Is science at odds with philosophy?

Mountainmike · Mar 8, 2022

SelfSim said:
Recent tampering with the sample with recently sourced myocardium striated tissue(?)

You mean samples , and pathologists in several countries of whom some didn’t know what they were testing deciding a coordinated fraud. Let’s explore that.

You are like the polish rationalist society! When sokolka happened they demanded the prosecutor look for a murder victim, since removing heart tissue would kill! They could not find a missing person or a body!

So quite apart from the problem of faking the impossible mingling of heart tissue and bread, and the unusual DNA profile. They would have to figure a way to kill someone , get away with it, and hide the victims DNA profile. that’s quite a task since nobody knows how. Nobody knows how to keep the white cells alive either.

And then do the same on four continents, with Independebt teams, The bodies Would need to be different because the mitochondrial DNA had differences.

It would have to be a coordinated conspiracy of at least 20 people. Some of whom didn’t know what they were testing.

see the problem?
Try again this time using the art of the practical!
This is why I am convinced.
The fraud hypothesis cannot fly.

SelfSim · Mar 8, 2022

Mountainmike said:
You mean samples , and pathologists in several countries of whom some didn’t know what they were testing deciding a coordinated fraud. Let’s explore that.

I was really referring to the supposedly 8th Century one.

Mountainmike said:
You are like the polish rationalist society! When sokolka happened they demanded the prosecutor look for a murder victim, since removing heart tissue would kill! They could not find a missing person or a body!

From a large population, its plausible that a murder had gone unnoticed (an unsolved crime or a missing person). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.

Mountainmike said:
So quite apart from the problem of faking the impossible mingling of heart tissue and bread, and the unusual DNA profile. They would have to figure a way to kill someone , get away with it, and hide the victims DNA profile.

From a large population, its plausible that a murder had gone unnoticed (an 'unsolved' potential crime, or a 'missing person'). Known DNA profiles, for matching purposes, typically don't exist for every individual across an entire population! (Especially middle east ones!)

What 'unusual DNA profile are you referring to?
You're jumping all over the place throughout this thread and its diffcult to parse the rhetoric spewing forth from your fingertips from the specific case and dataset you're referring to.
Eg: in one case, you said there was no detectable DNA in the sample. I have no idea which case that was supposedly from, because of your jumbled order, and you also don't use capital letters to denote the proper noun places used to refer to the respective cases.
You need to produce a list of your evidence, by case name.

In the case you refer to above, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mountainmike said:
that’s quite a task since nobody knows how. Nobody knows how to keep the white cells alive either.

A perfect example of yet more rhetoric!
All over the place .. like a dog's breafast, you are!
Once again, I have no idea which case you're cherry picking from there.

Mountainmike said:
And then do the same on four continents, with Independebt teams, The bodies Would need to be different because the mitochondrial DNA had differences.

That's just evidence of the same process being used for harvesting the samples, across different countries at different times. So what? All perfectly achievable.

Mountainmike said:
It would have to be a coordinated conspiracy of at least 20 people. Some of whom didn’t know what they were testing.

Where do you pluck 'at least 20 people' from? Thin air too?
Its a plausible scenario which is not ruled our by your evidence.

Mountainmike said:
.. see the problem?

The problem is you jumping to conclusions where valid plausible scenarios have not been discounted by valid objective evidence, or controlled test procedures.

Mountainmike said:
Try again this time using the art of the practical!
This is why I am convinced.
The fraud hypothesis cannot fly.

Yes .. that's a good description of your problem. There is no 'art' in objectivity .. just process.

Opdrey · Mar 8, 2022

Mountainmike said:
They did not make mistake #1 of the shroud daters, which was to ignore the sampling protocol, and take only one sample from one area.

So you think the Catholic Church would have been okey dokey with sampling all over the thing?

So the only samples came from a small anomalous region

How do you know it was "anomalous"? Because you didn't see the date you wanted?

If you read the actual article (HERE) the describe the section they used: A 10mmx70mm strip was cut from an area "away from any patches or charred areas" (from the fire).

In fact one of the earlier analyses back in the late 70's was considered to have been too large if they wanted to do 14-C so they didn't take a 14-C sample at that time.

