JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. Please do the world the courtesy of reading my lengthy post above and responding to what I've said is the real reason you're dragging your feet.
Do not simply keep trying to reset the argument. You don't understand consilience and you don't understand Bayes. This has been amply demonstrated to you over the past month. Your assiduous refusal to discuss the details of your misuse of these important concept simply reinforces my appraisal of your method and intent. My assessment grows more valid the longer you dodge your critics.
No. You're trying to reset the argument back to where it was a month ago.
Your estimates of likelihood are simply made up out of thin air. Yes, here too. That very fact was what Hugh was trying to get you to see by bringing up the limestone. But instead of considering what he was trying to tell you about cause and effect cutting both ways, you brushed him aside, took his claim for exactly what it wasn't, and ran with it uselessly for a month.
As everyone (including your ally) has painstakingly explained, if someone wanted to make stains that looked like blood -- for whatever reason -- there's no shortage of blood anywhere in history, for anyone to use to do that. As we have explained to you, logically your claim commits the fallacy of the affirmed consequent, the first step in a circular argument. This isn't any different than where we stood a month ago, so it's just yet another reset of an argument that failed irretrievably a month ago. Your argument fails because it is a syllogism of non-validating form. No amount of research or tap-dancing can possibly fix that.
I have explained to you several times the principle of consilience. It requires lines of evidence to be developed in isolation, without regard to each other and without regard to some overall proposition toward which you're trying to induce. You flagrantly break both necessary parts. Your development of the blood evidence expressly invokes the overall conclusion of authenticity. Thus, as has been explained to you several times, you cannot make a case for consilience based on the line of reasoning you've developed.
And Bayes does not help you. As so many have done before you, you're simply misusing it intentionally in order to disguise that your argument is circular. I have explained this numerous times to you, in great detail. When you invoke Bayes with the preconceived notion that blood is more likely if the cloth is authentic, then all Bayes will do is reinforce that if you plug in the fact that the stains are blood.
And that's accepting for the sake of argument that the stains are blood, which you do not prove.
All your respondents prior to me have noted you are simply resetting the argument back to a state that has already been rebutted. You have not addressed the rebuttals. In fact, your inability to do so was why you went off on the limestone tangent.
Your debate strategy is ineffective, and has been so for four years because of your inability and unwillingness to accept correction when you are proven wrong, and to concede points you lose. I for one do not intend to let you keep spinning the hamster wheel. If you are serious about "effective debate," demonstrate your attention the summary below.
1. You have been told copiously exactly how your analysis logically unsound. Address it.
2. You have been told expressly why your argument cannot be consilient. Do not keep pretending it can be by this repetition.
3. You have been told in great detail several times how you are misusing Bayes. Do not simply keep begging the question and pretending Bayes will disguise it.
4. You have been asked to prove the stains are blood, as you claim. Do so immediately or admit you cannot.
5. You have been asked to present evidence in favor of authenticity. Do not continue to misunderstand what that proof entails.
Stop stalling and answer your critics.
