Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

Because it had nothing to do with Lanciano.

Unless you want me to quote the entire page.

So have you actually read it now? And where is it available for free - when it is clearly paid for as a recent book.

So let us find out, whether you have seen the book.

On page 161 serafini makes a statement about the "final and unarguable" answer about the blood of lanciano. What was it?
And if it was "unarguable" what grounds do you have to dispute it?

I notice you do not address the issue I made about how quality systems have changed dramatically, in the intervening years. You failed to note that Bertelli reviewed it. Nobody seriously questions the result. Only what it signifies!

 

[Opdrey]

Like most lazy sceptics you seem to think that there was only ever one paper on the shroud. What you mean perhaps is there is only one DISCREDITED paper. Which is the paper in nature because the numbers do not add up.

May I ask, do you prefer the Fanti age? That's the age that was arrived at that uses non-standard techniques with almost no track record?

I'm genuinely curious.

An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - ScienceDirect

THANK YOU FOR FINALLY PROVIDING AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC CITATION!!!!!

I'm serious! Thanks! This is a first for you. I'm really glad you could do it! I will definitely look at this!

Thanks again!

 

[partinobodycular]

So let us find out, whether you have seen the book.

On page 161 serafini makes a statement about the "final and unarguable" answer about the blood of lanciano. What was it?

Do you think that maybe I lied about the book being available online for free? It actually is, and it's not really that hard to find.

But I'll play your game. That quote comes from the very bottom of page 161 and it says "The final and unarguable answer was given by paper chromatography", but I guess Linoli doesn't want to count the other two tests that came up negative. Just focus on the one that didn't.

You failed to note that Bertelli reviewed it.

And you think that's important? That Bertelli reviewed slides which he had no personal knowledge about where they came from. If Linoli wanted to perpetrate a fraud there would've been no way for Bertelli to detect it.

So have you actually read it now?

I haven't actually read the whole book, but only a very small portion of it concerns Lanciano. I may use the book for future reference if needed however. Just to refresh your memory, I never said that I hadn't read a book, just that I have never bought one, and that still holds true. FYI, I have never bought a piece of software either, that doesn't mean that I don't use any. I've just been on the internet since before it was the internet, so I have a particular set of skills.

Edit: Technically one could argue that I have actually bought software since I've bought computers which come loaded with software by default. Most of which I immediately discard.

 

[Mountainmike]

The reason I picked that section is that he calls it “ unarguable”
He also clearly accepts lanciano, but more so the others.

I have found it.

I will report to serafini and Sophia press they have a copyright thief. I have checked the domain, and I will protest to icann, to get it taken down. Copyright thief applies to those who read it without paying too.
As an author I think it is a disgrace.

Do you think that maybe I lied about the book being available online for free? It actually is, and it's not really that hard to find.

But I'll play your game. That quote comes from the very bottom of page 161 and it says "The final and unarguable answer was given by paper chromatography", but I guess Linoli doesn't want to count the other two tests that came up negative. Just focus on the one that didn't.


And you think that's important? That Bertelli reviewed slides which he had no personal knowledge about where they came from. If Linoli wanted to perpetrate a fraud there would've been no way for Bertelli to detect it.


I haven't actually read the whole book, but only a very small portion of it concerns Lanciano. I may use the book for future reference if needed however. Just to refresh your memory, I never said that I hadn't read a book, just that I have never bought one, and that still holds true. FYI, I have never bought a piece of software either, that doesn't mean that I don't use any. I've just been on the internet since before it was the internet, so I have a particular set of skills.

Edit: Technically one could argue that I have actually bought software since I've bought computers which come loaded with software by default. Most of which I immediately discard.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The reason I picked that section is that he calls it “ unarguable”
He also clearly accepts lanciano, but more so the others.

I have found it.

I will report to serafini and Sophia press they have a copyright thief. I have checked the domain, and I will protest to icann, to get it taken down. Copyright thief applies to those who read it without paying too.
As an author I think it is a disgrace.

Fair use.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said the fundamental problem was they were FAITH not sciecne based daters.

Tu quoque.

 

[Mountainmike]

Since it is established that vanillin decreases with age, strength with age and so on, it is worthwhile for fanti to try. His book is far more detailed than papers.

The vanillin is how we know it was repaired: the repair linen still has vanillin. The old linen does not.

Fanti uses controls , so the error bands are interesting. Since it is clear that RC has problems with cloth,( and I don’t just mean from the shroud) alternatives are needed.

The more the idea is used, the more it can be trusted.

There has to be a first time for everything including AMS!

For the present fanti is in the interesting evidence category, it is not definitive, needs weighing with others. Needs to be used more.

But that’s all RC is according to professionals like Meacham, It makes mistakes too often to be other than one more piece of evidence, and it needs caution on sample profiling the daters did not do. The public were misled on the certainty

I have no idea how senior you are , opdrey, or how many scientists you run. I have had many highly qualified employees in the past,

Tell me , would you have sacked an employee for this, and apologised to the journal? Ie cheating?

I am genuinely curious. How can they ever be trusted again?


