Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[hugh farey]

Hugh,
- I may not be telling you anything new, but their equation is for comparing two different hypotheses (H1 and H2). The equation I've been using is for comparing a hypothesis and its complement.
- I probably should have used their terms, however, and expressed my equation as
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H))
- "H" being that the shroud is authentic.

Yes, I think I've got that, Jabba, but do you see that you appear to have multiplied 0.9 by 0.5 and got 0.0475, when the correct product is 0.45?

 

[Pixel42]

I do not think any autheniticist thinks that Shroud was 'wrapped' around a body in order to produce the image

Really? I certainly have always assumed that was the theory. The body in question being that of Jesus, of course.

How do they think the image was produced, then?

 

[pgwenthold]

Another thing we skeptics should do is to read what people say, and respond to that, and not what we think they might have said.
In short, I agree with you. Wrapping a cloth around a 3d body will not give that image. But then, no authenticists think that was how the image was made, so you are refuting an argument that is not held by the people you wish to refute. That is what a 'straw man' argument is.

?????

How else is the image to get on the burial cloth of Jesus?

A miracle?

 

[pgwenthold]

Really? I certainly have always assumed that was the theory. The body in question being that of Jesus, of course.

How do they think the image was produced, then?

Actually, that is pretty easily answered. If you read between the lines, the argument boils down to "it must be a miracle, therefore Jesus."

I'm just surprised that Hugh would parrot that game, and, more seriously, that he would consider the rejections of miracles to be non-skeptical, and "exactly the same" as Jabba making up probabilities.

 

[hugh farey]

Not to mantion:

The ¹⁴C dating (dayenu!) is only one of the indications that the CIQ is an artwork. For instance, the Byzantine style of the cartoon; the anatomical impossibilities (including the self-contradictory "fixes" of manipulating a body in rigor); the mis-representation of the behavior of the "blood" (including the defiance of gravity); the provenance of the artifact (and the lack thereof); the chang in appearence of the CIQ over the last 7 centuries; all of these are strong (very strong) arguments against this particular cloth bearing the death-likeness of the body of a person not reliably demonstrated to exist.

If "Bayesian" "statistics" is to be used, those, too, must be calculated into the final range of probabilities...

Indeed they must, and there is some justification in deciding, without formal enumeration, that the probability of the Shroud being medieval is very high, but as soon as one quotes a number, as Jabba did, one opens the gate to the same challenge from Jabba as Jabba gets from those who disagree with him, namely, what calculations led to that number. And if that number is 100% certainty, one opens oneself to even more rigorous inquiry, and if that 100% is specifically based on an argument not held by one's opponents, then the entire edifice crumbles. I have a suspicion that Jabba is as good at recognising spurious reasoning as many of his opponents, so if there is to be any hope of changing his mind, rigorous analysis will be necessary, and careless dismissal a retrograde approach.

 

[theprestige]

Let me see if I understand recent events in this thread.

Jabba, an authenticist, wishes to have an authenticist-style debate with skeptics.

Hugh, a skeptic, wishes to have an authenticist-style debate with authenticists.

Everyone else with one exception, skeptics, wish to have a skeptic-style debate with an authenticist.

The exception is Jay, a skeptic, who wishes to use the debate for didactic purposes, for anyone who might benefit.

 

[Mojo]

I do not think any autheniticist thinks that Shroud was 'wrapped' around a body in order to produce the image

Really? I certainly have always assumed that was the theory. The body in question being that of Jesus, of course.

How do they think the image was produced, then?

?????

How else is the image to get on the burial cloth of Jesus?

A miracle?

Perhaps they think the image was painted on to the authentic shroud by someone who wanted to make it look like a forgery.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Really? I certainly have always assumed that was the theory. The body in question being that of Jesus, of course.

How do they think the image was produced, then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html

and, especially,



not to mention

"This is the only way that our knowledge of science and physics today...that the resurrection had to happen. First, the shroud had to unwrap, in a way that the clots didn't break off. The image went up and down. All the image that came out of this body, that was turning into energy, of course came out at 360 degrees...
...that's why there's no ears, and feet, becasue that energy went sideways...the body is weightless...
...dematerialization happens every time there's an atomic explosion...
...the pure energy went somewhere...
...the carbon dating is wrong..."

