Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[turingtest]

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.

And have missed the whole point of faith as well; someone who goes to the lengths Jabba has to substantiate his faith is displaying the very opposite thing, he's showing doubt.

And I'm not sure how showing the Shroud "authentic" even helps resolve that doubt into what his faith really aims at; at best (for him), it shows only a dead man, not a resurrected one. You'll never be Thomas, Jabba- you'll never be able to put your hand into the wounds of a living man you knew to be dead. Best to just give it up and believe, if that's what you need.

 

[godless dave]

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.

Martin Luther understood that. "Reason is the enemy of faith."



Godless Dave
Limestone Cowboy

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

Please explain how exactly 36 hours of limestone exposure of the CIQ can compete in any way with 700 known years of limestone exposure.

I don't think you can.

I think that is why you have gone dark.

Every time you get nailed on a claim, you cease interacting. Why is that? Do you think anyone will forget?

 

[Lucian]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

In what way is this (your claim) different from this (my statement of your claim)?

If the CIQ is taken to be a cloth that was "wrapped" around the MJ after hiis crucifiction and resurrexion, it would, in deed, be a cloth from the 1st Century, C.E. How does being used in a hypothetical event for which there is no evidence make it "more likely" to contain CaCO₃? Why are you ignoring the ubiquity of limestone throughout human history?

I remain,

yours, &ct.

ETA: are you, in fact, stooping to so transparently simple an argument as, "if the CIQ were, in fact, authentic, it would be much more likely that it were authentic"?

JF SV H

I'd like to thank you for the pleasant couple of minutes I've spent imagining someone trying to wrap Jesus in the shroud after the resurrection:

Man: Get in the shroud, Jesus.
Jesus: I'm not dead!
Man: Don't be silly--you were just crucified!
Jesus: I feel happy!
Man: You're not fooling anyone, you know.
Jesus: I think I'll go for a walk.

I imagine people trying to chase him down and put him in the shroud. Perhaps that's why the fold is at the head. It would be the natural way to go if he were struggling.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

This has been explained to you, repeatedly. The question is not, as you would have it, whether there would "probably" be CaCO₃ on a theoretical cloth that had been (according to legend) "wrapped" around an HJ after his crucifiction, to be imprinted by his resurrextion into the MJ.
The claim you have made with your intentional mismanipulation of your version of Bayes' work is that such a cloth would be more likely to contain CaCO₃ that a sized and gessoed bit of medieval linen ostensibly stored in limestone churches for 700+ years.

Have you the faintest skerrick of evidence to support your claim?

Through it all, I remain,

Z-normally yours &ct.

Oh you're no fun anymore!

 

[abaddon]

I imagine people trying to chase him down and put him in the shroud. Perhaps that's why the fold is at the head. It would be the natural way to go if he were struggling.

Only if they ran him down with a steamroller.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>

Oh you're no fun anymore!

Inorite?

(It's a fair cop.)

 

[Mojo]

Every time you get nailed on a claim, you cease interacting. Why is that? Do you think anyone will forget?

We can expect a reset in the near future.

 

[JayUtah]

If Jabba were pausing to reconsider his position or to do research it would be one thing. But the history of the thread -- and there's a lot of it -- shows he's pausing to let his critics lose interest and go away, hopefully forgetting what's been discussed and debated already. Then he'll pop up again with Marino et al. or some other thoroughly rehashed nonsense.

The notion of why the cloth is so darn important to some people has been vexing me too. My impression is that the cloth could turn out to be artificial and none of the important tenets of Christianity would waver. It simply doesn't seem important to hardly any Christians that the cloth be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. In fact, from my sojourn in Italy I originally gathered it's just one of a class of artifact-related superstitions that haunt the backwaters of Italian rural Catholicism.

The notion that it's a modern bit of evidence meant to convince skeptics of the divinity of Jesus is somewhat intriguing, but I agree it's neither good science nor good religion. There are some evidentiary questions in religion that are legitimately expected. I live in a land where legions of amateur (and sometimes academic) archaeologists scour the evidence for proof of the ancient Jewish expatriots the Book of Mormon say lived in the Americas. That's an historical claim purported by the religion's canon, so if it's true there's some evidence we should expect to see in the wild. But in contrast the Turin cloth, if authentic, would prove little about what we associate with Christianity. Okay, so there was a guy who lived in the 1st Century; he said some things that got him executed and his followers revere his coffin-cloth. How does that command any more reverence than before? Since it has so little power to compel belief if authentic, it has little power to detract from it if not.

