How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Oncedeceived]

A rebuttal to your source: Neutrinos MAY be capable of altering the amount of radioactive decay used for Carbon 14 testing, but only in very small amounts [SOURCE]. There is no way they can make a 2000 year old artifact look to be 700-800 years old.

Debunking The Shroud: Made by Human Hands

Also:

Silly Beliefs - The Shroud of Turin Scam

Where is the part that claims that the radioactive decay would only be small amounts in this case?

In any case, if the shroud is a genuine image of ANY person wrapped in the cloth, why does it not have the image of the top of his head? The only way it could possibly work is if it was draped over the top of a cardboard cutout.

You might find this interesting.

Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion - life - 02 April 2014 - New Scientist

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Were there other fabrics to test?
​

There was a 1st century shroud dated with radiocarbon dating.

"From a long-sealed cave tomb, archaeologists have excavated the only known Jesus-era burial shroud in Jerusalem, a new study says.
...
The tight seal apparently allowed the shroud—radiocarbon-dated to between A.D. 1 and 50—to survive the high humidity levels characteristic of Jerusalem-area caves."

Thanks I was unaware.

Yet, confirmed on or around the date that Jesus was said to be crucified there was an earthquake
​

Confirmed how?

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webprogram/Paper204688.html

and an eclipse in Jerusalem.
​

W

hich one of these was that eclipse?

None of the 4 in 33-34 AD were visible in Jerusalem.

I am not sure. I do think it was a partial but might have been seen in Jerusalem.

 

[Kylie]

Where is the part that claims that the radioactive decay would only be small amounts in this case?

Please actually pay attention to what I say.

I said that even if there was an earthquake that released nutrinos which altered the ratios of carbon, leading to incorrect dates from the carbon testing, such dates would only be out by a small amount, as the effect of neutrinos is small. This is stated in the article: "The work suggests that the rates of radioactive decay in isotopes—thought to be a constant, and used to date archaeological objects—could vary oh-so-slightly, and interaction with neutrinos from the sun could be the cause." Also, note that the article is talking about the constant stream of neutrinos from the sun. Do you have any evidence that:

1. earthquakes can release neutrinos from rocks
2. such neutrinos can result in a 1350 year inaccuracy in the Shroud.

I don't think you have.

You might find this interesting.

Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion - life - 02 April 2014 - New Scientist

Yeah, this doesn't address the issue at all. Why does the shroud not show the image of the top of Jesus' head? Not only is the image missing, there isn't even room for it! This is not possible if the image was formed by placing it over an actual person.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I might have hoped y'all would have tried to crack post 250, but I see you got led astray by my red herring in 249.

Red herring 2:
If you wanna talk about real proof of Jesus, how about his shed blood for our sins?
There is more manuscript evidence for the truth of the New Testament than any other document of that time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Where is the part that claims that the radioactive decay would only be small amounts in this case?
​

Please actually pay attention to what I say.

I said that even if there was an earthquake that released nutrinos which altered the ratios of carbon, leading to incorrect dates from the carbon testing, such dates would only be out by a small amount, as the effect of neutrinos is small. This is stated in the article: "The work suggests that the rates of radioactive decay in isotopes—thought to be a constant, and used to date archaeological objects—could vary oh-so-slightly, and interaction with neutrinos from the sun could be the cause." Also, note that the article is talking about the constant stream of neutrinos from the sun. Do you have any evidence that:

Please "actually" pay attention to my question.

Where is the part that claims that the radioactive decay would only be small amounts in this case? As you have noticed it is not talking about neutrons from the earthquake not the sun.

I said how does this address

1. earthquakes can release neutrinos from rocks
2. such neutrinos can result in a 1350 year inaccuracy in the Shroud.

I don't know, do you? I don't think you have done the experiments have you?

I don't think you have.

I don't think you have run the experiments yourself have you?

You might find this interesting.

Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion - life - 02 April 2014 - New Scientist
​

Yeah, this doesn't address the issue at all. Why does the shroud not show the image of the top of Jesus' head? Not only is the image missing, there isn't even room for it! This is not possible if the image was formed by placing it over an actual person.

