Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[JayUtah]

Mostly, unless you do something really egregious, the mods are invisible.

Correct. While my posts occasionally wander off behind closed doors due to moderation, my individualized interactions with the moderator staff over a number of years have amounted perhaps to half a dozen. "I've been too busy dealing with the moderators" is simply not a credible excuse at ISF.

I assume for most of us this forum is a spare-time hobby. As such I expect people to come and go as real-world interests take precedence. So for me it's not a matter of how much time one spends here, but what one does when one is here. If someone can find the time to pontificate at length, I find it hard to believe he lacks the time to respond to critics. From Jabba we get at most one or two posts a day. I'm prepared to believe that's all the time he chooses to devote to the discussion, but what those precious few posts contain quietly speaks volumes over the overt protests of barely being able to keep up. If one's contribution simply repeats ongoing befuddlement or repeats claims and assertions already made in spades, then it indeed looks like a filibuster.

HF would have us believe that he has retired from the arena because of the burden of answering the flood of modmails.

Indeed, it was becoming fairly obvious that his purported circumstance for being here was not credible. The egregious faux pas with Jabba and Bayes was probably unrecoverable.

 

[Rincewind]

I beg to differ slightly. If the kitchen table example were Jabba's, it would be a table with no legs, hovering above your shed.

Greetings,

Chris

Especially if you use a magic table cloth.

 

[GlennB]

Neither. For Jabba, Hugh, and other enthusiasts, the game is to manufacture and prolong debate. As long as there is a semblance of controversy, the hobby lives on.


Mojo is a ninja.

Usually the case with the 9/11 Truth regulars too - as long as they can type they think their case must retain some merit.

 

[abaddon]

Correct. While my posts occasionally wander off behind closed doors due to moderation, my individualized interactions with the moderator staff over a number of years have amounted perhaps to half a dozen. "I've been too busy dealing with the moderators" is simply not a credible excuse at ISF.

Same here. There are only a few conclusions. Repetative rule breaker? Offensive posts? Abusive PMs? Threats of legal action? I buy none of those. The most likely is blame the mods, then run and hide.

I assume for most of us this forum is a spare-time hobby.

LOL, sure, but my schedule is so borked that I might be online at any hour. Good luck figuring that out. Customers from Japan to San Fran.

As such I expect people to come and go as real-world interests take precedence. So for me it's not a matter of how much time one spends here, but what one does when one is here. If someone can find the time to pontificate at length, I find it hard to believe he lacks the time to respond to critics. From Jabba we get at most one or two posts a day. I'm prepared to believe that's all the time he chooses to devote to the discussion, but what those precious few posts contain quietly speaks volumes over the overt protests of barely being able to keep up. If one's contribution simply repeats ongoing befuddlement or repeats claims and assertions already made in spades, then it indeed looks like a filibuster.

See it is easy for me. I am pretty sure that any regulars are aware that I dwell in the land of the leprechauns and thus operate on GMT. That said, I am 24/7 glued to a computer and oftentimes you are left sitting there like a lemon. So one perforce seeks a means to pass the slack time. Right now, it is 6 pm my time. Before me I have a HDD recovery. I may catch some zzz around 4 am my time. So it goes. One does the job in front of you, whatever it takes.

Get a bucket of cash for it as well make no mistake.

Indeed, it was becoming fairly obvious that his purported circumstance for being here was not credible.

Hmm, given the claims of not being an authenticist while espousing and promoting authenticism, one must wonder.

Indeed I pointed out this "wolf in sheeps clothing" a long time ago. At that time few supported me and many castigated me, yet here we are exactly where I predicted we would end up. I still take no pleasure in it.

The egregious faux pas with Jabba and Bayes was probably unrecoverable.

Not sure about that. Hugh has heretofore roamed only sites which grovelled at his appearance of erudition.

He bailed from here. We do not do appearance.

 

[abaddon]

Good ole Jabba. Log in, read the responses, decline to reply to any of them and bail.

