Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I did a few web searches. I used "painting of crucifixion using blood," "old painting using blood" and "using blood as paint."

My Dear Mr. Savge:

In your mind, do a "few web searches" settle the issue for you?

Curiously yours, &ct.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Slowvehicle,
- I haven't been able to find any painting of a crucifixion, or any pre-15th century painting at all, that used real blood. Consequently, finding real blood being used for blood stains on a 14th century painting should be extremely unexpected -- whereas, finding real blood stains on the authentic shroud of Jesus would be quite expected.

Wrong. Paintings use paint. Fake shrouds use other things.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Slowvehicle,
- I haven't been able to find any painting of a crucifixion, or any pre-15th century painting at all, that used real blood. Consequently, finding real blood being used for blood stains on a 14th century painting should be extremely unexpected -- whereas, finding real blood stains on the authentic shroud of Jesus would be quite expected.

Or, on the other tack: Assuming this, where is your proof that there is blood on the shroud?



Hans

 

[abaddon]

Slowvehicle,
- I did a few web searches. I used "painting of crucifixion using blood," "old painting using blood" and "using blood as paint."

Well, there's your problem. Google simply presents you with the results it thinks you want. What you will get from those searches are simply the most contemporary artists that have done so. This is superficial. It is simply how google works.

Had you done any actual research, you would know that blood has been used as an art material for thousands of years, indeed tens of thousands of years.

Yet you didn't do the requisite research. Why? I suggest that deep down you knew beforehand what such research would show and you simply preferred to avoid those facts which torpedo your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

I did a few web searches. I used "painting of crucifixion using blood," "old painting using blood" and "using blood as paint."

And you're surprised that these obvious straw men netted you nothing? You have the burden of proof to show that blood is probative of authenticity. Showing your bias and your utter ineptitude at research doesn't do it. I was able to find quite a few references, with a properly worded search, for using blood as an art medium as far back as cave paintings. References exist. You just want to pretend they don't.

I was kind enough to give you a detailed rebuttal to your latest reset attempt. Don't be so rude as to simply wander off into the Google weeds.

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>I was able to find quite a few references, with a properly worded search, for using blood as an art medium as far back as cave paintings.

Indeed. Within seconds I also could find such. The claim put forth is plainly either dishonest or incompetent. Pick one or both.

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed. Within seconds I also could find such. The claim put forth is plainly either dishonest or incompetent. Pick one or both.

Dishonest, based not only on search terms carefully chosen to avoid any relevant "hits," but also more on the overall notion of shifting the burden of proof. He's the one claiming blood is probative of authenticity. He suggests that people have to disprove him by establishing that alternatives are somehow commonplace or ubiquitous, not just available. Meanwhile he gets to invoke miracles to explain his side.

But then again, blood was used in art throughout history, both as a pigment and as a binder. Jabba is, in my judgment, feigning incompetence so as to burden his critics to act as teachers, do research, and post lengthy expostulations which he will ignore. That way experienced critics get wise and abandon Jabba to his wallow -- a circumstance he has already defined as victory for him. They're replaced (hopefully) by new critics against which Jabba can deploy anew the few long-debunked arguments he has, and thereby prolong his contrived sense of relevance.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dishonest, based not only on search terms carefully chosen to avoid any relevant "hits," but also more on the overall notion of shifting the burden of proof. He's the one claiming blood is probative of authenticity. He suggests that people have to disprove him by establishing that alternatives are somehow commonplace or ubiquitous, not just available. Meanwhile he gets to invoke miracles to explain his side.

But then again, blood was used in art throughout history, both as a pigment and as a binder. Jabba is, in my judgment, feigning incompetence so as to burden his critics to act as teachers, do research, and post lengthy expostulations which he will ignore. That way experienced critics get wise and abandon Jabba to his wallow -- a circumstance he has already defined as victory for him. They're replaced (hopefully) by new critics against which Jabba can deploy anew the few long-debunked arguments he has, and thereby prolong his contrived sense of relevance.

To say nothing of how very red a herring (and the wrong color red) the whole "blood as a medium for art" issue is, unless and until it is demonstrated that the chemically anomalous and physically ludicrous stains are, in fact, actual blood.

 

[JayUtah]

Consequently, finding real blood being used for blood stains on a 14th century painting should be extremely unexpected

Logically incorrect, as you're simply affirming the consequent again. There is another explanation: you, among all the people who can find that evidence, simply don't want to acknowledge it. So you pretend you can't find it, and that this deficiency is somehow binding on the rest of the world. Stop hiding in the bailey and venture out onto the motte where evidence is plentiful.

...whereas, finding real blood stains on the authentic shroud of Jesus would be quite expected.