They were not claiming anything about the top of Jesus' head. They were examining a different aspect all together.

​

 

[essentialsaltes]

I do think it was a partial but might have been seen in Jerusalem.

None of them in 33-34 was visible from Jerusalem. You can click the links on that page and see a globe with the path shown.

 

[Oncedeceived]

None of them in 33-34 was visible from Jerusalem. You can click the links on that page and see a globe with the path shown.

Seems I must have been mistaken. Further reading of the material from which I had compiled shows that there are numerous outside sources for the darkness of that day, they don't give a reason.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I might have hoped y'all would have tried to crack post 250

Honestly, hoping a layman will dive deeply into the Principia Mathematica is a pretty faint hope.

Could you cut to the chase and make a point? Is it that Whitehead and Russell prove the bivalence principle (starting from different axioms of their choosing)?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Honestly, hoping a layman will dive deeply into the Principia Mathematica is a pretty faint hope.

Could you cut to the chase and make a point? Is it that Whitehead and Russell prove the bivalence principle (starting from different axioms of their choosing)?

I can't move around pages quickly at the moment, so I cannot bring it all in.
Using a tiny tablet, not like Moses. but here's my best one finger typing reply:

Read up the details on Wikipedia with regard to the law of noncontradiction.
That is the best I can do for now.
It is late.

It is what I understood OD was going on about.
Here is a quote from Wiki:

'In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as: (linked already in post 251)

The law of non-contradiction, along with its complement, the law of excluded middle (the third of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of the three laws). Because the law of identity partitions its logical Universe into exactly two parts, it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.....' *

…
* http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can't move around pages quickly at the moment, so I cannot bring it all in.
Using a tiny tablet, not like Moses. but here's my best one finger typing reply:

Read up the details on Wikipedia with regard to the law of noncontradiction.
That is the best I can do for now.
It is late.

It is what I understood OD was going on about.
Here is a quote from Wiki:

'In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as: (linked already in post 251)

The law of non-contradiction, along with its complement, the law of excluded middle (the third of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of the three laws). Because the law of identity partitions its logical Universe into exactly two parts, it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.....' *

…
* Law of noncontradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, yes, the belief that one can divide things into sets consistently. Such as the set of all objects that are pink and the set of all objects that are not pink.

And it foundered on the problem of identifying the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, because that set could not logically be assigned either as a member of that set or not.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hello Paul,
I am more than a little bit rusty at this and though I read through Stanford clearly, I could not find a single challenge to the law of contradiction as laid out there (read here) which survived, unless only '....we are beyond the realm to which ordinary logic applies, when “the sphere of thought has ceased.” ....'

As I am rusty at this, please show me where your argument exists in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article entitled: CONTRADICTION

Oh, yes, the belief that one can divide things into sets consistently. Such as the set of all objects that are pink and the set of all objects that are not pink.

And it foundered on the problem of identifying the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, because that set could not logically be assigned either as a member of that set or not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I am rusty at this, please show me where your argument exists in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article entitled: CONTRADICTION

It is alluded to here: "motivated on the basis of such classic logical paradoxes as “This sentence is not true” and its analogues (the Liar, the Barber, Russell's paradox)"

"Some sets, such as the set of all teacups, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all non-teacups, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves “R.” If R is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself."

 

[Kylie]

Once, please watch your quote tags. You had your own name in the quote tags instead of my name. When I did my usual Ctrl-F to find my own name so as to respond to anyone who quoted me, this post didn't show up, and it was only reading through the thread that I found it. Quote tags aren't that hard to use and make life so much easier.

Please "actually" pay attention to my question.

Where is the part that claims that the radioactive decay would only be small amounts in this case?

If you had actually paid attention to my question, you would have noticed I wasn't talking about a small amount of radioactive decay, but a small change to the RATE of decay.

As you have noticed it is not talking about neutrons from the earthquake not the sun.

Are they a different kind of neutrino? Do neutrinos from a short lived event like an earthquake have more power than the constant unending influx of neutrinos from the sun?

