Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of unsupported conjectures about undemonstrated effects>

...in what way has this effect ever been demonstrated to leave a byzantine-styled cartoon (complete with antigravity "blood"!) beind on a piece of linen "wrapped" around a body?

 

[abaddon]

...in what way has this effect ever been demonstrated to leave a byzantine-styled cartoon (complete with antigravity "blood"!) beind on a piece of linen "wrapped" around a body?

"Draped" is the mot du jour, apparently, as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

 

[hugh farey]

Not peer reviewed, self presents as a scientific paper yet is not, starts with the conclusion and works backwards, simply changes radioactive jesus into electric jesus and leaves you appearing to be a closet sindonist. What are we to make of this reply?

It's a hypothesis. If there is something wrong with it, refute it. Petty disparagement is simply eating from the authenticists' hands.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not peer reviewed, self presents as a scientific paper yet is not, starts with the conclusion and works backwards, simply changes radioactive jesus into electric jesus and leaves you appearing to be a closet sindonist.

What are we to make of this reply?

It seems, Dread One, that we are to accept by fiat that bedtime stories are "for grownups"; evidence need not apply.

I guess.

 

[catsmate]

Not peer reviewed, self presents as a scientific paper yet is not, starts with the conclusion and works backwards, simply changes radioactive jesus into electric jesus and leaves you appearing to be a closet sindonist.

What are we to make of this reply?

The usual shroudie desperation perhaps?

Glad you admit it.

Yeah, the 'shroud' is falling.

...in what way has this effect ever been demonstrated to leave a byzantine-styled cartoon (complete with antigravity "blood"!) beind on a piece of linen "wrapped" around a body?

It hasn't, which puts it in the same category as the rest of shroud "science".

 

[hugh farey]

...in what way has this effect ever been demonstrated to leave a byzantine-styled cartoon (complete with antigravity "blood"!) beind on a piece of linen "wrapped" around a body?

It only needs to be demonstrated once, and it is the contention of the authors that the Shroud was that example. Spicer suggests that another example could be obtained by experiment. The explanation of a unique historical event does not have to be demonstrated to be a valid explanation.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"Draped" is the mot du jour, apparently, as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

Triumph of the "drape culture": That bit of manifestly medieval linen was askin' for it!

 

[abaddon]

It's a hypothesis. If there is something wrong with it, refute it. Petty disparagement is simply eating from the authenticists' hands.

Given that from the get go it states things like

Given that to date the historical evidence tracks the origins of the
cloth back to at least the 6th century AD,

on the basis of nothing whatsoever, it is self evidently a steaming load.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It only needs to be demonstrated once, and it is the contention of the authors that the Shroud was that example. Spicer suggests that another example could be obtained by experiment. The explanation of a unique historical event does not have to be demonstrated to be a valid explanation.

Interesting misuse of the word, "demonstrated".

If it "only happened once", it cannot be said to be "demonstrated".

It's special pleading, all the way down to the assumed consequent at the bottom.

 

[abaddon]

From the same document

that forensic evidence strongly supports the conclusion
that the man enclosed by the Shroud was in fact crucified,

Outright lie.

which totally undermines the assertion
of forgery by revealing details in physics, chemistry and medical knowledge only available in the
20th century,

Outright lie.

and that there are additional physical tests, other than the one-off and often cited
C14 test against the authenticity of the Shroud

Attempt to eliminate one of the most exacting C¹⁴ tests ever carried out by means of handwave.

that date the Shroud to the 1st century AD,

Outright lie.

we will
assume that the crucified man was in fact Jesus of Nazareth and use the New Testament Gospels
as a source of information for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Really? We will assume that?


And all in the first paragraph of the frakking introduction.

 

[abaddon]

Furthermore, you berated Slowvehicle for using the NT as a source under any circumstance yet now, in a spectacular volte face, you are endorsing an obvious wingnut who claims to be using the NT as a primary source.

 

[zooterkin]

ROFL.


Now, for the grown-ups. Well, you asked for it, so here goes:

One of the many hypotheses explaining how the image we see on the Shroud could have been made by a dead body lying in it was proposed in 2015 by Daniel S. Spicer, PhD, until recently Research Professor of Physics at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and now Emeritus Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Although he took half an hour to explain his idea at the St Louis Shroud Conference that year, in essence he considered the body as a conductor of electricity between two insulating plates, the enfolding linen cloth. In a vertical electric field, such an arrangement leads to charges gathering on the horizontal surfaces in preference to the vertical surfaces. Polar gas molecules such as water, ammonia and urea, or similar constituents of body fluids and/or embalming spices, would collect at these points, such that the transfer of such gases from one surface to the other would be more or less collimated, with the result that any image forming reactions were more or less vertically above the sites from which the gases stimulating them were emitted, and ‘wrap-around’ distortion largely, but not wholly, eliminated.

The validity of the hypothesis lies in the availability of a suitable electric field, the availability of appropriate chemical reactions, and the weakening of those reactions with respect to the distance of the cloth from the body.

