You should not, in all fairness, demand something you know does not exist. However, one way in which people who are totally convinced of completely opposing views can nevertheless engage, is to allow, just for the sake of argument, that their views are not irrefutable, and permit their opponents to present information which could hypothetically change their minds. Even if their minds are not changed, some interesting new information about the subject is often a by-product of the discussion.

Did you know that Lincoln Cathedral (that's Lincoln, UK, rather than Lincoln, CA, NE, ME or OH) has an Easter Sepulchre made of limestone and at least 4m long? Is this evidence that the Shroud was made in England?

 

[Mojo]

For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing.

We can only discuss it if it is presented. Do you have any?

This very much depends on what you call evidence. Before a truth is consensually established, there is evidence for and against it, and a discussion ensues. After the truth is decided, there is a sense in which everything which previously constituted evidence against it can no longer be called evidence. If you are one of those who has decided that the C14 dating is wholly irrefutable, then you may think that by that very decision, there cannot be any evidence against it. In which case, no, neither Jabba nor any other authenticist can have any, and no further discussion can ensue. You should not, in all fairness, demand something you know does not exist. However, one way in which people who are totally convinced of completely opposing views can nevertheless engage, is to allow, just for the sake of argument, that their views are not irrefutable, and permit their opponents to present information which could hypothetically change their minds. Even if their minds are not changed, some interesting new information about the subject is often a by-product of the discussion.

Who here "has decided that the C14 dating is wholly irrefutable"? I only see people saying that they have seen no good evidence that it is unreliable - an opinion that is perfectly reasonable given what has so far been presented. That's certainly my position.

You say that "evidence which could discredit [the C14 dating] is worth discussing". Is there anything to discuss?

Did you know that Lincoln Cathedral (that's Lincoln, UK, rather than Lincoln, CA, NE, ME or OH) has an Easter Sepulchre made of limestone and at least 4m long? Is this evidence that the Shroud was made in England?

Did you read what I posted above about limestone on the shroud?

 

[Mojo]

However, one way in which people who are totally convinced of completely opposing views can nevertheless engage, is to allow, just for the sake of argument, that their views are not irrefutable, and permit their opponents to present information which could hypothetically change their minds.

Not only is that permitted here, if you read the thread you will see that almost everyone in it has repeatedly asked Jabba to do precisely that.

 

[JayUtah]

This very much depends on what you call evidence.

As previously discussed, we don't consider hypotheticals and speculation evidence. Neither do you. When neither you nor we can point to any argument raised over the past 30 years that does not rise above speculation and handwaving, then it is fair to say the evidence is conclusive at this point. This is not a conclusion drawn lightly or presumptively. It is a conclusion based on the affirmation of solid science and a generation of criticism that has yet to unseat it. Therefore at this point someone who wants to unseat it, they had better come prepared with an extraordinary case, not simply a repetition of the preceding decades of speculation and wishful thinking.

If you are one of those who has decided that the C14 dating is wholly irrefutable, then you may think that by that very decision, there cannot be any evidence against it.

Asked and answered. A case for authenticity must have a credible story for the radiocarbon dating. That date is hard evidence. Not irrefutable, of course, but also not negligible nor casually to be set aside. A case that does not credibly explain contrary evidence is immediately insufficient and therefore may be rejected essentially on its face.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you can say that, Jabba; you have to give more context. If a cloth has been used to wrap a block of limestone, for example, it's more likely to have limestone on it, but if it has been kept in a plastic bag since being woven, then it is less likely to have limestone on it. In this case, we can't give the alternative scenario precisely, but the Shroud is longer than most tables. If it had been laid on the floor of a medieval artist's studio, then I would think the limestone equally likely to have come from there as from a burial cloth. One idea is that it was made for the Quem Quaeritis ritual in religious ceremonies, where a 'shroud' was laid in a 'tomb' a little distance from the high altar, so that a cleric dressed as an angel could show it to some other clerics dressed as apostles or holy women as evidence of the resurrection. As many of these sepulchres were carved from limestone, the cloth would be likely to pick up some. So, as with the blood, I think the limestone fits both scenarios equally well.