, and if they had either studied the previous spectroscopy, or done their own chemical profiling they would have known.

WHAT would they have known from their previous "spectroscopy" and "chemical profiling"? I'm genuinely curious to see if you know what they were talking about. WHAT specifically?

But that was mistake #2 they kicked everyone out who thought the shroud might be genuine,

You mean they only kept non-believers in the Shroud around for it? You mean people like

The Archbishop of Turin (Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud) and who was acting on behalf of the Holy See (and who selected the final 3 labs) and who was present for the sampling?

Have you determined in your mighty seat beside God himself that the Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud isn't a believer????

and in doing kicked all of the experienced shroud scientists out so they were blind, so they knew nothing about the shroud.

May I ask why one's "beliefs" would make a difference? Unless you are COUNTING on them giving a "favorable" analysis more to your liking?

Mistake #3 - the daters were not archeologists with a long track record of textile dating.

Two textile experts as well as multiple experts on the analyses of 14-C?

I am fascinated by your double standards. You love to point at all the "experts" who found data YOU like but you IMMEDIATELY dismiss expertise when it doesn't comport with your wishes.

They were physics isotope counters in essence with a brand new toy.

Remember what you said about people like me questioning forensic pathologists? LOL. Here you are doing the exact same thing.

They ignored the only archeologist meacham who told them to use the sampling protocols, told them to characterise chemically first, and told them textile dating was unreliable.

I don't see him mentioned in the article. Can you show me where this was raised?

The one I cannot forgive them for is #4 FIDDLING the outliers to pass a chi squared test.

Would you please explain what you mean here. According to the article the chi-square test was used following the Ward and Wilson methods. (Archeometry, 1978)

The full details of the analysis are given in the original article:

More quantitatively, to establish whether the scatter among the three laboratory means was consistent with their quoted errors, a x2 test was applied to the dates for each sample, in accordance with the recommended procedure of Ward and Wilson 13. The results of this test, given in Table 2, show that it is unlikely that the errors quoted by the laboratories for sample 1 fully reflect the overall scatter. The errors might still reflect the uncertainties in the three dates relative to one another, but in the absence of direct evidence on this, it was decided to give the three dates for sample 1 equal weight in determining the final mean, and to estimate the uncertainty in that mean from the scatter of results.

As shown in Table 2, the unweighted mean of the radiocarbon age of sample 1 and its uncertainty are 691 ± 31 yr BP. The confidence limits for sample 1 were obtained by multiplying the uncertainty by td, the value of a Student's t distribution with d degrees of freedom at the appropriate probability level. The value of d, which lies between the inter- and intra-laboratory degrees of freedom-that is, between 2 and 9-was estimated at 5 on the basis of an analysis of variance on the 12 individual measurements supplied by the laboratories14. Individual measurements from a particular laboratory were weighted according to their inverse squared errors, but the contributions from different laboratories were weighted equally, thus ensuring consistency with Table 2. Thus for sample 1, where the error has been estimated from the scatter, -68% and 95% confidence limits for the true radiocarbon date were found from the 1.1 u and 2.6u errors about the unweighted mean respectively, the multiplying factors being obtained from standard tables of the
t5 distribution. However, for samples 2, 3 and 4, the limits were obtained in the usual way from lu and 2u quoted errors about the weighted means, assuming normality.

What, specifically, was problematic? They appear to be using standardized techniques and they support it. So what is wrong?

If they had kept their apriori opinions out , left all the outliers in

Are you upset by Sample #1? It is clearly described in the article.

, they would have found a date gradient with position. That the samples were not homogenous even over a small edge area. That alone would have screamed repair!

With the exception that there was no indication of any "repair" at that point. Again, it kind of feels like the fact that they didn't get your favorite date that you are proposing all manner of ways to question the data!

NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT! Good job!

That’s why I called it a fraud. The paper in nature was a fraud.

You wouldn't know and you can't support that claim. Note I never said that your miracles were frauds. I simply noted that "Fraud" is one of many possible explanations. You, however, lack that subtlety of thought.

Opdrey · Mar 8, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Sometimes you are utterly obtuse.