 

[sackett]

"Trouble with the mods" is more original than "the dog ate it."

 

[abaddon]

"Trouble with the mods" is more original than "the dog ate it."

Perhaps it is. But as I head for the big 50 I find myself growing fearful.

I do not fear death. It is the way of the world.

I fear that I have not done enough to educate, to deny this abject ignorance.

There are many on here who, were I given free reign, should be hung drawn castrated and neutered. The MA precludes justice.

 

[Mojo]

Especially if you use a magic table cloth.

No, not a magic tablecloth; you must use a magic cloth used to cover tables.

 

[Rincewind]

No, not a magic tablecloth; you must use a magic cloth used to cover tables.

thanks for the correction...

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics

Garrette,
- Good answer. But why do you think that the probability of so much limestone being on an authentic shroud would be less than the probability of it being on an inauthentic shroud?

Long ago I said I was done with my interactions with you for reasons already given. This is my one and only exception to that vow:

Read the very well informed and articulated replies of the other posters here. There are literally dozens upon dozens of them.

I am not your Least Critical Poster.

Garrette,
- Show me just one of these dozen upon dozens of very well informed and articulated replies of the other posters here that say why the probability of so much limestone being on an authentic shroud would be less than the probability of it being on an inauthentic shroud.

 

[zooterkin]

Garrette,
- Show me just one of these dozen upon dozens of very well informed and articulated replies of the other posters here that say why the probability of so much limestone being on an authentic shroud would be less than the probability of it being on an inauthentic shroud.

Do you read this thread with your eyes closed?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Garrette,
- Show me just one of these dozen upon dozens of very well informed and articulated replies of the other posters here that say why the probability of so much limestone being on an authentic shroud would be less than the probability of it being on an inauthentic shroud.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Once again, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

No one has made the claim that a 1st Century C.E. cloth would be less likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

It is, in fact, you who are trying to misuse Bayes to sneak in the assertion that a cloth from the 1st Century C.E. would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Through it all, I remain

Dustily yours &ct.

 

[Mojo]

It is, in fact, you who are trying to misuse Bayes to sneak in the assertion that a cloth from the 1st Century C.E. would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

The assertion he's really trying to sneak in is that a cloth with limestone on it is more likely to be the authentic shroud than it is to be a fake.

 

[Garrette]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Once again, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

No one has made the claim that a 1st Century C.E. cloth would be less likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

It is, in fact, you who are trying to misuse Bayes to sneak in the assertion that a cloth from the 1st Century C.E. would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Through it all, I remain

Dustily yours &ct.

In fairness to Jabba (a fairness he does not show in return), that is how I worded my post. It is also how it has come across in some posts, and it is how I envision it, particularly given the sized and gessoed nature of the thing. You note that he seizes upon that quibbling in wording as opposed to the dozens upon dozens of posts that actually word it they way you are suggesting.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics

Why do you think you have any basis whatsoever by which to quantify those beliefs? You're the one who did so, so you're the one on the hook to tell us how you did it and make us believe it's numerically sound. The fact that you refuse to do so suggests you're being deliberately deceptive about your reasons for invoking Bayes.

Jay,

- Could be that my efforts to explain my quantifications have not been very substantive - but, I have tried.

- From #2855, on 1/19/16:
- What we're doing here is trying to determine the new probability of an old hypothesis when certain new info is added. In the limestone case, we learn that there is all sorts of limestone on the shroud. In my estimate, the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud -- given that the shroud is authentic -- is maybe 95% -- while the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud -- given that the shroud is inauthentic -- should be no more than, say, 50%. The reason for this relatively small likelihood -- given inauthenticity -- is our lack of knowledge about the shrouds origin under this "given." This forgery might have a lot of limestone on it -- but then again, it very well might not...