So then whither this exercise? Why the obsession with the objectively daunting task of proving this cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth? Laying aside that it's a very, very difficult proposition to fulfill, what could it possibly accomplish?

It's certainly not going to convince skeptics. Even in the best case it would prove only the historicity of Jesus, not what the religion claims about him or any of the assertions of the supernatural. And it's certainly not going to convince skeptics by way of patently illogical and evasive arguments. If anything, mounting such a poor argument will prejudice skeptics against the question altogether.

Is it a demonstration of devotion? That's what I wrestled with for a while and finally concluded that, probably yes, it is. The wrestling centered around why a presumptive god would validate patently dishonest efforts alleged toward his glory? From my position a just god would frown on evil done in his name. But then my housemate wandered through the other day and dropped that oft-cited bit of wisdom: "Nothing's more dangerous than someone who thinks he's doing his god's will." Only then was I reminded of he Machiavellian factions of some religious adherents. These are the folk who justify, in the name of fighting the enemies of God, manners of excess and subterfuge. It's okay to lie and evade as long as your goal is appropriately godly.

But then what do I know. Jabba might just be a guy who doesn't want to admit he's wrong. The appearance of "confounding the infidels" may have an emotional payoff -- an ego reinforcement that, while associated with religion, isn't necessary aimed at satisfying religious devotion.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics/CAC03

1. I accept that I have little or no direct evidence that the shroud is authentic.
2. I do think, however, that I have a lot of indirect, or circumstantial, evidence.
3. That is what I’m currently trying to show…
4. I’m still not sure how to apply the wording – but, I’m trying to show how the different pieces of my alleged evidence fit together for consilience towards authenticity.

5. At this particular point I’m not trying to avoid producing evidence -- I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.
6. I’m trying to show how various bits of indirect evidence support authenticity.
7. And, when put together, make for a substantial argument.
8. I’m trying to show how logic/deductive reasoning/math/Bayesian statistics should be used to determine the relevance and impact of each new piece of information.
9. I can (easily) make mistakes in determining what is evidence and how strong the evidence is, but Bayesian statistics is surely the appropriate math for figuring out how new evidence effects the (posterior) probability of the old hypothesis.

10. For one thing, new info can be consistent with two complementary theses but support one over the other. Garrette’s example (#3102-1/25/16) is a good one.
11. In regard to ‘bloodstains’ on the shroud, I claim that if they are real blood, they support authenticity of the shroud – not very much, but a little.
12. But once we get that far – if we can once accept that the stains are blood – I claim that the particulars of the stains will add a lot of support to authenticity.

13. In regard to the amount of limestone on the shroud, I have claimed that such is also supportive of authenticity – also, not very much, but a little.
14. At this point, I’m suspecting that I may have been taking authenticist implications for granted, and the amount of limestone on the shroud may not support authenticity…
15. As the blood issue is my primary concern right here, I’ll research the limestone issue a little more, but then move back to the blood issue.

16. From #2855, 1/19/16, Me:
– 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…
– Again, if I understand what you’re saying, “context” is the key — but in the sense that we simply don’t have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth — which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic…
– That’s a lot of twists and turns — hopefully, I ended up in the right direction.
17. I didn’t quite make it.
18. I should have said this lack of extra context, given an inauthentic shroud makes the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth greater than the likelihood of no, or little limestone on the cloth, given the authentic shroud.
19. Inauthenticity (~H) shares all the background evidence with authenticity (H), but authenticity adds some additional history favoring the likelihood of the new evidence.
20. That should do it.

21. We have a lot of difficulty following the logic here (it isn’t just me) because the Bayesian approach adds a twist we don’t expect.
22. It’s like trying to shave viewing the second of two mirrors…

 

[Jabba]

My Reasons for Being Here

If Jabba were pausing to reconsider his position or to do research it would be one thing. But the history of the thread -- and there's a lot of it -- shows he's pausing to let his critics lose interest and go away, hopefully forgetting what's been discussed and debated already. Then he'll pop up again with Marino et al. or some other thoroughly rehashed nonsense.

The notion of why the cloth is so darn important to some people has been vexing me too. My impression is that the cloth could turn out to be artificial and none of the important tenets of Christianity would waver. It simply doesn't seem important to hardly any Christians that the cloth be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. In fact, from my sojourn in Italy I originally gathered it's just one of a class of artifact-related superstitions that haunt the backwaters of Italian rural Catholicism.