Spicer lists no fewer than nine other hypotheses involving electric fields, but considers that his is the only one which reduces wrap-around distortion to an acceptable minimum. He presents numerous difficulties and unresolved issues, suggests simple laboratory experiments to clear them up, and makes predictions regarding their outcome. He is determined that his mechanism is a completely natural process with no miraculous overtones, although he himself is convinced that the Shroud is authentic.

Spicer’s paper, co-authored with E.T. Toton, can be found at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlspicerpaper.pdf, and his presentation at the St Louis conference at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2iJCMuGho&feature=youtu.be&list=UUSv7BD9sKjIcA24ct1Hz_Aw

And this happened when?

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics

I think it is important to a skeptical website not to fall into exactly the same errors of reasoning as the arguments it seeks to refute, don't you? The epithet "straw man" is often bandied about, I think to represent an argument that is easily refuted, but is not, in fact proposed by the holders of the argument you wish to refute. I do not think any autheniticist thinks that Shroud was 'wrapped' around a body in order to produce the image, so assuming that they do, and denouncing it as impossible, is a classic "straw man". Jabba's arguments have many weaknesses, and I hope he will recognise that 0.9 * 0.5 does not equal 0.0475, but responding like for like is unlikely to persuade him, or any other authenticist reading this thread to change his mind.

Hugh,
- So far, I can't figure out where I got 0.0475...
- My only excuse, so far, is that as slow as I am, I'm always rushing -- and, this stuff is hard to wrap one's head around anyway...

- Anyway, using more appropriate terminology and (hopefully) the right numbers this time,
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, I get P(H|E) =.95*.1/((.95*.1)+.5*.9) =.095/(.095+.45), or .095/.545, or 0.174311927.
- IOW, by adding the info about the limestone, the probability of H increased from 0.1 to 0.174311927, and the posterior probability of H is .074311927 larger than the prior probability of H.
- And then, if the posterior probability of H is larger than its prior probability, the posterior probability of ~H has to be smaller than its prior probability.
- Hopefully, I got it right this time...

 

[Jabba]

Natural possibilities

ROFL.


Now, for the grown-ups. Well, you asked for it, so here goes:

One of the many hypotheses explaining how the image we see on the Shroud could have been made by a dead body lying in it was proposed in 2015 by Daniel S. Spicer, PhD, until recently Research Professor of Physics at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and now Emeritus Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Although he took half an hour to explain his idea at the St Louis Shroud Conference that year, in essence he considered the body as a conductor of electricity between two insulating plates, the enfolding linen cloth. In a vertical electric field, such an arrangement leads to charges gathering on the horizontal surfaces in preference to the vertical surfaces. Polar gas molecules such as water, ammonia and urea, or similar constituents of body fluids and/or embalming spices, would collect at these points, such that the transfer of such gases from one surface to the other would be more or less collimated, with the result that any image forming reactions were more or less vertically above the sites from which the gases stimulating them were emitted, and ‘wrap-around’ distortion largely, but not wholly, eliminated.

The validity of the hypothesis lies in the availability of a suitable electric field, the availability of appropriate chemical reactions, and the weakening of those reactions with respect to the distance of the cloth from the body.

Spicer lists no fewer than nine other hypotheses involving electric fields, but considers that his is the only one which reduces wrap-around distortion to an acceptable minimum. He presents numerous difficulties and unresolved issues, suggests simple laboratory experiments to clear them up, and makes predictions regarding their outcome. He is determined that his mechanism is a completely natural process with no miraculous overtones, although he himself is convinced that the Shroud is authentic.

Spicer’s paper, co-authored with E.T. Toton, can be found at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlspicerpaper.pdf, and his presentation at the St Louis conference at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2iJCMuGho&feature=youtu.be&list=UUSv7BD9sKjIcA24ct1Hz_Aw

- Check out http://shroud.com/pdfs/imprint.pdf. I wonder if Spicer knows about this...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- So far, I can't figure out where I got 0.0475...
- My only excuse, so far, is that as slow as I am, I'm always rushing -- and, this stuff is hard to wrap one's head around anyway...

- Anyway, using more appropriate terminology and (hopefully) the right numbers this time,
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, I get P(H|E) =.95*.1/((.95*.1)+.5*.9) =.095/(.095+.45), or .095/.545, or 0.174311927.
- IOW, by adding the info about the limestone, the probability of H increased from 0.1 to 0.174311927, and the posterior probability of H is .074311927 larger than the prior probability of H.
- And then, if the posterior probability of H is larger than its prior probability, the posterior probability of ~H has to be smaller than its prior probability.
- Hopefully, I got it right this time...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I realize that it is usually your pleasure not to respond to my posts. Naetheless, I do, in fact, have a question.

What do you, personally, think your statistical foray means?

I remain,

Analytically yours &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

If Jabba is taken to task for his specific selection of 10% as the probability for authenticity, then it is fair to take Maurice Ledificile (who first claimed it) or pgwenthold to task for their specific selection of 0%.

That would seem reasonable if you hadn't first chided those who took Jabba to task for guesswork. You told us to disregard that because he had made what you felt was a more egregious error. Guesswork was okay, but poor arithmetic was not, as long as the contributor was Jabba. You even endorsed his guesswork as "generous."