I would feel offended by your insult but I understand when YOU call people names it isn't an insult.

I used paintings as analogy to relics.

Didn't seem like that. But then you are pretty poor at writing.

I give back what I get.

Uh huh.

partinobodycular · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Nobody is claiming that report as authority either for or against

Of course they are. Probably half the websites on Lanciano mention the WHO/UN report. So if I'm going to evaluate the evidence I first need to know what the evidence is. I can't rely on you to tell me what the evidence is because you jump all over the place. Most of the time it's impossible to tell which miracle you're talking about. So I'm left to figure it out myself. Does it include only the 1971 report? Does it include the supplemental 1981 report? And most important of all does it include the WHO/UN report? Because if it includes that then that's 500 more things that I have to account for. Fortunately for me I don't have to worry about the WHO/UN report because it's fake.

What I find quite odd however, is that in the video that I linked to earlier Dr. Serafini states that it only took him about two minutes to determine that the documents presented to him as the WHO/UN report were in fact hoaxes/frauds. Yet he never mentions that in his book.

His book simply states: "The quality of this new study report—which I personally consulted at the Shrine of Lanciano—is more than disappointing and does not deserve any further publicity."

Why was he so afraid to call it a fake? Would it hurt book sales? Such reluctance doesn't speak well of his objectivity.

So it turns out that all I'm left with is a small number of tests run by just one person, Dr. Linoli and slides which were also reviewed by Dr. Bertelli. That's it...two people. No large cadre of experts on this one, just two people.

Just to let you know, I'll be using the following website for my reference material.

https://www.keepingfaith.me/resources/common/pdfs/The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - Historical, Theological, Scientific and Photographic Documentation.pdf

It is...as far as I can tell, a combination of the 1971 and 1981 reports published in 1992.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

Whatever hypothesis you come to has to explain all of them , not just one.

SelfSim said:
What 'unusual DNA profile are you referring to?

And that is the problem, and why it is pointless responding: you refuse to study it, then you are unaware of the critical issues

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

Opdrey said:
With the exception that there was no indication of any "repair" at that point.

This quote illustrates the entire problem.. I have no doubt in your professional life you study first, comment second. On this you want to comment without study. You are wrong.

Rest assured there was a sampling protocol, decided in endless meetings in the preceding years , the daters ignored it, having removed all the people who knew anything about the cloth. There were none present at the sampling. There were reams of paper devoted to dialogue preceding the testing about what should happen. The daters ignored the lot . You would find out about all of it if you bought the books of the main protagonists.

But you wont.

The indication of the repair is documented in many places.

But since the sample tested was a mixture of linen and cotton, (the rest of the shroud is only linen) - the linen of the sample still had vanillin (the shroud body doesnt, like most ancient cloths ) - the linen of the sample was a different structure (linen is like garden cane, it has diameter and a pitch which were different in the sample and on the rest of the shroud)
The sample had madder root dyes, the rest of the shroud does not. So not surprisingly it had different fluorescence. That alone should have discounted that area. But the daters did not study the work of STURP.

The above proves "lack of association" in RC archeology speak.. Whatever date they come up with, could not be that of the rest of the shroud. How it came to be there is immaterial, it is made of different stuff. So repair is the best hypothesis that also meets the date gradient.

Indeed Gove revelled in the fact they were "untainted" by the "believers" (by whom they didnt mean christians, they meant the mixture of atheists, jews and the odd christian - the scientists who had in common, that they had actually TESTED the shroud and as a result STURP believed the science pointed at authenticity. They daters wanted ONLY apriori sceptics on the team. They ditched the baby with the bathwater. To do it they ditched the whole of STURP. It is black and white in the emails gove sent to others and the labs. Alas an FOI caught him out.

The rank idiots who did the testing made no chemical characterisation as Meacham had urged.
Tite made awful mistakes in the sampling and testing management - the subsampling into bottles was done off camera, and basic numbers did not add up . There was a known fourth cloth present, that did not make it into tubes. Or was that what they Labelled as shroud? We will never know. Even "which cloth" is open to dispute, and would be in a criminal proceeding! .

No accredited lab would make the mistakes the daters did. They would fail every GMP inspection.