The notion that it's a modern bit of evidence meant to convince skeptics of the divinity of Jesus is somewhat intriguing, but I agree it's neither good science nor good religion. There are some evidentiary questions in religion that are legitimately expected. I live in a land where legions of amateur (and sometimes academic) archaeologists scour the evidence for proof of the ancient Jewish expatriots the Book of Mormon say lived in the Americas. That's an historical claim purported by the religion's canon, so if it's true there's some evidence we should expect to see in the wild. But in contrast the Turin cloth, if authentic, would prove little about what we associate with Christianity. Okay, so there was a guy who lived in the 1st Century; he said some things that got him executed and his followers revere his coffin-cloth. How does that command any more reverence than before? Since it has so little power to compel belief if authentic, it has little power to detract from it if not.

So then whither this exercise? Why the obsession with the objectively daunting task of proving this cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth? Laying aside that it's a very, very difficult proposition to fulfill, what could it possibly accomplish?

It's certainly not going to convince skeptics. Even in the best case it would prove only the historicity of Jesus, not what the religion claims about him or any of the assertions of the supernatural. And it's certainly not going to convince skeptics by way of patently illogical and evasive arguments. If anything, mounting such a poor argument will prejudice skeptics against the question altogether.

Is it a demonstration of devotion? That's what I wrestled with for a while and finally concluded that, probably yes, it is. The wrestling centered around why a presumptive god would validate patently dishonest efforts alleged toward his glory? From my position a just god would frown on evil done in his name. But then my housemate wandered through the other day and dropped that oft-cited bit of wisdom: "Nothing's more dangerous than someone who thinks he's doing his god's will." Only then was I reminded of he Machiavellian factions of some religious adherents. These are the folk who justify, in the name of fighting the enemies of God, manners of excess and subterfuge. It's okay to lie and evade as long as your goal is appropriately godly.

But then what do I know. Jabba might just be a guy who doesn't want to admit he's wrong. The appearance of "confounding the infidels" may have an emotional payoff -- an ego reinforcement that, while associated with religion, isn't necessary aimed at satisfying religious devotion.

Jay,
- Over the four years of discussion, I've provided my alleged reasons for being here, over and over again. I claim that I have two horses in this race -- the authenticity of the shroud, and trying to develop effective debate. Neither horse is doing too well, but they still have a long way to go, and I have a lot of excuses.
- I am a wannabe Christian, and wannabe authenticist, but my sense of ultimate meaning (religion?) comes from my belief in immortality that I tried to argue elsewhere on this forum, and still feel sure I'm right. In other words, I'm not wedded to Christianity. My sense of ultimate meaning does not depend upon Christianity, it depends upon my belief that, scientifically speaking, our individual consciousnesses are absolute miracles. I believe in free will and that I'm a miracle. In other words, I believe in magic...

 

[zooterkin]

1. I accept that I have little or no direct evidence that the shroud is authentic.

Let's start here. Which is it, little or no? If the former, what, exactly?

 

[JayUtah]

I do think, however, that I have a lot of indirect, or circumstantial, evidence.

Asked and answered. What you think is "circumstantial evidence" isn't actually any kind of evidence.

That is what I’m currently trying to show.

You have already been refuted on that point. Continuing to present it with addressing the refutations is dishonest and rude.

I’m trying to show how the different pieces of my alleged evidence fit together for consilience towards authenticity.

You don't understand the concept of consilience. You think it resides in the quantity of evidence, without examining each piece of it. You are obsessed with the "fitting together" portion and completely evading the proof of any of it.

I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.

Asked and answered. You're not "building a foundation." You're trying different fallacious modes of thinking about the problem to see if any of them can trap your readers. Continually reframing the same broken arguments is a hallmark of fringe argumentation. After four years of this unvarying wrangling, it's clear your objective is closer to maintaining the motion of the hamster wheel, not to engage in any sort of cogent test of your claims.

I’m trying to show how various bits of indirect evidence support authenticity.

Asked and answered. Your "indirect evidence" is a set of fanciful attempts to refute the evidence showing a medieval orgin. In no way is that evidence for authenticity.

And, when put together, make for a substantial argument.

Asked and answered. The only way you can have a substantial argument is to provide substance in the form of affirmative evidence. You admit you have none, thus no amount of erosion of belief in a medieval origin will substantiate your affirmative claim.

You assiduously refuse to grasp the meaning of preponderance of evidence and what it takes to prove something.

I’m trying to show how logic/deductive reasoning/math/Bayesian statistics should be used to determine the relevance and impact of each new piece of information.

Asked and answered. You do not understand Bayesian methods, and you have used them simply to lend an undeserved illusion of rigor to what you later must admit are simply your assumptions and preconceptions.

