Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[JayUtah]

[There are some] who think that because the Shroud incontrovertibly is medieval, that therefore no evidence controverting it is possible.

Yet you provide no examples from among the "hundreds of posts" you say contain information supporting your claim. What I see in the past few hundreds of posts is a demand that a suitably credible theory for authenticity must explain the radiocarbon evidence. I have addressed at length why such a requirement is neither unfair nor illogical. Why have you ignored it? Why do you rely exclusively on straw-man accusations?

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.

The arguments Jabba has proposed, subsequent to abandoning Marino et al. for the umpteenth time without explanation, provide no line of reasoning to explain the radiocarbon date. As explained exhaustively, they seemed to be providing other avenues of evidence such as blood, aragonite, and other "foreign" material that he claims suggests an origin compatible with an authentic shroud. Then he claims that if we consider this material probative of authenticity, then the cloth "must" ipso facto be 2,000 years old and ipso facto the radiocarbon dating "must somehow" be wrong, without explaining how such a thing could be.

This is a common tactic in fringe argumentation, which I've given the informal name of the bellwether fallacy. It is a form of circularity that basically seeks to sidestep problematic evidence by requiring a conclusion to be drawn on other grounds that seem strong, and then to use the conclusion to argue that problematic evidence has to be considered invalid since it leads to the "wrong" conclusion. Jabba is not being asked to attempt the unassailable. But by the same token he is not being allowed to request that the stronghold's door be unlocked and left open so that he can waltz through it effortlessly.

Actually, hypotheticals and speculation form a valuable part of scientific progress...

Yes, but hypotheticals and speculation are not evidence, which was my point. Do you agree that there is a fundamental difference between evidence and a hypothesis? Do you agree that in contexts where only evidence is probative, a hypothesis is not sufficient? Do you agree that where the request is specifically for evidence, it would be improper to answer such a request with a hypothetical?

...so where I think it relevant, I shall continue to use them.

In the past you have seemed to consider hypotheticals relevant when addressing contrary evidence. More than relevant, you have considered them suitable arguments. Specifically you used them to attempt to convert the discussion from what the evidence shows to what some other body of evidence would show if, hypothetically, it could be produced. Do you agree that those are fundamentally different lines of inquiry?

 

[Mojo]

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.

Links, please.

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.

Translation:

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.

It just means that it has been somewhere where there is limestone. And where on Earth do you get the bit about an annual ritual from? Are there growth rings in the layers of limestone or something?

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.

Nobody has claimed that their views are irrefutable, as far as I can see - just that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the cloth being authentic.

Incidentally, Jabba has also been observed to try this "agree with me that my position is in principle possible and I'll provide my evidence" approach. It looks like a clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" when he does it.

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.

All he has to do is provide some good evidence. He is only being asked to "assail the unassailable" if he has none. If he has evidence then this should be no problem.

Are you saying that he has no evidence?

 

[Craig4]

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.

If he could call into question the carbon dating he would have done so by now. He has produced no evidence of anything wrong with the dating. We've seen plenty of what ifs and irrelevant complaints but nothing of substance.

 

[Craig4]

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

Why do we need popcorn? We've all already seen this movie.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why do we need popcorn? We've all already seen this movie.

MMm, yeah, but I still don't know how it ends....

Hans

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

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.

A Gish canter?

 

[ComfySlippers]

MMm, yeah, but I still don't know how it ends....

Hans

It doesn't. The film is a giant loop. A Jabba-Loop[emoji769]

 

[JayUtah]

Incidentally, Jabba has also been observed to try this "agree with me that my position is in principle possible and I'll provide my evidence" approach. It looks like a clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" when he does it.

Indeed, it is important not to interpret the proper rejection of Jabba's well-worn motte-and-bailey strategy as improperly intransigent rejection of his claims with prejudice.

 

[pgwenthold]

Remember back when Jabba claimed that he was more objective than the people that did the 14C measurements? That was funny.

(for those not following along - he had no basis for the claim that those doing the measurements were biased, much less biased against it being 2000 years old; meanwhile, he had already admitted that he wanted it to be true, and, in fact, his faith depended on it)

 

[John Jones]

[snipped for brevity] 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.

Many of the posters demanding evidence from Jabba have allowed -- for the sake of argument - that the ¹⁴C dating hypothetically never took place. Jabba was still not able to provide any evidence or rational argument for authenticity.

NB: I have chosen not to address many of your sentences, but that is not evidence that I did not read them.

 

[hugh farey]

And where on Earth do you get the bit about an annual ritual from? Are there growth rings in the layers of limestone or something?

If the Shroud is medieval, then it was made by someone, at somewhere, for some reason, using some method. I would like to know who, where, why and how. There is a strange irony in the fact that if the Shroud were authentic, we would know a great deal more about it, but being medieval, it becomes more mysterious. It is not impossible that the limestone could provided corroborative evidence, although it is unlikely to be specific enough to define anything precisely. Various people over the years have suggested that the origin of the shroud may lie in the Quem Quaeritis ritual common to churches all over Europe at about that time, as I explained above (#2795).

 

[John Jones]

[...] 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.

I for one am awaiting some elaboration. No need to condescend. We have some smart people here who have actually done ¹⁴C dating. They can explain it to us dummies.