I would - without hesitation.
Do you agree that tite and Halls should have been sacked for a conspiracy to cheat?

" showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’
laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an
unstated methodology"

May I ask, do you prefer the Fanti age? That's the age that was arrived at that uses non-standard techniques with almost no track record?

I'm genuinely curious.



THANK YOU FOR FINALLY PROVIDING AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC CITATION!!!!!

I'm serious! Thanks! This is a first for you. I'm really glad you could do it! I will definitely look at this!

Thanks again!

 

[Mountainmike]

Fair use.

Quoting from it yes.
A site has put the whole thing online.
( and I’m not going to advertise the copyright fraudsters)
It’s a federal offence in the US
Copyright fraud is criminal in the U.K. too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Copyright thief applies to those who read it without paying too.
As an author I think it is a disgrace.

Nearly all of my "copyrighted" publications are also available for free here:

arxiv.org

 

[Mountainmike]

Tu quoque.

But that is the sleight of hand.
It’s no issue to me if Eucharistic miracles are true or false.
I take an objective view.

Of bleeding statues civatecchia was clearly false. Dna proved it.
Cochambamba seems to be the real deal.

But for a priori sceptics EM have to be false.
Abiogenesis has to be true.
so they are too heavily invested in their apriori opinions.

The shroud however, I never did get why they were so invested in trying to prove it false . Jesus was historic, as was the crucifixion.
So accepting a real shroud is not a death blow for sceptics.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nearly all of my "copyrighted" publications are also available for free here:

arxiv.org

This is a copyrighted book.
Presently being sold. Not free.

 

[partinobodycular]

I will report to serafini and Sophia press they have a copyright thief. I have checked the domain, and I will protest to icann, to get it taken down. Copyright thief applies to those who read it without paying too.
As an author I think it is a disgrace.

This would make for an interesting thread, because you and I have a whole different idea about the legitimacy of copyrights, especially when it comes to the internet.

Then again I've lived my life by one simple principle...never sell anything that you can give away. So as you might imagine I've given away a lot of stuff. But I don't put a lot of value in stuff. If you do, well that's up to you. You can live your life worrying about protecting your stuff, if that makes you happy, but what makes me happy is giving stuff away.

 

[partinobodycular]

The reason I picked that section is that he calls it “ unarguable”

Well I guess if he said so it must be true.

 

[partinobodycular]

( and I’m not going to advertise the copyright fraudsters)

You'll notice that I didn't either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is a copyrighted book.
Presently being sold. Not free.

When I posted my articles to the arXiv there were going into journals that cost thousands of dollars per year for a subscription (and for society members could be obtained for around $100/year) *before* publication.

Have you ever posted to the arXiv?

 

[partinobodycular]

Copyright thief applies to those who read it without paying too.

I didn't put it there, all I did was find it. And I didn't have to hack anything or crack anything to see it. I didn't post the link, and when you asked me I didn't tell you where it was. So all that I did was find something posted on the internet and read it.

 

[Mountainmike]

This would make for an interesting thread, because you and I have a whole different idea about the legitimacy of copyrights, especially when it comes to the internet. .

I have the legal view of copyright, and the view of someone whose work has been stolen.
It is criminal. Now I know why you do not "buy books"

 

[Mountainmike]

When I posted my articles to the arXiv there were going into journals that cost thousands of dollars per year for a subscription (and for society members could be obtained for around $100/year) *before* publication.

Have you ever posted to the arXiv?

I only spent a short while in academia a very long time ago before the web got going. Most of what I have done was either military secret or commercial in confidence. So no. It annoys me when someone publishes an idea, we were using years before. It depends on the field greatly, but in some places industry is ahead of academia, yet academia takes the kudos. There is also the problem with patents. When you register them, you start the clock ticking on a lot of expense, and in the case of such as pharmaceuticals, you start the clock on the patent running out for generic medicine copies. You have to protect intellectual property before you release any of it in public domain. It is a catch 22 So a lot of commercial in confidence stays hidden till long after discovery.


There is another difference you are not recognising. When such as tesoriero travels the world to investigate phenomena, then pays for very expensive forensic analysis it costs them a fortune. Unlike academics or full time employees they do not get paid either. They get no grants. So they have to charge to recoup some of the cost, which no doubt is serafinis motive.

But bravo for what you are doing. The research I look for I have to pay for. Even when I think it should be free! I wanted an unusual operation a few years ago, and the only place I could find the risk reward analysis was behind many medical journal paywalls.

 

[partinobodycular]

I have the legal view of copyright, and the view of someone whose work has been stolen.

One last comment. You and I obviously have very different perspectives on this, and I can appreciate your POV. Mine just happens to differ.

As I said earlier, this would make for an interesting thread, I just don't feel up to starting one at the moment, but if someone wanted to start one I would definitely contribute.

 

[partinobodycular]

I will report to serafini and Sophia press they have a copyright thief. I have checked the domain, and I will protest to icann, to get it taken down.

Okay, last last comment. I would be very interested to know what kind of response you get.