...but Bayesian statistics is surely the appropriate math for figuring out how new evidence effects the (posterior) probability of the old hypothesis.

Asked and answered. You do not understand what Bayesian methods allow you to conclude. You do not understand how your choice of priors limits the outcomes of such a model. You abjectly refuse to justify your choice of priors.

In regard to ‘bloodstains’ on the shroud, I claim that if they are real blood, they support authenticity of the shroud – not very much, but a little.

Asked and answered. You have not explained how they do. Just as you did with the limestone question -- which was intentionally posed as an example of refractory evidence -- you have simply used the point as the centerpiece of a set of blatantly begged questions.

I claim that the particulars of the stains will add a lot of support to authenticity.

You have provided only speculation and mistaken medical analysis to support this possibility, which remains moot as long as you are unwilling to prove the stains are the blood you claim they are.

In regard to the amount of limestone on the shroud, I have claimed that such is also supportive of authenticity – also, not very much, but a little.

Asked and answered. You simply begged the question, then misused Bayesian methods to disguise it. Real or fake, the shroud sat in limestone churches for 700 years. Yet you seem to think the day and a half it purportedly sat in Jesus' tomb has to be the likely source of any limestone. How is that not a flagrant preconception?

At this point, I’m suspecting that I may have been taking authenticist implications for granted, and the amount of limestone on the shroud may not support authenticity.

You repeatedly suggest that you are ready to concede this point, but you don't. Stop talking about conceding it and either do it or prove your assertion.

As the blood issue is my primary concern right here, I’ll research the limestone issue a little more, but then move back to the blood issue.

Rapidly switching between topics when cornered is one of your evasion tactics. You have suggested you are ready to concede the limestone question. Please do so and bring closure to that point before changing the subject.

I should have said this lack of extra context, given an inauthentic shroud makes the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth greater than the likelihood of no, or little limestone on the cloth, given the authentic shroud.

Asked and answered. The allegedly ambiguous context is the effect of your poor formulation of the question. The effect of that ambiguity is to justify no estimate, not to justify your low estimate.

That should do it.

No. You simply issued the predicted reset. You repeated the same fallacy you've been called upon several times. You have yet to address any of it.

We have a lot of difficulty following the logic here (it isn’t just me) because the Bayesian approach adds a twist we don’t expect.

No. "We" are not confused. You attempted to misuse a statistical method to disguise a set of propostions you now admit are preconceived assumptions. And you got caught immediately by your critics. You are now simply pretending you didn't get caught. Bluster and bluff are not arguments.

As to expectations: as I mentioned, fringe theorists have been misusing Bayes for years in exactly the same way you have, and your facility in avoiding discussing its known weaknesses illustrates that you know this.

It’s like trying to shave viewing the second of two mirrors…

The convolution of this thread is entirely your fault. If you would simply, directly, and thoroughly address your critics, there would be nothing to complain about. Do not lay blame for your intransigence where it doesn't belong.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay,Over the four years of discussion, I've provided my alleged reasons for being here, over and over again.

They're being questioned, and with good cause.

I claim that I have two horses in this race -- the authenticity of the shroud, and trying to develop effective debate. Neither horse is doing too well...

Let's dispense immediately with the latter. You are not trying to develop effective debate. You are simply rehearsing the same patterns of polemical pseudo-debate that can be found in any number of threads on this forum and on any number of similar forums across the internet. You are employing and reinforcing methods of evasive non-treatment that go all the way back to Aristotle, methods used today as then to create the illusion of rigor without actually achieving it any way. There is no accidental failure here. It takes dogged effort to be as intransigently and repetitively devoted to your proffered method as you have been.

As to the former, I honestly don't care. You didn't say why you wanted to prove the shroud is authentic, and it doesn't seem to serve any rational purpose. Hence people ask.

My sense of ultimate meaning does not depend upon Christianity, it depends upon my belief that, scientifically speaking, our individual consciousnesses are absolute miracles. I believe in free will and that I'm a miracle. In other words, I believe in magic...

What does that have to do with a medieval cloth?

 

[Mojo]

We can expect a reset in the near future.

1. I accept that I have little or no direct evidence that the shroud is authentic.
2. I do think, however, that I have a lot of indirect, or circumstantial, evidence.
3. That is what I’m currently trying to show…
4. I’m still not sure how to apply the wording – but, I’m trying to show how the different pieces of my alleged evidence fit together for consilience towards authenticity.