I don't know, do you? I don't think you have done the experiments have you?

It is not up to me to support the claims you made. You have made the claim that neutrinos from earthquakes can cause the change in the rate of decay, so it is up to you to support that claim.

I don't think you have run the experiments yourself have you?

Like I said, if you are the one making the claim, then you are the one who needs evidence to support it.

They were not claiming anything about the top of Jesus' head. They were examining a different aspect all together.

Irrelevant. I asked you a question and your response did not address the issue at all. I don't care what they were addressing. If you can't actually respond to a question, then don't bother replying.

The fact remains that if the shroud is genuine, then there should be an image of the top of Jesus' head. Not only is there no image, but there is not even space for the image to go. Unless Jesus was a two dimensional cardboard cutout, the shroud is a fake.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, please watch your quote tags. You had your own name in the quote tags instead of my name. When I did my usual Ctrl-F to find my own name so as to respond to anyone who quoted me, this post didn't show up, and it was only reading through the thread that I found it. Quote tags aren't that hard to use and make life so much easier.

I'm sorry for causing you inconvenience.

If you had actually paid attention to my question, you would have noticed I wasn't talking about a small amount of radioactive decay, but a small change to the RATE of decay.

It wasn't a lack of attention.

Are they a different kind of neutrino? Do neutrinos from a short lived event like an earthquake have more power than the constant unending influx of neutrinos from the sun?

They are saying neutrons. This is a different beast. Did you miss that?

It is not up to me to support the claims you made. You have made the claim that neutrinos from earthquakes can cause the change in the rate of decay, so it is up to you to support that claim.

1. It isn't my claim, it is the claim of the Scientists doing the experiments.
2. They were discussing neutrons not neutrinos.
3. IF I ask a question in regards to any claim, I ma not asking you to support my claim. I am asking you a question. If you counter my claim with something you feel potentially falsifies that Claim, it is up to you to support that.

Like I said, if you are the one making the claim, then you are the one who needs evidence to support it.

See above.

Irrelevant. I asked you a question and your response did not address the issue at all. I don't care what they were addressing. If you can't actually respond to a question, then don't bother replying.

1. IF you can't understand the elements being discussed don't push the blame on me.
2. You seem to have a rather condescending and somewhat rude tone to your posts. Care to explain?

The fact remains that if the shroud is genuine, then there should be an image of the top of Jesus' head. Not only is there no image, but there is not even space for the image to go. Unless Jesus was a two dimensional cardboard cutout, the shroud is a fake.

I have a strong conviction that you have not researched this and have concluded this from a source that didn't have all the facts. I will provide a very detailed paper on the findings prior to the Dating of the cloth. I would really like to think that you will actually read it. Thanks.

https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

 

[Kylie]

It wasn't a lack of attention.

So what was it? A deliberate strawman?

They are saying neutrons. This is a different beast. Did you miss that?

And I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that these particles can cause the changes you claim they caused. Provide the evidence or drop the point.

1. It isn't my claim, it is the claim of the Scientists doing the experiments.

And how much do they claim the neutrons can alter the results of carbon 14 dating?

2. They were discussing neutrons not neutrinos.

Point taken.

3. IF I ask a question in regards to any claim, I ma not asking you to support my claim. I am asking you a question. If you counter my claim with something you feel potentially falsifies that Claim, it is up to you to support that.

Okay, how's this? The scientist quoted in the article you provided as evidence, one Alberto Carpinteri, is a proponent of theories that are controversial and widely viewed in the scientific community to be wrong, and based on poor experiments that have so far proven to be unreproducible. SOURCE.

And the article you provided itself says that "no plausible explanation has been offered for the source of the radiation."

If the only explanation is an idea that is widely considered to be crackpottery, why should we believe it? If it is to be taken seriously, it MUST be shown that firstly, neutrons can produce such massive changes in the results of carbon 14 dating and secondly, that neutrons can be produced in the quantities required by an earthquake. Given that earthquakes last for a minute or so at most, is it really plausible that neutrons can be produced in so short a time and have such a massive effect as this? Why has this effect never been documented before? Why have we never seen such contamination of results in other samples? Surely the Shroud isn't the only thing that has ever been subjected to quake-induced neutrons!