But let someone else make Jabba's mistake of an unfounded estimate and you suddenly think it's okay to criticize for guesswork. In your mad rush to enforce a sense of fairness, you've forgotten to be fair.

As he is not a 'skeptic' we cannot expect Jabba to abide by 'our' rules, but as a 'skeptic', we can expect pgwenthold to.

I don't take such a partisan approach. I don't believe that just because someone doesn't self-identify as a skeptic, he gets a pass. The rules of impartial analysis apply by definition to everyone. I very much do expect Jabba to abide by "skeptic" rules of reason as long as he's presenting his case to skeptics.

Quite possibly, but as I have said before, fringe theorists are not repudiated by using their own methods against them. They are very used to that.

Which is why I personally did not endorse anyone else's attempt to choose other variables. The problem here, as many have explained, is that you are quite happy using Jabba's methods against his critics.

And I'm okay with someone attempting to estimate a prior probability as long as there's some testable rationale behind it. I'm okay because there's something to test, which results in an exercise that will either move (or invalidate altogether) the estimate or show the degree of confidence that can be had in it.

An estimate of zero is based on theoretical principles of the hypothetico-deductive method. I don't agree with its applicability in this case as a means of generating a quantitative estimate, but at least I was given grounds upon which to decide my disagreement.

Another estimate is based on such things as the numerical probability of three labs getting the same false-negative result for radiocarbon dating. These are computable in the frequentist sense based on prior reliability. Computing these sorts of probabilities is a necessary exercise in my field. You may disagree with the choice of parameters and you may take issue with how the model is exercised, but the point is that you were given a rational toehold for such a disputation.

Jabba simply pulled his 10% figure out of his orifice, and got applause from you for it. You thought it was generous, given that he could have chosen a higher figure at random. What kind of testable rationale is that? From either of you?

That's the downfall of his Bayesian probability, not overall denunciations of incompetence.

In your opinion. Jabba made several mistakes. I found the important one early on and called him on it. You found a smaller one later and called him on it, but your version of the method lets him still believe he knows what he's talking about. For the reasons I explained yesterday, I don't endorse approaches that let people convey a false sense of reliability.

You still haven't figured out that you're on a debate board. You still haven't figured out that you're trying to dictate a different method and policy to people who have been dealing with Jabba's distractions and nonsense for four years in some cases. You still haven't figured out that you don't call the shots here.

But you don't hold his feet to the fire. You don't even get close. You give him easy wriggle room, and he wriggles.

Utter hogwash. I and others told him at the very beginning his numbers were made up and therefore useless. He asked me what numbers I would choose instead, and I told him I wouldn't choose any, because to do so would be equally useless. Others did, of course, but I can't do much about that. I attempted to shut him down three pages ago on the GIGO principle. You coddled him for those same three pages and are still coddling him.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm always rushing --

Or you don't know what you're doing. You're not just skipping parentheses and fluffing the arithmetic. You're conflating dissimilar concepts.

...and, this stuff is hard to wrap one's head around anyway...

Yes, so stop pretending you know what you're doing. Stop pretending this is an applicable form of reasoning in this question. Stop pretending it helps your case.

No one except Hugh is buying into this, and no one except you two is interested in watching you fumble your way through math you don't understand. You've been asked for affirmative evidence, and no amount of distraction will ultimately save you from having to produce it if you can.

Hopefully, I got it right this time...

You didn't, for the same important reason you didn't get it right all the other times you've been swinging away at it.

You've simply pulled the most important numbers in your model out of thin air. You've chosen them not because they reflect a soberly considered attempt at modeling reality, but because they make the numbers come out in a way that seems favorable to you. They're not "educated guesses" as you claim, but simply guesses. You provide nothing to indicate the education you imply is behind them.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I realize that it is usually your pleasure not to respond to my posts. Naetheless, I do, in fact, have a question.

What do you, personally, think your statistical foray means?

I remain,

Analytically yours &ct.

Slowvehicle,
- It means that while an event may be consistent with both sides of complementary hypotheses, it can ultimately support one over the other. I contend that the limestone on the shroud ultimately supports authenticity, and detracts from inauthenticity. More relevant here, I claim that the stains on the shroud being real blood would support authenticity and detract from inauthenticity.

 

[JayUtah]

It means that while an event may be consistent with both sides of complementary hypotheses, it can ultimately support one over the other.

And that is based entirely upon estimates of prior probability and conditional likelihoods, all of which you've simply made up out of thin air in this case.

I contend that the limestone on the shroud ultimately supports authenticity, and detracts from inauthenticity.

If you intend your misapplication of Bayes to be the support for that contention, then your contention is based simply on arbitrary choices of inputs that, not unexpectedly, work out in your favor. Because you chose them to.

A question begged with numbers is still a begged question.

 

[zooterkin]

I contend that the limestone on the shroud ultimately supports authenticity, and detracts from inauthenticity. More relevant here, I claim that the stains on the shroud being real blood would support authenticity and detract from inauthenticity.

Only if you ignore reality.