Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Emotionality

Mmm, Jabba: You are supposed to present the needle, not the haystack.

Anyway...

There are two relevant interest groups in this:

1) The C14 labs. Those may be more or less motivated to participate. The trial is a high-profile case, which may be good, but whatever result comes out is bound to be shrouded in controversy (couldn't resist that one), which may be bad. In any case they will be interested in producing a reliable result, and are unlikely to jeopardize their reputation by adding their name to a doubtful procedure.

Thus, we can assume that whatever the problems, they would not have participated unless they found the conditions acceptable. For this to be the case, they must have concluded that the sample was valid and representative...

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us

I think this says it all. Rampant anti-intellectualism, dunning-kruger, etc. You're just ignorant of prety much every relevant topic, and you're arguing that everybody else is, too.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Time's up. Make with the evidence already. Anything actually pointing to a first century date; or that can identify the bloke in the image.

Or admit your position is based on faith. Wouldn't your skydaddy want you to be honest?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

Dear Mr. Savage:

Why is it that you are ignoring the mechanisms set in place for the practice of sseince; mechanisms specifically designed to deal with bias (as an example, those who do actual science begin with evidence, and are led by evidence to a conclusion; instead of beginning with a conclusion, and paring away evidence until all they see is what they want to see...)?

Further, as has been pointed out to you each time you level this calumny, even if all three of the labs were shown to be biased in the same way, how is that supposed to have affected the decay of ¹⁴C isotopes?

What "offer" that the labs "could not refuse" do you think was made? What evidence have you , that supports your claim?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Time's up. Make with the evidence already. Anything actually pointing to a first century date; or that can identify the bloke in the image.

Or admit your position is based on faith. Wouldn't your skydaddy want you to be honest?

To whom are you talking?

 

[jond]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

How would, or could, ANY of this effect the C14 results? Specifics, please.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

To whom are you talking?

To whomever needs to present evidence or admit their position is based on faith.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To whomever needs to present evidence or admit their position is based on faith.

I can't think of one meeting those requirements. There used to be a poster like that here but he didn't reply to requests personally addressed to him so I find it difficult for him to break his ostracism an come back to reply generic requests. Besides, one day he forgot saying "I'll be back" so some spell might have been broken and he become pumpkin.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I can't think of one meeting those requirements. There use to be a poster like that here but he didn't reply to requests personally addressed to him so I find it difficult for him to break his ostracism an reply generic requests. Besides, one day he forgot saying "I'll be back" so some spell might have been broken and he become pumpkin.

That guy was spotted here this morning, apparently making some thinly veiled accusations of corruption on the part of the carbon dating scientists. Something about an offered one can't refuse. Perhaps Don Corleone or Don Raffaè was involved.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -

Yes, scientists are human. However, that's exactly why the scientific method was developed.

- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

You really have no clue, do you? Even if they were, as you rather distastefully put it, 'slobbering', once they were selected they'd do their utmost to make sure they did the tests as accurately as possible. And, what do you know, the three labs independently came up with dates in the same range.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to show those dates are wrong? If not, then you need to admit defeat for your faith-based position, or at least concede that it is purely faith-based since all the actual evidence is against it.

 

[catsmate]

I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it.

So I was right, thinly veiled accusations of corruption.

Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...

What "back-biting" is that? Gove's problems?

- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie,

What "slice of this pie"? The labs weren't paid for their work.

and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

You can't even get that detail right; there were never seven labs. And again with the insinuations.

So, I take it from you resorting to this crap again your have no coherent or reasonable argument against the radiocarbon dating? You're failed to show any evidence of contamination that survived the sample cleansing, or even a theoretical mechanism for this.

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it.

Speak for yourself.

Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

You don't have the first clue what goes on in laboratories. Why would they be slobbering? You think they're all a bunch of publicity hounds? Most scientists take a dim view of such antics. Money? They donated their time and effort.

If you have something worthwhile to contribute (It could happen!), then jump right in. Otherwise, we were having some rewarding discussions about the shroud finally.

 

[wollery]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

How many scientists do you know?

I merely ask because the above quoted pile of bollocks bears no resemblance to the behaviour of any of the hundreds of scientists I've known and worked with.

 

[Mojo]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

Please show how this farrago makes the carbon dating unreliable.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...

Of course scientists are objective, in their field. Otherwise they couldn't be scientists.

- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

Nonsense. Do you know what is a sure way for a scientist to loose his job and ruin his reputation: Get caught, nay even get accused, of dishonest work ... even just once. In the words of one scientist *) who presented a report where one of his assistents had unintentionally skewed the results: "Suddenly my phone stopped ringing."

His phone never started ringing again.

And do you know what a scientist does if he is faced with conditions he cannot really accept?

Either:

1) He walks away, no matter how nice the deal is.

or

2) He includes a CMA clause **) in his report. One that exlains why the results might be unreliable, but "given the available data the result indicates ...etc, etc"-

Hans

*) Jaques Benveniste

**) Cover My Ass

 

[MRC_Hans]

Anyhow, Jabba, you can believe what you will, but don't try to present your beliefs as fact.

To the rational world, the C14 result stands.

Hans

 

[Aepervius]

Hans,
- This might be a place where I (at least) have to agree to disagree. While what you say sounds reasonable, I think you're attributing far too much 'reason' to those involved. I don't think that scientists are much more objective than the rest of us -- and, the rest of us (most of us, anyway) suck at it. Look at all the antagonism and back-biting amongst the contestants...
- I think that the labs would be slobbering for a slice of this pie, and after finally being selected as one of the three -- from the 7 hopefuls -- would find the offer one they couldn't refuse.

Maybe you should look and mirror and ask yourself

"I, Jabba, am attributing far too much 'reason' to my own assertion. I should maybe verify that I am much far less objective than the rest of you"

AGAIN, as I said in my previous psot, you ahve to provide CLEAR evidence that the test was invalid for the condition.
Pretending that the tester were irrational or emotional is only an ASSERTION of yours. You have to demonstrate it REALLY influenced the test.
You HAVE to demonstrate your assertion.

And you will again ignore this rudely

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, if all you have is slander and insinuations, then admit that your belief is entirely faith-based and spare us your insulting posts.

 

[sackett]

I'm riding to the rescue, Jabba!

...there were never seven labs....

Yeah, well, in the Snow White story there are seven dwarves! Here in 'Troit we used to have a row of smokestacks called the Seven Sisters! There's seven Finger Lakes in New York or Connecticut or someplace! How about Seven Fingered Jack in Washington? Just DC is all! And if you want Scripture ('scuse while I genuflect; ah, that feels better) there is seven deadly sins!

That means that there must have been seven labs! Now who's being a anti-intellectural?