See above.

And again, you are the one who has produced this article claiming that earthquake induced neutrons can radically alter the levels of carbon in an object, thus distorting the results of carbon 14 dating. And, as I have said, not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support this claim.

1. IF you can't understand the elements being discussed don't push the blame on me.

We are discussing the authenticity of the shroud. I was producing a piece of evidence that casts doubt on the authenticity.

2. You seem to have a rather condescending and somewhat rude tone to your posts. Care to explain?

I'm allergic to nonsense.

I have a strong conviction that you have not researched this and have concluded this from a source that didn't have all the facts. I will provide a very detailed paper on the findings prior to the Dating of the cloth. I would really like to think that you will actually read it. Thanks.

https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

Before I read this, does it explain why there is no imprint of the top of the person's head?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It is alluded to here: "motivated on the basis of such classic logical paradoxes as “This sentence is not true” and its analogues (the Liar, the Barber, Russell's paradox)"

"Some sets, such as the set of all teacups, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all non-teacups, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves “R.” If R is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself."

'....There have been subsequent expansions or modifications made on all these solutions, such as the ramified type-theory of Principia Mathematica, Quine's later expanded system of his Mathematical Logic, and the later developments in set-theory made by Bernays, Gödel and von Neumann. The question of what is the correct solution to Russell's paradox is still a matter of debate. ....'*

~~~
* Russell’s Paradox | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

'....There have been subsequent expansions or modifications made on all these solutions, such as the ramified type-theory of Principia Mathematica, Quine's later expanded system of his Mathematical Logic, and the later developments in set-theory made by Bernays, Gödel and von Neumann. The question of what is the correct solution to Russell's paradox is still a matter of debate. ....'*

~~~
* Russell’s Paradox | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Thank you for the reference. Myself, I accept that the answer to such paradoxes is dual, not singular, and may be regarded as oscillating.

So we have here an static expression of an idea that compels a dynamic. I wonder if that has anything to do with the origin of time itself from timeless eternity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

'....There have been subsequent expansions or modifications made on all these solutions, such as the ramified type-theory of Principia Mathematica, Quine's later expanded system of his Mathematical Logic, and the later developments in set-theory made by Bernays, Gödel and von Neumann. The question of what is the correct solution to Russell's paradox is still a matter of debate. ....'*

~~~
* Russell’s Paradox | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The matter of debate is not whether the paradox is a paradox, but "what is the correct solution". The various solutions arise from choosing different sets of axioms as the basis of the logical system. Because that's what logic is: choosing sets of axioms and seeing where they lead.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The matter of debate is not whether the paradox is a paradox, but "what is the correct solution". The various solutions arise from choosing different sets of axioms as the basis of the logical system. Because that's what logic is: choosing sets of axioms and seeing where they lead.

I lost interest in scholasticism a decade ago.
Perhaps one day, I shall give it another go. Not!

 

[lesliedellow]

We had a thread about this, but it was closed. Speaking to the thread's original poster, Lewiscalledhimmaster, I decided to start my own version, as I thought it was an interesting idea for a thread, and so, with his blessing, I have started my own.

It is often claimed that we know things. In this thread I would like to discuss how can can claim to know these things. What is needed before we can claim that we know something is true? What criteria need to be met? And do we accept as true some things which meet these criteria and yet discount others that also meet the criteria?

Specifically, I'd like to discuss scientific knowledge. When scientists claim to know what causes the sun to shine, for example, what justification do they give for that? And what of other things, like the claim we KNOW that evolution occurs. There are many people who who agree and many who disagree with this claim. On what basis do you KNOW that the claim is either right or wrong?

You very seldom know for certain that anything is right or wrong. Mostly it is well motivated belief, to quote one physicist. In science belief in the truth of a theory depends upon its ability to accurately predict what will later be observed, or on its ability to account for the data already observed.

One day something might turn up which is genuinely incompatible with Evolution. If that happened there would be some burying of heads in the sand, but gradually belief in its truth would collapse.