5. At this particular point I’m not trying to avoid producing evidence -- I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.
6. I’m trying to show how various bits of indirect evidence support authenticity.
7. And, when put together, make for a substantial argument.
8. I’m trying to show how logic/deductive reasoning/math/Bayesian statistics should be used to determine the relevance and impact of each new piece of information.
9. I can (easily) make mistakes in determining what is evidence and how strong the evidence is, but Bayesian statistics is surely the appropriate math for figuring out how new evidence effects the (posterior) probability of the old hypothesis.

10. For one thing, new info can be consistent with two complementary theses but support one over the other. Garrette’s example (#3102-1/25/16) is a good one.
11. In regard to ‘bloodstains’ on the shroud, I claim that if they are real blood, they support authenticity of the shroud – not very much, but a little.
12. But once we get that far – if we can once accept that the stains are blood – I claim that the particulars of the stains will add a lot of support to authenticity.

13. In regard to the amount of limestone on the shroud, I have claimed that such is also supportive of authenticity – also, not very much, but a little.
14. At this point, I’m suspecting that I may have been taking authenticist implications for granted, and the amount of limestone on the shroud may not support authenticity…
15. As the blood issue is my primary concern right here, I’ll research the limestone issue a little more, but then move back to the blood issue.

16. From #2855, 1/19/16, Me:
– 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…
– Again, if I understand what you’re saying, “context” is the key — but in the sense that we simply don’t have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth — which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic…
– That’s a lot of twists and turns — hopefully, I ended up in the right direction.
17. I didn’t quite make it.
18. I should have said this lack of extra context, given an inauthentic shroud makes the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth greater than the likelihood of no, or little limestone on the cloth, given the authentic shroud.
19. Inauthenticity (~H) shares all the background evidence with authenticity (H), but authenticity adds some additional history favoring the likelihood of the new evidence.
20. That should do it.

21. We have a lot of difficulty following the logic here (it isn’t just me) because the Bayesian approach adds a twist we don’t expect.
22. It’s like trying to shave viewing the second of two mirrors…

 

[ComfySlippers]

Jay,
- Over the four years of discussion, I've provided my alleged reasons for being here, over and over again.
...

As far as I can make out your only goal seems to be to try out different tactics here then report back to the other website with the results. Like others, I have no idea why you persist in such a game. I'm getting a whiff of Creationism. I hope I'm right because that's one hell of a funny subject.

 

[Jabba]

Asked and answered. What you think is "circumstantial evidence" isn't actually any kind of evidence...

Jay,
- Please point me to one of your attempts to explain why you say that, and I'll try to address your explanation.

 

[JayUtah]

Please point me to one of your attempts to explain why you say that, and I'll try to address your explanation.

No. You should have addressed it the first few times I made it. You want to learn "effective debate?" Effective debate pays attention to, and responds to, criticism when it is made. The penalty for your habit of disregarding nearly everything that's said to you is your new assignment to review the thread you've tried to reset and atone for your lackadaisical approach to it by retrospectively addressing long-standing criticism.

Do so without further evasion. I will not validate your reset.

 

[theprestige]

At this particular point I’m not trying to avoid producing evidence -- I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.

It's Zeno's Argument. A rational argument would simply list the strongest pieces of evidence, followed by an explanation of how they support a particular conclusion. The discussion could then promptly proceed from there, either examining individual pieces of evidence, the reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion, or both.

But instead of that, we get "building the foundation for the discussion."

But instead of that, we get an explanation of how the foundation will be built.

As the argument proceeds by progressively smaller increments, we finally reach the infinitesimal, and then the reset. I think we are almost back to the Zero Point.

 

[JayUtah]

As far as I can make out your only goal seems to be to try out different tactics here then report back to the other website with the results.

This point needs not to be forgotten. Jabba has assiduously avoided telling us why he's "mapping" this discussion elsewhere, and he has further dragged his feet at correcting the errors he made quoting people there. The only rational interpretation of that behavior is that he's play-acting here in order to construct an intentionally dishonest narrative there.

Jabba, you are on trial at this point. The aim is to see just how devoted you are to principles of effective debate, or perhaps instead how committed you are to common and easily-discerned patterns of evasion and dishonesty. The only thing that can determine this now is your behavior, so engage in it carefully.

You say you're motivated by miracles. Be that as it may, I'm motivated by truth. I want to see how devoted you are to the truth, versus how devoted you are to maintaining pet beliefs by long-debunked methods.

 

[Beady]

5.At this particular point I’m not trying to avoid producing evidence -- I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.

So, I've only been looking in occasionally and I'm almost certainly missing something, but has it really taken 3,209 posts to get around to building a foundation for the discussion? Am I mistaken about the definition of "foundation"?

Oh crap!