Hugh,

- As frustrating as this debate feels to me (and, probably to you), I'm pretty sure that this is the way we're 'supposed' to do it... We're treating each other with respect, and we're honing in on basic disagreements. With a lot of luck, we might actually eliminate the divergence. With a little bit of luck, we'll identify exactly where we diverge -- which would be a good thing, a step in the right direction.

- Again, if I understand what you're saying, "context" is the key -- but in the sense that we simply don't have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth -- which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic...
- That's a lot of twists and turns -- hopefully, I ended up in the right direction.

 

[JayUtah]

So far, of course, I do not think the radiocarbon date has been discredited, but there are many who disagree...

But upon what grounds do they disagree? Telling me a significant number of people believe a thing does not impress me. Telling me a significant number of people can give me good, rational reasons for believing a thing, does. So far the only ones you've identified are the ones you yourself reject after study as having an unsound foundation. Very well, as a comprehensive survey of this thread reveals, we also consider them to have an unsound foundation. Thus this recurring statement that people believe the radiocarbon dating to be unsure rings very hollow.

...in the same way simply taking its infallibility as an axiom is not an argument for authenticity, just a statement of authenticity.

I agree it is not axiomatic, at least in the way I understand the meaning of axiom. But it is a fait accomplit that must be accounted for by means besides handwaving, FUD^*, and speculation. The proponents of the 13th century date, most solidly supported by the radiocarbon dating, have not only carried a burden of proof for it according to the relevant standards of proof, they have amply and easily carried it by those standards. It requires more than arguments from incredulity to unseat it.

_______________
* Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

[zooterkin]

Almost everybody on this thread 'knows' that the radiocarbon date is 'solid'. But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

Could you elaborate on that point? I take it you do know that some people in this thread do radio carbon dating as part of their job?

 

[JayUtah]

We're treating each other with respect, and we're honing in on basic disagreements.

Please kindly respect your critics by addressing their attempts to show you how the structure of your argument is invalid. Quite a number of well-written posts have addressed your fundamental fallacy, and you have expended two weeks conspicuously ignoring them. This is very disrespectful on your part.

Again, if I understand what you're saying...

You don't, because you reach exactly the opposite conclusion he does.

"context" is the key -- but in the sense that we simply don't have much context if the shroud is not authentic...

No, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that judging whether the limestone is an expected or foreign material in each hypothesis depends on the circumstances that would reasonably arise in each of the scenarios under consideration. Since there are various credible forgery and storage scenarios that would result in depositing limestone on the cloth, you cannot use the presence of limestone as a factor to distinguish an authentic shroud from a forgery.

A similar set of arguments has been made in the case of the stains alleged to be blood. You don't seem to understand the debate on either material.

[T]his lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth -- which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic...

No. That is the opposite of what he's saying. Please kindly stop trying to resolve alleged uncertainty presumptively in your favor. I have explained at length how it is illogical for you to attempt to do so.

 

[The Don]

Is it my imagination or has jabba now decided that the best evidence for the cloth we are discussing being authentic is alleged traces of limestone on it ?

 

[JayUtah]

Is it my imagination or has jabba now decided that the best evidence for the cloth we are discussing being authentic is alleged traces of limestone on it ?

Not exactly. First, it was Hugh who led him there. But probably not intentionally, because he was using it as an example to explain to Jabba what constitutes a distinctive factor and therefore probative evidence. Jabba latched onto it, and so now we've mostly left blood behind and almost entirely left invisible patching behind.

Second, I don't think Jabba considers it the best evidence. But his method is to meander through a tour of the same evidence over and over again, leaving one behind as it becomes apparent it doesn't support his case. It's a Gish stroll, if not a gallop.

Sadly, as is evident to most of us, and, to his credit, as Hugh has tried to explain, it's the same equivocal case as with the blood. Limestone on the cloth doesn't prove it's 2,000 years old and that it came from Israel. But Jabba is still playing the affirmed consequent, circular reasoning game around it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Again, if I understand what you're saying, "context" is the key -- but in the sense that we simply don't have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth -- which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic...
- That's a lot of twists and turns -- hopefully, I ended up in the right direction.