The labs were allowed to confer on testing, which is outrageous, they were given dates of controls, which is in anathema to good science and so on, they ignored red flags on appearance. They failed to keep small pieces for later or follow up testing. Anything they could get wrong they did.

Unlike Meacham (the only archeologist) who preached caution, the labs stated testing was certain (despite the fact zurich made a 1000 year error in one of the pre tests!), That is not nearly as laughable as dating errors made prior to testing of the sudarium. They managed a 2500 year error in pre tests! Then wanted to pretend their date was spot on!

But I can forgive them all the bad science, although it angers me, a clear botching of the most important RCtest in history - its the fraudulent fiddling of the stats afterwards for which they should all have been sacked. They should not have been employed as scientists from that day on.

They fiddled them to meet the chi squared bounds by excluding outliers without which the sub samples would have been declared as non homogeneous.

If you buy such as Ray Rogers Book ( and adlers) you will find out all about the chemistry and structure, and how it differs from the main shroud. But you wont.

You prefer to guess than study. So your comments on it are illinformed and worthless. Just like your views on eucharistic miracles.

I have little doubt in your professional life your care with study before comment is so much higher]

I am through telling you stuff you should know if you did study before comment.

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

partinobodycular said:
Of course they are. Probably half the websites on Lanciano mention the WHO/UN report

So you prefer AN other websites that refer a report with no provenance and no known conclusion, who make no claim to what a report said. So As evidence it is a total red herring. Nobody is claiming it as a definitive statement, either for or against the prodigy, and to do that they would need to produce it which nobody is.

But that is gospel to you, compared to the known documentation by multiple pathologists for multiple other events? Your idea of evidence is ODD. Having never seen it, What do you think it proves?

Then see the big picture. Sceptics need to discount all of them. Discounting one is not enough. The reasoning used to discount them needs to apply to all. So a report with no known conclusing written before four of the events even happened is evidence that none of them did? Alas you would not win a critical thinking competition with reasoning like that...

Sorry partino, I like logic.

Opdrey · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
This quote illustrates the entire problem.. I have no doubt in your professional life you study first, comment second. On this you want to comment without study. You are wrong.

I studied. I got that information from the original reference article which I linked in the post.

Rest assured there was a sampling protocol, decided in endless meetings in the preceding years , the daters ignored it, having removed all the people who knew anything about the cloth.

So now you are saying that the Pontifical Docent for the Shroud, the Archbishop, didn't know anything about the cloth?

There were none present at the sampling.

With the exception of multiple textile experts and the Archbishop tasked with taking care of the Shroud.

The above proves "lack of association" in RC archeology speak.. Whatever date they come up with, could not be that of the rest of the shroud. How it came to be there is immaterial, it is made of different stuff. So repair is the best hypothesis that also meets the date gradient.

Do you notice how you are able to pick apart each tiny piece of the research to find reason to question the outcome? That's actually a very good skillset to maintain. It is interesting to me that you don't have the same standards for science which confirms your pre-existing faith, but for that which fails to do so you have nothing but detailed scorn.

The difference between us is: I don't care which way any of these analyses go. I can remain objective because I don't HAVE to have them be real miracles. You, on the other hand, do.

I have on every occasion noted that the Eucharistic Miracles you like so much may very well be miracles. I doubt it highly because I tend not to outright reject the null hypothesis without a lot more information. For you it seems that if it confirms Catholicism it is good, if it fails it is flawed.

It is clear your bias is showing and that's understandable. You are a Catholic who wants to find reason to believe and those things which pass that filter are allowed through, other things which fail are "frauds" and "flawed" analyses.

Indeed Gove revelled in the fact they were "untainted" by the "believers" (by whom they didnt mean christians, they meant the mixture of atheists, jews and the odd christian

Atheists and Jews. And they are unable to do science as correctly as good Catholics?

They daters wanted ONLY apriori sceptics on the team.

You mean they wanted scientists on the team? People who don't automatically go into the experiment by rejecting the null and then testing against that?

The labs were allowed to confer on testing, which is outrageous, they were given dates of controls, which is in anathema to good science and so on, they ignored red flags on appearance. They failed to keep small pieces for later or follow up testing. Anything they could get wrong they did.