Have fun!

 

[Mojo]

My explanation is far more likely. If you insist, I think I can essentially prove this using Bayesian statistics.

 

[hugh farey]

Really? I certainly have always assumed that was the theory. The body in question being that of Jesus, of course.
How do they think the image was produced, then?

How else is the image to get on the burial cloth of Jesus? A miracle?

There is a lot to be said for knowing why one's opponents think what they do if one wishes to refute their arguments. There are dozens of books and papers about the Shroud, many of which can be read on Google books or shroud.com. Attempts to produce Shroud-like images in a natural way, as if from a dead body began in the 19th century. Basically, there are two main hypotheses, although each has numerous variations. They both assume the body was 'draped' rather than 'wrapped'. The first is the 'vaporograph' hypothesis, which assumes that evaporating sweat from the body may have interacted with chemicals on the surface of the linen, producing the degraded cellulose which appears to make up the image. The closer the body was to the cloth, the more intense the image. The linen could have been coated with various possible chemicals, from starch used in its manufacture, to the myrrh and aloes referred to in the Gospels, and sweat from a severely traumatised corpse may also contain a variety of chemicals, including assorted amines and even ammonia. The second hypothesis relies on some kind of radiation from the body producing a chemical change in the cloth. The kind of radiation varies from simple heat (some traumatised bodies increase in temperature immediately after death) to UV-radiation, or an electrostatic discharge in a highly charged (think thunderstorms and Frankenstein) environment. Some variations in these hypotheses require a 'miracle' (in the not-obeying-the-laws-of-physics sense), but many don't.

Quick notes for the skeptical.
1) Being able to spot apparent flaws in these arguments is not the prerogative of the skeptic. They have already been spotted, and in most cases considered in detail. Before dismissing any of them as 'impossible' or 'ridiculous', the papers in which they appear should be studied carefully.
2) I have studied all of them very carefully, and do not feel that they are sufficiently well argued to constitute valid arguments for authenticity.

Actually, that is pretty easily answered. If you read between the lines, the argument boils down to "it must be a miracle, therefore Jesus."
I'm just surprised that Hugh would parrot that game, and, more seriously, that he would consider the rejections of miracles to be non-skeptical, and "exactly the same" as Jabba making up probabilities.

It has become apparent that some commenters haven't read the lines at all, let alone between them. In most cases it most certainly does not boil down to "it must have been a miracle", and pretending that it does is putting up the kind of 'straw man' which we all deplore in our opponents.
Once again, pgwenthold has, unwittingly, I'm sure, misread my earlier comment. It was not a general attack on skeptics, and did not mention miracles. What it did say was that anyone who demands a mathematical derivation for a number from Jabba must be prepared to produce a mathematical derivation for a number he chooses himself. Jabba's arbitrary 10% probability for the Shroud being authentic has been widely criticised as an unjustified guess. If pgwenthold's "chances of the image on the shroud resulting from wrapping a cloth around a body is 0%" is not another unjustified guess, then he ought to be able to justify it, and setting up an easily demolished straw-man is not the way to do it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

My explanation is far more likely. If you insist, I think I can essentially prove this using Bayesian statistics.

...in this lifetime?

 

[Garrette]

Before we go any further, what is the assurance that the Bayesian method is being used correctly?

I see a whole bunch of equations flying around, but if I recall an article I read recently, improper use can be used to shoehorn any belief into being likely (which appears to be the motivation in this thread, given OP's prior performance in the immortality thread).

Will see if I can locate the article.

Meanwhile, I can't help but feel that this thread descending into using Bayesian methods is an indication that all arguments have been exhausted, so taking refuge in a forest of parentheses is the final redoubt.

I may have to have a go on my first Bayesian equation to determine the probability that Jabba is using Bayesian statistics correctly. I've got some educated guesses about the given observation in mind...

 

[wardenclyffe]

Hugh,

You've done enough reading and know the most current ideas in the authenticist community. What is their current best guess that explains the (relatively) undistorted image?

Links to our old favorite video about this are dead, so here's a new one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH_jg

Go to 2:24

Is this their best shot?

