Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Opdrey]

And yet @Opdrey stated first hand what is all too frequently true, and to which I referred generally.

“I watched my then-girlfriend (now wife) get used as a pawn in a fight between her thesis advisor and another faculty member. The other faculty member cleverly insulted both my wife and her thesis advisor in one fell swoop. It was disgusting”

Situation normal. Don’t you believe @Opdrey?

Oh it is quite normal for university politics to be in your face. It can be very unpleasant. But if you think that's bad try working in industry where the managers do the dirty fighting.

 

[Opdrey]

Why can’t you keep to a discussion of evidence? Instead of all the adhominems?

For someone who went to Imperial College or Oxford I would think you would have a better handle on things like "ad hominem". It's two words. Just a pro-tip.

Goodness knows how you have ever held down a scientific job: your critical thinking is nowhere near good enough. You prefer your assumptions to what you can substantiate.

LOL.

I don’t tell you what degrees I have partly because it is none of your business,

YOU claimed to be "postgraduate" rather than claiming a degree. That's all I need to know.

Why?

Because you are inherently honest about that and you don't claim more than you actually have in terms of actual degrees. That's honorable of you.

I ignore the shroud dating because endless papers have shown that the so called daters were incompetent.

Per your assessment.

The decay of lignin with age is established. As is reduction of strength, A controlled experiment hinted at first century but with wide bounds.

And yet none of these are standard dating techniques accepted by the archeological community yet.

Not that science matters to apriori sceptics who let their opinions trump the facts.

There's another one: it's two words "a priori". For one with a 4 sigma IQ who is a postgraduate from Imperial College or Oxford I would expect more robustness to your typing.

 

[Astrid]

Yeah, I understand. The Shroud of Turin has never been of any interest to me. It's always been one of those passing subjects one might briefly watch on some episode of a "Strange Phenomena" type tv series, along with UFOs and Ghosts.

The psychology of it, what goes on in a person's
mind that they stake so much on the reality of
bigfoot, weeping statues, or "shroud" might be of interest if someone
could address it in knowledgeable terms.

As for the "shroud", test it. Is it 500, or 2000 years old.

At the risk of sounding conspiratory - theory, that the
keepers of said relic wont allow testing is almost like a clue.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for the "shroud", test it. Is it 500, or 2000 years old.

And what will that prove?

I can engrave a word on a 1000 year old rock.

Did I engrave that word 1000 years ago?

 

[Opdrey]

The psychology of it, what goes on in a person's
mind that they stake so much on the reality of
bigfoot, weeping statues, or "shroud" might be of interest if someone
could address it in knowledgeable terms.

As for the "shroud", test it. Is it 500, or 2000 years old.

At the risk of sounding conspiratory - theory, that the
keepers of said relic wont allow testing is almost like a clue.

Since my childhood I've had an interest in the Shroud. Granted I have not read as many books on it as others but it has always fascinated me. The debate goes back and forth. I understand when people invest so much of their faith in relics (it is a very common feature of the Medieval Catholic Church), and I love seeing the various relics in cathedrals all over Europe. The local saints' relics don't surprise me, but those that claim to be in the highest tier (directly related to Jesus or Mary etc) are so fraught with questions though.

As noted before it has long been known that there was a cottage industry in the Middle Ages for relics which presented a real draw for pilgrims. A church in a sleepy economically depressed town could change everything for everyone in that town by having a big relic of great note. So it stands to reason that the more important relics would have a higher rate of fakery than lesser relics.

The fact that the first mention of the Shroud occurs in the Middle Ages and the 14-C dating found a near contemporaneous date was really kind of cool. I'm sure there may have been problems with the dating, there's always nits to pick in science. That's how it's done! But when things line up and make sense it is always more compelling than invoking a world-wide conspiracy of evil and incompetence.

Who knows? The Shroud might be the real Shroud of Jesus! I dunno. No scientist ever makes 100% perfect claims and I wouldn't expect this to be any different. Right now the data seems to point to Medieval fake. And really that shouldn't reduce anyone's faith if they have faith that Jesus is real, it shouldn't impact anything. If the Church wants to venerate this, cool! If people want to worship it, fine! It even has value if it is an ancient fake...it's woven into our collective history in the West now. It's all good.

The key is that when one becomes so invested in it being one way or the other objectivity is the first casualty.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Did you mention your "4 Sigma IQ" value?

To be fair, 40 is a 4 sigma IQ.

 

[Astrid]

To be fair, 40 is a 4 sigma IQ.

So approx that of the wombat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since my childhood I've had an interest in the Shroud. Granted I have not read as many books on it as others but it has always fascinated me. The debate goes back and forth. I understand when people invest so much of their faith in relics (it is a very common feature of the Medieval Catholic Church), and I love seeing the various relics in cathedrals all over Europe. The local saints' relics don't surprise me, but those that claim to be in the highest tier (directly related to Jesus or Mary etc) are so fraught with questions though.

As noted before it has long been known that there was a cottage industry in the Middle Ages for relics which presented a real draw for pilgrims. A church in a sleepy economically depressed town could change everything for everyone in that town by having a big relic of great note. So it stands to reason that the more important relics would have a higher rate of fakery than lesser relics.

The fact that the first mention of the Shroud occurs in the Middle Ages and the 14-C dating found a near contemporaneous date was really kind of cool. I'm sure there may have been problems with the dating, there's always nits to pick in science. That's how it's done! But when things line up and make sense it is always more compelling than invoking a world-wide conspiracy of evil and incompetence.

Who knows? The Shroud might be the real Shroud of Jesus! I dunno. No scientist ever makes 100% perfect claims and I wouldn't expect this to be any different. Right now the data seems to point to Medieval fake. And really that shouldn't reduce anyone's faith if they have faith that Jesus is real, it shouldn't impact anything. If the Church wants to venerate this, cool! If people want to worship it, fine! It even has value if it is an ancient fake...it's woven into our collective history in the West now. It's all good.

The key is that when one becomes so invested in it being one way or the other objectivity is the first casualty.

If it's a fake, I'd prefer that it not be woven in ...

But that's me.

 

[Opdrey]

And what will that prove?

If it's from the Medieval Period it will prove nothing except that people at that time had an industry in fake relics. This is something that is relatively well known.

If it's from 2000 years ago it will be an amazing testament to something. What that is is not necessarily clear.

I can engrave a word on a 1000 year old rock.

And if that rock were radiometrically dated it would be whatever the original age of the rock is. This is something that sedimentary geologists learn very early. Dating the clasts of a conglomerate don't tell you how old the rock is. It tells you how old each of the chunkers is in the conglomerate.

Did I engrave that word 1000 years ago?

I guess it depends: does someone's faith hinge on it being engraved 1000 years ago? Because if that's the case then heaven and earth will be overturned to find a way to place it in that time frame. Entire swaths of science and reasoning will be burned to the ground to that end.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if that rock were radiometrically dated it would be whatever the original age of the rock is.

Yes -- 1000 years old.

So would they conclude that what was written on it was written 1000 years ago?

 

[Opdrey]

If it's a fake, I'd prefer that it not be woven in ...

But that's me.

Yes and no. I am fascinated by St. Christina of Liege. The stories about here were bizarre and unhinged and beggar even bad fiction. She was pronounced dead and at her funeral she came alive again and flew up to the rafters of the church where she made faces at the attendees. She was disgusted by the stench of sin. She was completely insane it sounds like which is why I guess she is now the patron saint of the mentally ill. While working in Belgium a few years back I took a day trip to Liege to see if I could find anything about here there (I couldn't but maybe I missed something). I have no real doubt that she was real but I don't believe for one minute that she came back from the dead and flew up to the rafters of a church. But if I could see a relic of her it would be really cool! Cool stories, true or false, stories that were at one time believed are always fun to hear.

One church I visited in Ireland (IIRC) had a small metal cage attached to the wall with a stone in it. The story was that the little cage originally held the preserved heart of some saint. A holy relic. It was stolen at some point and the rock put in its place as a placeholder and it remains to this day. The rock is as cool as the heart it supposedly replaced.

It's also fun to learn how people were "taken" by unscrupulous vendors of "relics". It shows us that we are all humans and all prone to falling for things that common sense tells us we probably shouldn't. We all love some things so much that someone somewhere can bamboozle us. It's a way to keep the skepticism muscle sharp by remembering that EVERYONE of us is liable to slip from time to time.

 

[Opdrey]

Yes -- 1000 years old.

So would they conclude that what was written on it was written 1000 years ago?

Go ahead and read the rest of my post.

 

[Opdrey]

So approx that of the wombat.

The distribution has two tails!

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead and read the rest of my post.

AV: I can engrave a word on a 1000 year old rock.
Opdrey: And if that rock were radiometrically dated it would be whatever the original age of the rock is.
AV:

 

[Opdrey]

AV: I can engrave a word on a 1000 year old rock.
Opdrey: And if that rock were radiometrically dated it would be whatever the original age of the rock is.
AV:

You didn't read the rest of it. So by all means pat yourself on the back.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes and no. I am fascinated by St. Christina of Liege. The stories about here were bizarre and unhinged and beggar even bad fiction. She was pronounced dead and at her funeral she came alive again and flew up to the rafters of the church where she made faces at the attendees. She was disgusted by the stench of sin. She was completely insane it sounds like which is why I guess she is now the patron saint of the mentally ill. While working in Belgium a few years back I took a day trip to Liege to see if I could find anything about here there (I couldn't but maybe I missed something). I have no real doubt that she was real but I don't believe for one minute that she came back from the dead and flew up to the rafters of a church. But if I could see a relic of her it would be really cool! Cool stories, true or false, stories that were at one time believed are always fun to hear.

One church I visited in Ireland (IIRC) had a small metal cage attached to the wall with a stone in it. The story was that the little cage originally held the preserved heart of some saint. A holy relic. It was stolen at some point and the rock put in its place as a placeholder and it remains to this day. The rock is as cool as the heart it supposedly replaced.

It's also fun to learn how people were "taken" by unscrupulous vendors of "relics". It shows us that we are all humans and all prone to falling for things that common sense tells us we probably shouldn't. We all love some things so much that someone somewhere can bamboozle us. It's a way to keep the skepticism muscle sharp by remembering that EVERYONE of us is liable to slip from time to time.

Somehow, I've never really had a big problem with being skeptical, and frankly, I can't remember a time wherein I've ever been "taken in" by anything substantial. I guess I've just been lucky in that regard. Also, too, the stories that have fascinated me have usually been those that I already knew were total fabrications, hence my moderate fandom of sci-fi and comic books since childhood.

When I think of various individuals who have chased after such things as religious relics, whether those items were Christian or otherwise, I always find myself biting my lower lip. Then again, I've always had a little bit of an overbite ever since childhood so maybe I've confused my skepticism with autonomic mannerisms.

Yes, you're right. We're all human. But I've also noticed that some of us are more prone than others to fall for what are, at times, presentations of what are reportedly common sense, tangible fact(s). From my own observations of people over the years, I'd rather say that the rate of propensity for falling for illusions is contingent upon a number of things. What all those 'things' may be are, of course, up for discussion by qualified neuro-scientists, I suppose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead and read the rest of my post.

My Canoe Challenge

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With respect I have given examples.

The relationships of crick/Watson Wilkins/ Franklyn are well known
As was the dreadful relationship between the upstart Halls at Oxford and Harwell ( which had consequences for the shroud)- as did the disgraceful language used between the daters and other scientists , all documented in a book you won’t read it is there for all to see.

Other more recent examples - Th continuing personal spat between imperial and Oxford on epidemiology, something I know about because one of them was my first alma mater , my other half spent years in those departments, knows some involved.

These are a tip of much bigger iceberg. At the low end you saw @Opdrey referring to a spat between those involved in A viva ,
I left conferences because of the wave of unlpleasantness in some of those present, which continued over lunches and teas.
The profs who would not talk to each other caused me problems with a client.

Whilst some of it leaks into companies ( take the spats at British biotech), mostly private sector is far better behaved. People get sacked for attitude, the product of excessive egos in academia. They don’t get sacked in academia.

I take people as I find them.
I am just not “ wowed “ by academia , which has many faults.

All I point out to @Opdrey is much science happens in other places than academia , he does not have a monopoly on it.

As I said, I simply don't recognise your earlier characterisation, which went well beyond just not being "wowed" by academia. A few examples of poor behaviour are more noticeable and memorable than a large number of uneventful cordial relations, so this may have caused an unwitting selection bias.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My Canoe Challenge

Can I follow this up with "My Paddle Challenge"?

You'll like this one since it doesn't require water. Just a ping-pong table.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I follow this up with "My Paddle Challenge"?

You'll like this one since it doesn't require water. Just a ping-pong table.

... Go right ahead! I'd love to see it!

Use anything you want, but I've got first dibs on the ...

My Tilt-a-Whirl Challenge