I'd ask you where you got these points and if there's any actual support for them but I'm sure I'd have to to your favorite Catholic Supply bookstore and buy the book.

although it angers me, a clear botching of the most important RCtest in history

Umm, it's only "important" to you the faithful. For the rest of us it's just kinda interesting. The results made sense in that they matched almost exactly the general time frame that the Shroud first is mentioned in history.

But it's super important for all of you because you've been venerating it for generations. It has to be a miracle cloth.

They fiddled them to meet the chi squared bounds by excluding outliers without which the sub samples would have been declared as non homogeneous.

Perhaps you can give us more detail on this. I gave you detail from the original article on it. Maybe you can return the favor (but I know you hold yourself up to ridiculously lower standards than you demand of others)

If you buy such as Ray Rogers Book ( and adlers) you will find out all about the chemistry and structure, and how it differs from the main shroud. But you wont.

I might, but again, it honestly doesn't matter that much to me. It's only really important that it be bad science to you and the faithful.

I have little doubt in your professional life your care with study before comment is so much higher]

Gosh, thanks. You wouldn't understand what it is I do for a living (Research Chemistry), so it means a lot.

partinobodycular · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
So you prefer AN other websites that refer a report with no provenance and no known conclusion, who make no claim to what a report said. So As evidence it is a total red herring. Nobody is claiming it as a definitive statement, either for or against the prodigy, and to do that they would need to produce it which nobody is.

Good grief Mike, it's called being thorough. When half the websites on the subject mention such a report it would be totally remiss of me not to address it. I'm really beginning to question your grasp on reality. I was actually wondering if you might be going senile, but you're younger than me so hopefully that's not a problem. But seeing as how you're so smart maybe you're just going completely Ted Kaczynski.

Mountainmike said:
But that is gospel to you, compared to the known documentation by multiple pathologists for multiple other events?

You do this all the time. Bring up all the other events, when I'm specifically addressing Lanciano, because it's the first event in which modern science was used to test it. At this point all the other events are irrelevant. Please stick to one event at a time.

partinobodycular · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Sorry partino, I like logic.

Well then please utilize it.

Opdrey · Mar 9, 2022

partinobodycular said:
Good grief Mike, it's called being thorough.

It feels you are being as thorough as @Mountainmike is when he's questioning the Shroud of Turin dating. He's taking a very detailed approach to the analysis and not simply relying on the authority of the researchers. Unfortunately when it comes to the Eucharistic Miracles which confirm his faith he seems rather less interested in delving too deeply.

Astrid · Mar 9, 2022

Opdrey said:
It feels you are being as thorough as @Mountainmike is when he's questioning the Shroud of Turin dating. He's taking a very detailed approach to the analysis and not simply relying on the authority of the researchers. Unfortunately when it comes to the Eucharistic Miracles which confirm his faith he seems rather less interested in delving too deeply.

Why would anyone delve when he
cannot possibly be mistaken?

Opdrey · Mar 9, 2022

Estrid said:
Why would anyone delve when he
cannot possibly be mistaken?

In no small way I totally understand where @Mountainmike is coming from. It's a very natural human behavior to seek confirmation of our biases. We all struggle with this. And obviously he's well read on these subjects but I wonder how biased his source information is. Usually popular press books are less than robust in their science and even less robust against bias of the author.

I like that @partinobodycular has been digging so deeply into this, but the fact that Mike responds with attempts to wave off that depth while having a near encyclopedic knowledge of every possible error in the Shroud analysis bespeaks more bias than scientific discipline.

partinobodycular · Mar 9, 2022

Opdrey said:
Do you notice how you are able to pick apart each tiny piece of the research to find reason to question the outcome? That's actually a very good skillset to maintain. It is interesting to me that you don't have the same standards for science which confirms your pre-existing faith, but for that which fails to do so you have nothing but detailed scorn.