No. There you go again with the motte-and-bailey. You've been caught doing this so many times it's insulting to your critics every time you try it again. Do you think your critics are stupid or inattentive?

There's a huge difference between the expectation of finding "some" blood on a burial shroud and the expectation of blood as depicted on the cloth. You base your expectation on what you presume to be the circumstances of Jesus' burial. But like many others you pick and choose from what we know of the burial customs, omitting those that would preclude such a volume of blood exuding from a prepared corpse. You talk a big game about "circumstantial evidence," but just as with all the other claims you make, you simply cherry-pick even from circumstances.

Elementary physics also gives us reason to consider the stains a depiction rather than as the credible flow of blood.

Hence you have equivocated "blood in general" to "'blood' as depicted on the cloth." Shame on you!

 

[JayUtah]

To say nothing of how very red a herring (and the wrong color red) the whole "blood as a medium for art" issue is, unless and until it is demonstrated that the chemically anomalous and physically ludicrous stains are, in fact, actual blood.

Indeed, I mentioned above that Jabba has yet to prove it's blood. You're right in saying the rest of the discussion is just coffeehouse bull until he does that. But he knows he can't so he wants to jump over the hard part of the discussion (where the facts are less contested) and wallow in the whence-the-blood? speculation.

How much do you want to bet Mr. Bayes makes another appearance? How much do you want to bet Jabba attempts the same circular-reasoning trick using Bayes as he did with the limestone?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Indeed, I mentioned above that Jabba has yet to prove it's blood. You're right in saying the rest of the discussion is just coffeehouse bull until he does that. But he knows he can't so he wants to jump over the hard part of the discussion (where the facts are less contested) and wallow in the whence-the-blood? speculation.

How much do you want to bet Mr. Bayes makes another appearance? How much do you want to bet Jabba attempts the same circular-reasoning trick using Bayes as he did with the limestone?

Nothing, thank you.

This may be a new hat, but this is NOT my first time at this rodeo...

 

[Mojo]

How much do you want to bet Mr. Bayes makes another appearance? How much do you want to bet Jabba attempts the same circular-reasoning trick using Bayes as he did with the limestone?

The trick he's using at the moment seems to be "if A is very likely given B, then B is very likely given A".

 

[pgwenthold]

finding real blood stains on the authentic shroud of Jesus would be quite expected.

Really? Why would you say that? According to the bible, he was buried according to Jewish custom, which means the body was washed beforehand. Why should there be any blood on it.

And if it is authentic, why does the image look like that? And please answer that without invoking a miracle. If it is authentic, there should be two cloths, and it should look like it was wrapped around. That doesn't look like it was wrapped around a body at all.

So what I'd say is that, if it were an authentic burial cloth of Jesus, it shouldn't have all that much blood on it, and any blood would certainly not be in a pattern that looks like a 2D projection.

See? It's real easy to make blatant assertions...

 

[JayUtah]

The trick he's using at the moment seems to be "if A is very likely given B, then B is very likely given A".

A.k.a., the "converse error" or "converse accident." He wrongly thinks Bayes allows him to say that. Bayes requires you to quantify your belief "A (blood) is likely given B (authenticity)." As with the limestone he's really trying hard to get us to let him beg that question. Bayes lets you quantify an a priori belief in B (authenticity). Then, either hypothetically or in fact, it lets you assert A and see its result in a change in B.

Naturally with Jabba's inputs you see a rise in B. The algebra inevitably produces that effect, but not as a consequence of real-world behavior. This is why fringe claimants are so enamored with the method. Misused as they do, it produces what seems to be a computed result but which is in fact just an algebraic parlour trick. This happens because the algebra bears heavily on that previous quantitative requirement: "How likely do you think it is that an authentic shroud will have blood on it?" If your previous answer was "a lot," then the increase in B is simply a mindless numerical reflection of your preconception, "a lot."

The interplay between likelihoods of blood-if-authentic and blood-if-artifice is what wrestles the amplitude and sign that pertain to the gain of B. (I'm using signal-processing jargon in hopes that it makes more practical sense to readers, over the abstract language of statistics. Fringe claimants hope readers will get bogged down in esoteric vocabulary and not realize what the math is actually doing.) The gain on B depends entirely on how you decide those initial likelihoods, which is why actual courses on Bayes focus in great detail on the objective formulation of those terms. Fringe claimants like Jabba simply plugin their preconceived beliefs.

 

[pgwenthold]

If it is an authentic shroud, there is a high likelihood that there will be some sort of image of the body on it. If it's not a burial cloth, it is more likely that there would be no image at all on it, and it would just be a tarp.

Therefore, using a Bayesian approach, the presence of an image strongly weights in favor of authenticity.

Or something like that.

 

[zooterkin]

Thread is too large, splitting and continuing here.

Posted By: zooterkin