Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[JayUtah]

You seem to have your attribution mixed up; that quote is from MRC_Hans, not Jabba.

Indeed, my apologies. Good catch; thanks.

 

[The Don]

You seem to have your attribution mixed up; that quote is from MRC_Hans, not Jabba.

tbh before jabba fixed the quote tags the post was unintelligible.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- Nice try with "Nice try" -- but, this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Do you see that you have just admitted that your misuse of Bayes' work was no more than an attempt to support your assumed consequent?

Pedantically yours, &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you see that you have just admitted that your misuse of Bayes' work was no more than an attempt to support your assumed consequent?

He's equivocating again. "...[G]iven that the shroud is authentic" is an acceptable expression of a Bayesian maxim. It could be considered a hypothetical study of what would be a prudent course of action, given authenticity, if limestone were discovered on it. Prudent, of course, only if the presumption of authenticity were never changed.

The part he leaves out is, "...given that the shroud is authentic [and that limestone would be more likely to be on it if it were authentic]." That's how his model is actually formulated. He's trying to sneak it in again as a "valid" Bayesian model without drawing attention to the parts he's now admitted he just made up. He doesn't want you thinking about what the model would say, given that the shroud is authentic, if the presence of limestone had nothing to do with authenticity. Hint: it's a Bayesian tautology in that case.

He's trying so very hard to make it seem like something other than the circular argument it so manifestly is.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Actually, it should be less likely for there to be limestone on the shroud if it were authentic. Let me explain this logically:

Using Hugh's theory, whatever limestone that had accumulated on the cloth while in the tomb would have been blasted and disintegrated into oblivion by the massive electrical fields that created the image and then melted into slag by the radiation from the earthquake. If one subscribes to the floating wormhole Jesus theory, well... that one is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. All of the limestone particles would have been sucked into the Jesus wormhole and deposited on Deep Space Nine. This is grade school stuff here, people.

 

[Craig4]

Bayesian.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Pacal]

Is it just me or do these arguments about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin just keep going round and round going no where. In the end the evidence for a first century C.E. Shroud of Turin is close to zero and the evidence for a late medieval date, (c. 1350 C.E.), pretty good. So the argument is all about true believers wanting to believe the woo.

More interesting is the question of how the image was made. Now I believe there is evidence that the image was in the past quite different from what we see now. This of course makes the supposed failure to reproduce the image a bit of a red herring given we don't know what it looked like originally, (c. 1350 C.E.), and have not been given 700+ years to age and weather the image. Also despite the ranting of the shroud gawkers some people have come very close to exactly replicating the image, which given the images being created can't be aged 700 years and we don't know what the image looked like originally is pretty damn good. Meanwhile the supernatural explanation of the image is so much pull out of your ass magic.

Given all that it is tiresome that this discussion continues. given the evidence we have now the shroud in a mid 14th century fraud and unless new significant evidence comes out there is no reason to entertain much doubt.

 

[Craig4]

This thread is really about the dangers of trying to use science to prove a supernatural belief. If you cherish your beliefs, the worse thing you can do is try to prove them with science.

 

[Pixel42]

This thread is really about the dangers of trying to use science to prove a supernatural belief. If you cherish your beliefs, the worse thing you can do is try to prove them with science.

The first time I heard of the shroud was in the mid 70s, when my then boss (an engineer like me) told me about it. He was a committed Christian and he was convinced that God had provided the shroud deliberately for the benefit of our generation, ie it was to provide the scientific evidence for the resurrection that God knew would be eventually required as humanity's knowledge and understanding of the universe grew. I'd changed job by the time the results of the carbon dating were announced, I've often wondered what he made of them.

I used to have a David Attenborough quote in my signature: "the correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". People who look for scientific evidence to support their supernatural beliefs have missed the whole point of science.

 

[John Jones]

This thread is really about the dangers of trying to use science to prove a supernatural belief. If you cherish your beliefs, the worse thing you can do is try to prove them with science.

QFT.

 

[Stuart]

Indeed, my apologies. Good catch; thanks.

FYI Jabba, this is what you do when you have something wrong - not change the topic

 

[Aepervius]

Is it just me or do these arguments about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin just keep going round and round going no where. In the end the evidence for a first century C.E. Shroud of Turin is close to zero and the evidence for a late medieval date, (c. 1350 C.E.), pretty good. So the argument is all about true believers wanting to believe the woo.

This has been going that way for years. I simply left the thread because jabba's behavior went past the point where I could stay polite. I am from time to time just having a look and see that , no, it is still going round and round with jabba being trussed but not admitting anything. I expect this to continue for years until entropy takes its toll and the Older member of the debate team die out without admitting medieval origin.

 

[The Don]

Is it just me or do these arguments about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin just keep going round and round going no where. In the end the evidence for a first century C.E. Shroud of Turin is close to zero and the evidence for a late medieval date, (c. 1350 C.E.), pretty good. So the argument is all about true believers wanting to believe the woo.

I suppose I'm really waiting to see jabba's evidence for authenticity.

I'd like to see the "undocumented history" that jabba has repeatedly referred to.

I'd love to know why jabba is so sure of authenticity that he continues to argue in favour of a preponderance of evidence in favour of authenticity when so far all he has attempted to do (unsuccessfully as it turns out) is to point out small possible flaws in the evidence that it's a thirteenth century artifact.

 

[zooterkin]

I suppose I'm really waiting to see jabba's evidence for authenticity.

He has, more than once, admitted he has none. Then he starts on the equivocation again.

 

[Mojo]

I'd like to see the "undocumented history" that jabba has repeatedly referred to.

You can't, because it isn't documented.

 

[catsmate]

Slowvehicle,
- Interesting logical question.
- If the shroud were authentic, it would have spent a couple of nights, and at least one day, in a limestone tomb. If the shroud is any old cloth from the 1st Century, C.E., it probably would not have incurred that history -- or, anything especially similar.

But if it were a painted fake, as it is, the carbonate would be deliberately applied.

- I've been assuming that the limestone found on the shroud is debris rather than gesso,

And how to you intend to prove this? Or will it be another point your ignore in your desperate attempt to justify your belief?

nd that lying in a limestone cave for 36 hours or so would assure a lot of collected limestone debris -- much of which would still be there after 2000 years.

Evidence?

 

[catsmate]

Hans,
- Nice try with "Nice try" -- but, this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.

So you admit to making up numbers to justify your opinion then?

 

[catsmate]

This thread is really about the dangers of trying to use science to prove a supernatural belief. If you cherish your beliefs, the worse thing you can do is try to prove them with science.

"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks".

 

[MRC_Hans]

I suppose I'm really waiting to see jabba's evidence for authenticity.

You should not hold your breath.

I'd like to see the "undocumented history" that jabba has repeatedly referred to.

'Undocumented history' = Fairy tales.

I'd love to know why jabba is so sure of authenticity that he continues to argue in favour of a preponderance of evidence in favour of authenticity

He has said that he very much wants the shroud to be autentic because he needs his belief in Jesus reinforced. .... Or something like that.

when so far all he has attempted to do (unsuccessfully as it turns out) is to point out small possible flaws in the evidence that it's a thirteenth century artifact.

It's called grasping at straws.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- Nice try with "Nice try" -- but, this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.

So you start with the result you want and then make up the calculations?

That is not called Bayesian analysis; that is called fraud.

Hans