This is especially true in the case of Lanciano. In the case of the shroud @Mountainmike is very critical of the handling of the samples, but seems to have no problem with the extremely problematic handling of the samples in the case of Lanciano. And there's no need to take my word for it. The following is from Dr. Serafini's book, "A Cardiologist Examines Jesus":

"Any weaknesses? The whole investigation was carried out by Prof. Linoli alone. There was no supervisory committee: he took the samples, and these were analyzed by him and him alone. Nowadays we would certainly organize a chain of custody for the specimens, possibly even video-record its most crucial moments, and the study would be done by multiple experts. Re-ciprocal surveillance would eliminate the risk of fraud. Even better, blinding methodologies would be applied to the experiments, such as not revealing the origin of the samples to the researchers."

So this is my initial complaint with Dr. Linoli's investigation of Lanciano, there is absolutely no oversight whatsoever.

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

partinobodycular said:
This is especially true in the case of Lanciano. In the case of the shroud @Mountainmike is very critical of the handling of the samples, but seems to have no problem with the extremely problematic handling of the samples in the case of Lanciano. And there's no need to take my word for it. The following is from Dr. Serafini's book, "A Cardiologist Examines Jesus":

"Any weaknesses? The whole investigation was carried out by Prof. Linoli alone. There was no supervisory committee: he took the samples, and these were analyzed by him and him alone. Nowadays we would certainly organize a chain of custody for the specimens, possibly even video-record its most crucial moments, and the study would be done by multiple experts. Re-ciprocal surveillance would eliminate the risk of fraud. Even better, blinding methodologies would be applied to the experiments, such as not revealing the origin of the samples to the researchers."

So this is my initial complaint with Dr. Linoli's investigation of Lanciano, there is absolutely no oversight whatsoever.

That I suppose is the problem with the thoroughly uninformed selectively misleading with quotes.

I suspect that’s not “ your “ complaint, it is something dug up on a sceptic site that you have taken out of context whose meaning you do not seem to understand.

Let’s dig deeper.

1/ At the outset , nobody has actually contested linolis findings so you talk of nuance in procedure, not outcome. You will also note that linoli got another professor Bertelli involved and to validate conclusions. You fail to mention the effective peer review.

2/ Now let’s finish your quote - Serafini stated that Buenos airies and tixtla certainly did have proper control. Not surprising, they were 40 years later. Why did you omit to say that? If you accept serafinis opinion, you now have no reason to doubt tixtla or Buenos.

I have told you to focus on those, because they are recent. Only one is needed to validate the inexplicable, there are 5. So focus on those that were multiply peer checked. Your approach is disingenuous.

3/ now let’s explain WHY that was so, for those who don’t seem to understand the development of quality and accreditation. It is out of context. This was 50 years ago, a different time.

Serafini is too young to remember:

I am someone who has pushed several companies ( of two different industries) through quality conformance so I know the history. I have quality system training.
BS5750 / ISO 9000 quality management did not even start till after that period in reality. It would be another decade before it was standard practice. Whilst GMP in medical manufacture predated the Linoli investigation by perhaps 5 years, that too was not in anything like present form for a very long time.

in short the kind of procedures that accredited labs now use to ensure conformance were more or less two decades in the future, ( which is a straight jacket universities cannot really afford, not least because of how it slows progress) and even the essential parts of GMP were still a decade away.

Small wonder quality management as it would now be called, was not considered important, but note again, Linoli did the essential , he got Bertelli to review it.

It was a different time. Like safety, formal quality management had yet to become established. HASWE was still in the future too.

So your actual objection to linolis conclusion is?

I suspect you focus on it lanciano only because it is free. Or have you actually bought serafinis book now? If you have - it makes your selective quote utterly disingenuous.

Opdrey · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
I have told you to focus on those, because they are recent. Only one is needed to validate the inexplicable, there are 5. So focus on those that were multiply peer checked. Your approach is disingenuous.

There are 5. Maybe 4 because we have to keep ignoring one because it is inconvenient.

3/ now let’s explain WHY for those who don’t seem to understand the development of quality and accreditation.

You mean like the experts in radiocarbon dating who did the Shroud of Turin?

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

Opdrey said:
There are 5. Maybe 4 because we have to keep ignoring one because it is inconvenient.

You mean like the experts in radiocarbon dating who did the Shroud of Turin?

Lanciano confirmed the others. No need to ignore it, but it is older, and the science more primitive.