 

[JayUtah]

If the Shroud is medieval, then it was made by someone, at somewhere, for some reason, using some method. I would like to know who, where, why and how.

I speculate the "why" was to create a holy relic and sell it to the church. If fraud was the intent, then the "where" and "by whom" would probably be difficult for us to determine some 700 years later. "How" is always fascinating to me, because I spend a lot of time working out the "hows" of doing things. But in the context of history and archaeology, I'm content realizing that the "how" of historical manufacture is not always readily apparent to us. We don't know the details of how many things in the ancient world were actually done, but this doesn't justify unparsimonious speculation.

There is a strange irony in the fact that if the Shroud were authentic, we would know a great deal more about it, but being medieval, it becomes more mysterious.

Without rejecting your sense of wonder, I dispute it to some extent. If the the cloth were the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, that still would not explain some of the things we see, such as the improper projection of the facial features onto the cloth, or what the features are actually composed of. My opinion is that it's commensurately mysterious and problematic even assuming for the sake of argument that it's real. Just differently mysterious.

It is not impossible that the limestone could provided corroborative evidence, although it is unlikely to be specific enough to define anything precisely.

As you told Jabba, it's probative neither of authenticity nor forgery. The rising tide lifts all boats, so I consider it moot.

 

[hugh farey]

I speculate the "why" was to create a holy relic and sell it to the church. If fraud was the intent, then the "where" and "by whom" would probably be difficult for us to determine some 700 years later. "How" is always fascinating to me, because I spend a lot of time working out the "hows" of doing things. But in the context of history and archaeology, I'm content realizing that the "how" of historical manufacture is not always readily apparent to us.

The idea that the Shroud was created as a holy relic has considerable contextual difficulties. For a start it signally failed in its job, being declared a fake as soon as it was first exposed. The main reasons for this were, as d'Arcis declared at the time, that it didn't look like a Shroud, that it was clearly painted, and that it had no provenance - although it was provided with some a few decades later. Fake manufacturers were better than that, as dozens of miraculous images dotted around Europe still attest. If, on the other hand, it was created as a theatrical prop, even a liturgical one, then surely everybody would know it was a prop, and not be fooled into thinking it was the real thing. If, however, it was manufactured as a prop for use in one place, and after falling into disuse, was taken as a holy relic to another place unfamiliar with the ritual, then maybe the populace could be fooled, if not the bishop. Geoffroy de Charny wandered all over Europe and could have picked it up anywhere, but it may be significant that it was not apparently exhibited until after his death. He was too parfit a knight to permit it.

Yup, it's all speculation, but there is a point to it. One way of looking for evidence is to begin with the Shroud as we have it and try to work from it towards its origin, but that has proved a fruitless exercise. Another way is to go straight to various possible origins and see if any trail can be found to lead towards the Shroud. All of these, except one, are bound to fail, and perhaps the real one may forever elude discovery, but still, the chances of coming across the smoking paintbrush are much better than those of winning the lottery...

So where to start? At least twice in his career, de Charnay was taken prisoner and kept in England, not in a dungeon, but as the honoured guest of his captor. His ransom was eventually paid in both cases, and he returned home happily. England was particularly strong on Easter sepulchres and liturgical drama, so a search among English cathedrals is where I've started.

 

[JayUtah]

For a start it signally failed in its job, being declared a fake as soon as it was first exposed.

Not all criminals are good at their job. That it was unsuccessful is, to me, a non sequitur. Success isn't a necessary component of intent.

[T]he chances of coming across the smoking paintbrush are much better than those of winning the lottery.

What is this estimation based on?

 

[hugh farey]

Not all criminals are good at their job. That it was unsuccessful is, to me, a non sequitur. Success isn't a necessary component of intent.

Very true. However, the cloth from which the Shroud is made is of a very high quality, and extremely expensive. Whoever produced the image was either very rich or well trusted by his employer, not a clumsy hack with a sheet.

What is this estimation based on?

The number of churches in medieval Europe for which a very high quality, 4m long cloth might be made, and the chances of winning the UK lottery, about 1 in 14 million.

 

[JayUtah]

Very true. However, the cloth from which the Shroud is made is of a very high quality, and extremely expensive. Whoever produced the image was either very rich or well trusted by his employer, not a clumsy hack with a sheet.

Or a clumsy hack who managed to steal a very expensive cloth. Criminals are not always bad at their jobs.

The number of churches in medieval Europe for which a very high quality, 4m long cloth might be made, and the chances of winning the UK lottery, about 1 in 14 million.

So you compute or estimate p≈7.14×10^-8 in the case of the U.K. lottery. What is the value for the other p and how did you compute it?

 

[John Jones]

Very true. However, the cloth from which the Shroud is made is of a very high quality, and extremely expensive.

Please quantify 'extremely expensive'.

The number of churches in medieval Europe for which a very high quality, 4m long cloth might be made, and the chances of winning the UK lottery, about 1 in 14 million.

Really? Can you show us your work?

NB: I have not responded to your every sentence. That means nothing more than that I have not responded to them.

 

[John Jones]

[...] 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.

Crickets Chirping

ETA: I have not responded to your every sentence. That means nothing more than that I have not responded to them.

 

[JayUtah]

Crickets Chirping

I believe Hugh lives in the U.K., meaning that from late afternoon in the U.S. we can expect him to have retired for the evening.