- From #2908, on 1/21/16:
- I'm not making these up out of thin air.
- The exact numbers chosen are indeed guesses. However, they are educated guesses -- which is what Bayesian statistics is all about.
- If we know the history of an artifact, our guess as to the microscopic debris to be found on it would be more likely accurate than our guess did we not know its history.- The likelihoods I suggested reflect that principle.
- The exact numbers I chose are where the educated guesses come in. What numbers would you chose?

 

[JayUtah]

Show me just one of these dozen upon dozens...

Clearly, as Zooterkin has noted, you must be reading this thread with your eyes closed.

But in a more important sense, you are the one who is claiming a much, much higher probability that limestone means authenticity. Not only thereby do you tacitly assert it is possible to decide that, you claim to have done it. You have the burden of proof. All these people are disputing your answer and asking you to supply that proof. But despite the many requests, you will not.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Once again, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

No one has made the claim that a 1st Century C.E. cloth would be less likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.

It is, in fact, you who are trying to misuse Bayes to sneak in the assertion that a cloth from the 1st Century C.E. would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval cloth.
Upon what do you base this assertion?

Through it all, I remain

Dustily yours &ct.

Slowvehicle,
- That is not what I'm asserting. I'm asserting that the authentic burial cloth of Jesus would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval forgery.[/HILITE].

 

[Mojo]

- If we know the history of an artifact, our guess as to the microscopic debris to be found on it would be more likely accurate than our guess did we not know its history.

The history we know of the artefact in question is that it first showed up in the 14th century, and has spent much, if not all, of the intervening time in places where there is limestone.

 

[Mojo]

Slowvehicle,
- That is not what I'm asserting. I'm asserting that the authentic burial cloth of Jesus would be more likely to contain limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) than a medieval forgery.[/HILITE].

How likely is a medieval forgery that has been gessoed to have CaCO₃ on it?

 

[JayUtah]

Could be that my efforts to explain my quantifications have not been very substantive - but, I have tried.

No, you haven't. You keep quoting the post where you pull the numbers out of your orifice, but you seem blissfully unaware that at no point have you given any rationale for them besides the non sequitur, "There's no way to know what they could be, so I'm going to choose a small number."

The reason for this relatively small likelihood -- given inauthenticity -- is our lack of knowledge about the shrouds origin under this "given." This forgery might have a lot of limestone on it -- but then again, it very well might not...

Asked and answered many times. You wrongly think that ambiguity allows you to choose a small number. Ambiguity does not let you choose any number with any appreciable confidence. That's exactly what ambiguity means. Even Hugh tried to tell you this, but you blustered right past him. I addressed this at length already several times, as have all your other critics.

Further, the ambiguity is an artificial effect of your formulation of the problem -- your inappropriate bifurcation. I addressed this at length too. Kindly pay attention to the discussion.

The likelihoods I suggested reflect that principle [of educated guesses].

Simply insisting that your arbitrarily-chosen numbers are "educated guesses" does not make them so. You must provide the quantitative argument that produces those numbers, because only therein lies the education. You cannot call them "educated guesses" when your bare argument is along the lines, "Well, I think the probability might be somewhere around X."

In all your harumphing around Bayes, you forget the most important principle: the strength of the priors. Without well-chosen priors, no Bayes method produces useful results. And even then, the results are always limited to consideration within the parametric domain -- i.e., the preconceptions encoded around the priors. As I said, the best a Bayes solution can produce is where next to go, given new data, if you already believe in one thing or another. It in no way establishes an objective probability. Since your priors reflected a strong preconception, necessarily so did your result.

The exact numbers I chose are where the educated guesses come in.

You have not shown in any way that your exact numbers derived from any education or quantitative exercise. You simply pulled them out of thin air and propped them up with vague handwaving and non sequiturs.

What numbers would you chose?

Shifting the burden of proof. You have chosen specific probabilities that you say are well founded. No one agrees, and they are asking you to justify your numbers. Do so immediately without simply referring back to already-rejected arguments.

Or conversely, you can do what others have urged, abandon this silly misguided attempt at statistics you don't understand, and produce the evidence you were asked for.