I know there's also a theory in which there are packages of spice piled around the perimeter of the body and the top half of the shroud was laid on top of the packages which kept the shroud hovering over the body.

The spice theory keeps the shroud off the front of the body, but not the back. And it offers no explanation about image formation (that I know of).

We are clamoring for a theory from authenticists that seems even remotely plausible.

Ward

 

[hugh farey]

Is this their best shot?

Not remotely. The 'particle physicist' referred to in the title of the video isn't one at all, and her ideas about 'event horizons' widely dismissed even among very committed authenticists. Actually the concept of a 'sudden mechanical transparency' of the body through which the previously horizontal Shroud fell uniformly was not her idea, but that of John Jackson, one of the original initiators of the STuRP investigation and quite definitely a physicist, if not a particle one. However, his ideas have wandered beyond the bounds of general acceptability. If you'll forgive me, I'll give an account of current, non-miraculous thinking tomorrow, as it is nearly midnight here and it will take some time!

 

[Slowvehicle]

...looks like a variation of the "no true sidonist" gambit.

 

[JayUtah]

I probably should have used their terms, however...

A sneaky way of admitting you were using the wrong model all along, without really admitting it. L() is not the same concept as P(). Maybe you should stop wibbling about with math you clearly don't understand and provide some actual evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

[T]here is some justification in deciding, without formal enumeration, that the probability of the Shroud being medieval is very high, but as soon as one quotes a number, as Jabba did, one opens the gate to the same challenge from Jabba as Jabba gets from those who disagree with him...

Which, strangely, didn't seem to include you. You had no problem with Jabba pulling a number out of a "dark place," and specifically suggested we focused on his misuse of the model rather than on the impropriety of encoding one's bare belief as a number and calling it science.

But let one of his critics commit the same error, and you're all over that critic. You really don't approach this discussion fairly at all.

 

[JayUtah]

There is a lot to be said for knowing why one's opponents think what they do if one wishes to refute their arguments.

Why do you think I end many of my posts by expounding upon what I've seen fringe theorists do in the past? You seem blithely unaware that Jabba is no different than any other fringe theorist trying to trump up the illusion of rigor by sorry means vastly observed over years by myself and others here.

You may notice it too, but the difference is that we hold his feet to the fire for them while you admonish us not to be so hard on him. You may not be a sindonist, but you've clearly planted yourself on enigmatic ground.

 

[Pooneil]

This thread got me interested in the shroud again and I'd like to ask Jabba about an alternative hypothesis of its creation and how that affects his "calculations." One hypothesis I have run across is that it is not a forgery at all. But rather a ceremonial item meant for use in reenacting the resurrection story on Easter Sunday. In effect the story would be acted out an the cloth would be presented to provide a visual for the narrative. No one would be portraying it as the true shroud of Jesus.

Over time such ceremonial items tend to take on a meaning of there own and apparently the Shroud was connected to a miracle and thus became venerated for that reason. It was over time with the forgetting of the origins that the veneration changed into the cult of the Shroud that considers it to be genuine. This is how it became a fake. It appears to be a well supported hypothesis albeit come to indirectly from circumstances as there is so little know about the origins. One of the reasons so little is known, is that such linen objects were in common use by the church at the time so they were not notable.

This is my summary of a view put forward by Charles Freeman. I learned about it listening to an interview with Freeman. You might want to run this third option into your probability mix.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Not remotely. The 'particle physicist' referred to in the title of the video isn't one at all, and her ideas about 'event horizons' widely dismissed even among very committed authenticists. Actually the concept of a 'sudden mechanical transparency' of the body through which the previously horizontal Shroud fell uniformly was not her idea, but that of John Jackson, one of the original initiators of the STuRP investigation and quite definitely a physicist, if not a particle one. However, his ideas have wandered beyond the bounds of general acceptability. If you'll forgive me, I'll give an account of current, non-miraculous thinking tomorrow, as it is nearly midnight here and it will take some time!

I think you did already in your previous post. Neither the vaporograph, nor the radiation theories really account for the lack of any wrap-around image, even if the shroud were only draped over the body.

I know I'm doing what you asked us not to do, which it try to poke holes in the theories. If a deeper reading of these two theories actually explains the lack of wrap-around, please let us know.

Ward