Complete nonsense.

Hans

 

[hugh farey]

Who here "has decided that the C14 dating is wholly irrefutable"? I only see people saying that they have seen no good evidence that it is unreliable - an opinion that is perfectly reasonable given what has so far been presented. That's certainly my position.

And a very good position it is. A quick browse through the last hundred posts or so will show you that there are others who do not hold that position, and who think that because the Shroud incontrovertibly is medieval, that therefore no evidence controverting it is possible.

You say that "evidence which could discredit [the C14 dating] is worth discussing". Is there anything to discuss?

The only things I can't be certain of the meaning of are the various different cotton findings, and Rogers' discovery that the radiocarbon corner contained vanillin, but the rest of the Shroud doesn't. I will happily explain why these are still open questions, if you like. I do not, of course, think that they discredit the radiocarbon dating, but they are odd. Loose ends, if you like.

Did you read what I posted above about limestone on the shroud?

Yes, of course. You said that finding limestone on the Shroud doesn't mean it's authentic; I'm asking what it does mean. It may mean that the Shroud has been annually spread out on a limestone shelf as part of an Easter ritual. Possibly in England, whence it was removed to France by Geoffroy de Charny after his enforced sojourn here.

Not only is that permitted here, if you read the thread you will see that almost everyone in it has repeatedly asked Jabba to do precisely that.

A teeny bit selective, if I may say so. You did not highlight the requirement that "people who are totally convinced of completely opposing views" must "allow, just for the sake of argument, that their views are not irrefutable" before permitting their opponents to present information which could hypothetically change their minds. Many of the posters demanding evidence from Jabba do not allow, even for the sake of argument, that the radiocarbon date could be wrong, and so it is unfair to ask him to attempt to assail the unassailable.

As previously discussed, we don't consider hypotheticals and speculation evidence.

Curious, in view of Mojo's immediately preceding comment. Actually, hypotheticals and speculation form a valuable part of scientific progress, so where I think it relevant, I shall continue to use them. As long as Mr Fisher allows, that is!

Could you elaborate on that point? I take it you do know that some people in this thread do radio carbon dating as part of their job?

Not only do I know that, but it was their erudition that led me from thinking that the Shroud was authentic to thinking, as I do now, that it isn't. As you could see from my list, opposition to the radiocarbon date rarely involves criticism of the daters themselves. One of the two conspiracy theories actually relies on their skill. However, if they were brilliantly and accurately dating something which wasn't the Shroud after all, or if the Shroud had undergone some form of C14 enrichment before being tested, then their expertise would be irrelevant. These two ideas are the main thrust of the radiocarbon date opposition at present.

Again, if I understand what you're saying, "context" is the key -- but in the sense that we simply don't have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth -- which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic...

That's quite clever, but no cigar, I think. I was speaking more of the context of the argument than the context of the Shroud. As it is, although you are correct that finding a cultural context for a medieval Shroud has proved difficult, it is becoming clearer by the day. That context certainly includes the likelihood both of blood and limestone, so I cannot agree that either of these are better evidence for authenticity than a medieval origin.

 

[zooterkin]

Almost everybody on this thread 'knows' that the radiocarbon date is 'solid'. But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

Could you elaborate on that point? I take it you do know that some people in this thread do radio carbon dating as part of their job?

Not only do I know that, but it was their erudition that led me from thinking that the Shroud was authentic to thinking, as I do now, that it isn't. As you could see from my list, opposition to the radiocarbon date rarely involves criticism of the daters themselves. One of the two conspiracy theories actually relies on their skill. However, if they were brilliantly and accurately dating something which wasn't the Shroud after all, or if the Shroud had undergone some form of C14 enrichment before being tested, then their expertise would be irrelevant. These two ideas are the main thrust of the radiocarbon date opposition at present.

That doesn't really answer my question; apologies if it was not clear. What did you mean by the highlighted comment?