The “ experts “ ignored the agreed protocols, failed to do basic checks, and cheated the results. An FOI of the lab books showed the results in nature did not even reflect raw data, and the confidence intervals were fiddled.

They were not “ experts “ at all at archeology , or practical dating problems of textiles, or the shroud and testing of it. . They did all they could to exclude those who knew the shroud science, and excluded the archeologists. They were radiation counters who cheated.

They excluded all that knew the cloth science, so that after 3 years arguing protocols ( that were then discarded ) there was a stand up argument at the time of the sampling as to where and what should be cut!

Riggi had never cut textile before , and the two textile “ experts” who did come were so ill informed they asked “ what’s that” seeing the blood patch caused by the Lance. They clearly had not even opened a book on it.

To be fair - it was Gonella was mostly responsible for allowing himself to be bullied by the labs. Tite made a complete hash of it. Riggi could not cut samples properly so they ended in too many bits. And neither the mass nor area of the combined samples bottled , matched the totals. Basic mistakes like that,
All done off camera.
The labs were allowed to confer, were told the control dates and colluded in massaging data.

But then until you read a few books, you won’t know anything about the shroud either.

Both Rogers “ chemists perspective on the shroud “ and Adlers “ orphaned manuscript “ are right up your street. But I’ll wager you never read them before comment on the shroud again.

Even Rogers had no idea that the daters had fiddled data. That was discovered later after the major proponents were dead.
Rogers would have been Appalled.

anyway. If I see you actually research it then comment, I might reply. It is Pointless otherwise.

Opdrey · Mar 9, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Lanciano confirmed the others. No need to ignore it, but it is older, and the science more primitive.

So why are we told to look only at the more recent ones? I like Lanciano because we actually have some details of the analysis (as in technical details)

The “ experts “ ignored the agreed protocols, failed to do basic checks, and cheated the results.

Support that claim.

They were radiation counters who cheated.

It amazes me how much vitriol you spew at people who come to conclusions you don't agree with.

But then until you read a few books, you won’t know anything about the shroud either.

So reading the scientific paper is insufficient? I have to read YOUR favorite books?

anyway. If I see you actually research it then comment, I might reply. It is Pointless otherwise.

I have actually looked at the science paper. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

You might try it some time. It will require you get a bit more experience reading and processing scientific information.

Mountainmike · Mar 9, 2022

You read the fiddled nature article.
5 books will tell you all about it, and support the argument.
You won’t look at any of them.

Now. Let’s get one essential clear.
As radiation counters they did an ok job.

As daters they completely screwed up.
They failed to accept the problems of textile dating despite being advised by an archeologist.

1/ they ignored the protocols for sampling areas.
2/ they failed to consider red flags in where to choose, and excluded all who could have advised them.
3/ they failed to characterise the samples chemically
4/ they failed to keep / disclose portions for later review
5/ they failed to note the red flags of the samples - debris like cotton that should not have been there.
5/ they colluded on controls

6/ Then after all that , they fiddled the data.

Note, the net result had they been HONEST would be to have shown non conformance between parts and a date gradient on the cloth.
It would still have said mediaeval.
But also variable.
That should have forced them to analyze why, discover the unusual chemistry And in doing so reject the date. Which is what meacham told them to do, beforehand!

The reality as chemists proved? It was a mediaeval repair made of different stuff to the shroud , that was woven in seamlessly and dyed.
So as you got closer to the shroud itself the date was decreasing.

So as radiation counters they did an ok job.
As daters they we’re useless because the count did not reflect the date of the rest of the shroud.

The date was obviously wrong, even on the date they announced it. Too much other evidence disagreed.

Rogers and adlers books are science. But far more in depth than a single paper ever could be.. I suggest you read them.

Opdrey said:
So why are we told to look only at the more recent ones? I like Lanciano because we actually have some details of the analysis (as in technical details)

Support that claim.

It amazes me how much vitriol you spew at people who come to conclusions you don't agree with.

So reading the scientific paper is insufficient? I have to read YOUR favorite books?

I have actually looked at the science paper. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

You might try it some time. It will require you get a bit more experience reading and processing scientific information.

Is science at odds with philosophy?

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency