Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

Don’t make me laugh.
if this is any measure of Your research skills , they are useless.

in Adlers case his book is JUST a compendium of peer reviewed papers.
In Rogers case his book only contains what is in his and other papers , just organised into subjects. You would know that if you ever looked which you gave not. It proves You have not even looked them up.

You would also know that mccrone is totally discredited , nobody believes that any more, and that nickel has never been near the shroud with a microscope, his opinions are irrelevant. Forget him. . Like the tobacco science fraud, Nickell is paid well to write bunk his sceptic friends want to hear, peer reviewed by sceptic friends. You amongst them seemingly.

You quote a paper that agrees the RC data is not homogenous : that the samples are not the same at the level of data ( ie appear to be made of different stuff ) unlike the misrepresented data in nature.

What that paper and you have FAILED to do is ask the basic question WHY they appear to be different stuff. The why is simple , they ARE different stuff to each other and the shroud. Which is a slam dunk if you ever read the science.

it was always a problem. Half the shroud is a medieval repair eg Holland cloth and fire/ water patching. The daters failed to do even the most basic characterisations.

Now we get to the question what is the shroud?

It is unquestionably the shroud of a crucified man showing pre post mortem pathology , including trauma, invisible and unknown to a forger. It is not an artwork. Mcrone and nickell both let their imagination/ preconception run away with them.

For those who ever watched Lindsay Lohans best film - the parent trap - the two girls have the same photo ripped in half.

Now imagine one half of a photo had provenance of only 500 years, ( nobody knows where before that) the other 1500 years One half is RC dated as 500 years.

Simple logic - That later date has to be bunk, if they are the same photo.

Welcome to the forensic match of sudarium and shroud. The chemistry of matching was unknown and invisible in any forgers day.

That is what I call evidence. Anyone who wants to make the case for a mediaeval shroud has to explain that matching too. Sure it assumes a certain head wrapping technique - but the chances of it aligning 60 points of corespondence would be good enough for a court. It is proof of nothing but powerful evidence in absence of a date, now the RC date is void.

So for the first time in your life study it @Opdrey. Spare us all the lazy sceptic tropes. It is only such as you that keeps echoing mcrones nonsense.

I will leave you with a thought that should be a credo for scientists. Not you apparently.

Qui legit intelligat.


Let him who has ears to hear, hear.
This man knows some Latin too. Small wonder as a product of a one time grammar school.

Of course! Because it disagrees with you!



So suddenly it has to be peer reviewed data for you? You read books all the time which are NOT PEER REVIEWED!



The hypocrisy is stunning.



STOP BEARING FALSE WITNESS. I HAVE DISCUSSED ACTUAL SCIENCE ARTICLES ON THIS TOPIC MULTIPLE TIMES NOW.

STOP BEARING FALSE WITNESS!!!!

 

[Opdrey]

It is unquestionably the shroud of a crucified man showing pre post mortem pathology

"unquestionably". You don't talk like a scientist much.

So for the first time in your life study it @Opdrey.

I love how you continually lie about what I have done. I have found numerous articles and discussed them on this forum. The fact that they fail to take the hard line that you do is the major problem you have with them.

It is almost as if you simply ignore those things which do not confirm your favored position.

This man knows some Latin too.

Not much, though. Since you consistently treat apriori as one word.

Small wonder as a product of a one time grammar school.

That and a gigantic 4 sigma IQ, no doubt.

 

[Opdrey]

Flat earth skeptics? Why shouldn't one be a skeptic of the flat earth?

Dont stop him! He's on a roll!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.
This man knows some Latin too. Small wonder as a product of a one time grammar school.

A grammar school that teaches Latin, interesting. The only language I learned in grammar school (to use the old fashioned name for it) was BASIC.

 

[Mountainmike]

You won’t read the primary research on why the shroud sample is demonstrably different to the rest of the shroud, and those that show the shroud really is. You are fixated on papers relating to an RC date that has no credibility, and does not align to the rest of the research.

You said books “ had no peer review” , which shows you had never noticed that adlers books is ONLY papers and Rogers and Fantis books are essentially what is in papers but more raw data.

Which brings an interesting question. I can excuse the peers for no knowing the data in the paper was fiddled by an unknown process. But why did they not notice the totally artificial deviation of Arizona’s results that didn’t even align the fiddled data?

If the daters had done what fanti did, and publish a book with more raw data, we would have known that they had fiddled it.books are goos!
Instead they ignored all requests for release, ( halls of Oxford took the files home!) , only a legal disclosure force pd them to reveal they fiddled the data.

"unquestionably". You don't talk like a scientist much.



I love how you continually lie about what I have done. I have found numerous articles and discussed them on this forum. The fact that they fail to take the hard line that you do is the major problem you have with them.

It is almost as if you simply ignore those things which do not confirm your favored position.



Not much, though. Since you consistently treat apriori as one word.



That and a gigantic 4 sigma IQ, no doubt.

 

[Opdrey]

You won’t read the primary research on why the shroud

Actually I did pull up the primary research paper. What you mean is that I'm not yet reading the popular press books written by the various parties afterwards.

There's a difference. In the world of actual scientific research it is often necessary to go to the ORIGINAL (or "primary") research papers which are published in the peer reviewed literature. The people who write these papers don't get paid for writing it. The people who write books for the common reader (ie non-scientific audience) do get paid for their efforts. There is no real "peer review" for most popular press books which means that the author is free to present the data as it suits them and put whatever interpretation they wish on it.

You said books “ had no peer review” , which shows you had never noticed that adlers books is ONLY papers

The books may have a BIBLIOGRAPHY but are not, in and of themselves, peer reviewed.

I can write a paper right now that has a lot of peer reviewed citations and I can give my interpretation of that data but unless my interpretation is, itself, peer reviewed it is not a peer reviewed paper.

Instead they ignored all requests for release, ( halls of Oxford took the files home!) , only a legal disclosure force pd them to reveal they fiddled the data.

You are free to cite the reference and provide evidence for your claim. This is how scientific conversations go: you make a claim and then you support it using references and data. Simply making a claim and then demanding others read whatever it is you read is not how it is done. In fact that is how it is easy to see when someone doesn't actually have any experience in defense of a thesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

Did you miss what I said?
Adlers book is just a compendium of peer reviewed papers. He wrote many. The compendium compiles the most useful.

Your phrase “ primary paper” illustrates limited knowledge.
Rogers wrote many papers. You seemed to refer only to his lignin tests.- some of the last papers he wrote.

You are looking at trees. You should study the woods first.

The papers you should have read are the ones first where he and sturp detailed what the shroud is, and the later ones where he ( and Adler) detail what the shroud samples are made of, and proved the RC date was unrepresentative sp false.

Once you read that there is no point in studying RC dating stats. They tell you what you already know from chemistry - the dates are all over the place because the material of the sample and the shroud are different, the sample clearly a mixture. It also showed meacham was right. Characterisation is essential. The daters refused.

The problem with a new subject is needing a roadmap of it.
The books are a useful roadmap. Books also give supporting information. Like all of the corespondence between key parties which demonstrates bad faith by the daters. It does not need peer review. It is clearly the correspondence.

You seem fixated on dating. Knowing what the shroud is, and how it corresponds to other things makes a nonsense of the date. The dna pollen , and minerals points at holy land.

It is the shroud of a crucified man. Everything fits that hypothesis. Nothing does not fit it. One of the reasons people thought fake was the blood was seemingly too red. Adler showed it was bilirubin,which is a product of trauma.

….

It becomes obvious what happened: the rise and fall of the AMS daters.

The shroud itself was just a distraction for them, a casualty of a different battle.

The labs were trying to build credibility for the then unproven AMS. For some it was existential. This for professor halls at Oxford was how he intended to steal the crown of Harwell, leader in the U.K. on dating. If he proved AMS he won big. If he lost he was buried.

Halls needed this to work because of all the investment. His lab would be stillborn otherwise. Indeed, they had built up the rhetoric so high that a fall would kill them.

None of them researched the shroud ,and all assumed it mediaeval and homogeneous. They knew nothing of a history of repairs, and they kicked out all from the project who did know.
It was their assumptions that did for them.

What they wanted to show was the reliability and accuracy of AMS.
That was the goal.
The shroud was just high profile publicity. It turned into a nightmare for them.

Because of the need to show conformity - They were only too happy to reduce down to bits of just one sample, ( rather than multiple samples as called for by protocol) multiple samples Would risk area dating differences, even though the shroud needed that. It was a conflict of interests.

The labs could persuade the church to go along ( so long as they coukd get rid of sturp and meacham) . But for them , one area would give tighter data, even if it was against protocol, and wrongful in the case of the shroud.

Then horror of horrors !

Not only did the labs come up with different dates by over a hundred years, but the variances were all over the place, and worse still the dates failed homogeneity tests.

The triumph for AMD became a disaster, then a damage limitation exercise.

They had a serious, even existential problem:
if they had published all the raw data, AMS would at least be deemed unreliable, at worst unusable, and halls would lose out to harwell. Harwell would have made sure all knew that Oxford was unreliable.

So they did the unforgivable.
They fiddled the data, and released only a part
They could not hide the date difference, but at least they could (and did ) fiddle the deviation to make them look homogenous.

Unfortunately they didn’t notice that what they released was not even internally consistent. Theyfiddled a standard deviation to make it look homogenous , without making the lie consistent by fiddling that data too.

Those who asked why the deviation published was 33 not 17 ( calculable fro data) were ignored. The labs hoped they would go away.Nobody has ever explained it. Peers should have found it,but didn’t.

To avoid scrutiny Halls took oxfords lab books home, ( staying with him in retirement) and the other daters refused to release any further data. To avoid getting caught in the lie. Only an FOI two decades later got the truth at the point of a legal gun!

Then we discover an “ unknown process” change the measured data to what was published!

The sad thing is they need not have worried.
The AMS was fine.

It was their apriori assumption that was wrong.
The variability in the samples was the problem that invalidated the date. it was real. If only they had done their job, and researched it , truth would have left AMS undamaged, but the shroud dating would be rendered void.

The problem was their earlier rhetoric left them no honourable means to declare it void. Hoist by their own petard. They would have failed to date the shroud, which would hurt credibility even if AMS was proven.

Scientists cannot be assumed to be more reliable than people. In this case they were not. There are cheats, and incompetents. Science like society has both. If peer review worked, the nAture dating paper would never have passed review.

Actually I did pull up the primary research paper. What you mean is that I'm not yet reading the popular press books written by the various parties afterwards.

There's a difference. In the world of actual scientific research it is often necessary to go to the ORIGINAL (or "primary") research papers which are published in the peer reviewed literature. The people who write these papers don't get paid for writing it. The people who write books for the common reader (ie non-scientific audience) do get paid for their efforts. There is no real "peer review" for most popular press books which means that the author is free to present the data as it suits them and put whatever interpretation they wish on it.



The books may have a BIBLIOGRAPHY but are not, in and of themselves, peer reviewed.

I can write a paper right now that has a lot of peer reviewed citations and I can give my interpretation of that data but unless my interpretation is, itself, peer reviewed it is not a peer reviewed paper.



You are free to cite the reference and provide evidence for your claim. This is how scientific conversations go: you make a claim and then you support it using references and data. Simply making a claim and then demanding others read whatever it is you read is not how it is done. In fact that is how it is easy to see when someone doesn't actually have any experience in defense of a thesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

A grammar school that teaches Latin, interesting. The only language I learned in grammar school (to use the old fashioned name for it) was BASIC.

FORTRAN was our first, punched card in a local university computer in early seventies. Later machine code ( via rows of switches ), then assembler and C. But my fave of early years was APL. It thinks in matrices and vectors, not scalars.

Those were the days when first you typed in bootstrap code, that loaded a monitor from paper tape that allowed running a paper tape program. When 2k core store was a wardrobe! A Marconi myriad.

 

[AV1611VET]

FORTRAN was our first, punched card in a local university computer in early seventies. Later machine code ( via rows of switches ), then assembler and C. But my fave of early years was APL. It thinks in matrices and vectors, not scalars.

I operated an IBM 370/148 for awhile.

I still have dreams about it!

 

[Mountainmike]

I operated an IBM 370/148 for awhile.

I still have dreams about it!

That’s heady stuff!

I still have nightmares about the Marconi! I needed therapy for PTSD!

 

[AV1611VET]

That’s heady stuff!

I still have nightmares about the Marconi! I needed therapy for PTSD!

Did you ever work with JCL?

 

[Mountainmike]

Did you ever work with JCL?

Never touched an ibm. They were more in the business world.
Such as DEC vax / vms later took over the science / tech world, or did from where I could see.
But for us , none of it was fast enough. Fast real time math , particularly images needed hardware and so called array processors.
In one of the theses ( on one of my degrees that @Opdrey says I never did) , I designed just such a beast, as a means to an end for some specialised math! Spent much of the eighties designing hardware gizmos to try to make the math we wanted to do possible in real time. Early days of GaAs and UCLA devices. It’s hard to grasp now but in the eighties a PC resident memory could not even hold a full image!

 

[Mountainmike]

Did you ever work with JCL?

Go on, own up, did you buy a TI 58 , the first proper programmable calculator? ( it beat Sinclairs first programmable reverse polish calculator hands down!)

 

[AV1611VET]

Go on, own up, did you buy a TI 58 , the first proper programmable calculator? ( it beat Sinclairs first programmable reverse polish calculator hands down!)

No, sir. But college students that had to have one were always bugging their teacher to program them for them!

 

[Opdrey]

Did you miss what I said?

No.

Adlers book is just a compendium of peer reviewed papers.

So it is literally just a list without any commentary? That's interesting. Just a list of references.

Your phrase “ primary paper” illustrates limited knowledge.

No it doesn't.

The papers you should have read

Again, feel free to defend your points with discussions of the relevant papers and citations.

The books are a useful roadmap.

For those who like their science pre-digested. Real scientists go for the primary source material.

Books also give supporting information. Like all of the corespondence between key parties which demonstrates bad faith by the daters.

Are you familiar with "Climategate"? That was a case where internal conversations were stolen and made public around the issue of global warming. It was, of course, mostly taken out of context and lacking any real structure to understand what was said.

It is now extremely popular among climate change denialists who think that seeing the "Behind the Scences" stuff helps them ferret out wrongdoing by scientists.

You seem fixated on dating.

Isn't that the whole point?

Knowing what the shroud is, and how it corresponds to other things makes a nonsense of the date. The dna pollen , and minerals points at holy land.

So if the date doesn't come out right we have to look at everything except the date.

It is the shroud of a crucified man.

So you say.

Everything fits that hypothesis. Nothing does not fit it.

You speak in absolutes a LOT.

The labs were trying to build credibility for the then unproven AMS. For some it was existential. This for professor halls at Oxford was how he intended to steal the crown of Harwell, leader in the U.K. on dating. If he proved AMS he won big. If he lost he was buried.

And yet more unrelated accusations and hints of wrong doing.

It was their apriori

Two words: a priori. I thought we'd discussed this.

The problem was the earlier rhetoric left them no honourable means to declare it void. Hoist by their own petard.

Such a floridly imagine cabal of conspiracy. It's hard to imagine how all these criminals and ne'er do wells could get a steady job.

Scientists cannot be assumed to be more reliable than people. In this case they were not.

Thus sayeth the Lord God.

There are cheats, and incompetents.

There's even people out there posing as scientists who clearly have no experience in the field!

If peer review worked, the nAture dating paper would never have passed review.

LOL. Standard issue non-scientist critique of peer review. You never disappoint.

 

[Opdrey]

Go on, own up, did you buy a TI 58 , the first proper programmable calculator? ( it beat Sinclairs first programmable reverse polish calculator hands down!)

The first programmable pocket calculator was actually the HP65 introduced in 1974. The TI-58 didn't come around until 1977.

 

[Opdrey]

( on one of my degrees that @Opdrey says I never did)!

I do not doubt you got a college degree. I doubt you got a graduate degree. Mainly because you can't commit the type of graduate degree it was (MS, PhD...)

Also you seem to show a decided lack of experience in citing literature or being able to defend your points as one would learn how to do in an actual thesis or dissertation defense.

Of course I could be wrong. I'm sure there are colleges around that give out graduate degrees without requiring much in the way of research or presentation of data. But even then they usually allow the students to know if it is an MS, MA, PhD, JD, MD, etc. and don't force them to wave hands about "post graduate".

 

[Mountainmike]

Because It’s none of your business what degrees I have.
And I really don’t care what you think.

I am not an academic snob like you: most of those who shout about qualifications are empty vessels that make lots of sound. The cleverest people I ever met were not the best qualified. I’ve met a few professors in the idiot class.

More importantly I refuse to answer because it is one of your silly straw men.

When I quote conclusions of Rogers research, it is his research that is on test, not me. If you had looked it up you would know he has several “ primary papers” on different aspects.

And no, the narrowness of your selection of papers shows you have a very limited view of shroud research.

You didn’t even Know about the date gradient, data fiddling, and clearly you still don’t know about the fabric chemistry.

Beginners should read the books first. On all new subjects I do. I’m not proud. Math modellers jump into new territory so often , they need a primer on each of them. As I pointed out , I had to study something up your alley once. The chemical kinetics , and fluid / heat transfer of a specialised phenol formaldehyde reaction. A massive exotherm, in which hotspots were the problem. So I am not proud. I begin where I need to - you should do that on the shroud.


Maybe you would even find out about the shroud dating if you actually read one of several thick books about it. Then you would know that the bad attitude of the daters as proven in correspondence led to their downfall.

The fact you quoted “ skeptical inquirer “ and referenced the uninvolved nickell and the long discredited Walter mccrone lost any shred of credibility you may have had.

I do not doubt you got a college degree. I doubt you got a graduate degree. Mainly because you can't commit the type of graduate degree it was (MS, PhD...)

Also you seem to show a decided lack of experience in citing literature or being able to defend your points as one would learn how to do in an actual thesis or dissertation defense.

Of course I could be wrong. I'm sure there are colleges around that give out graduate degrees without requiring much in the way of research or presentation of data. But even then they usually allow the students to know if it is an MS, MA, PhD, JD, MD, etc. and don't force them to wave hands about "post graduate".

 

[Mountainmike]

The first programmable pocket calculator was actually the HP65 introduced in 1974. The TI-58 didn't come around until 1977.

I don’t recollect the HP65 available in the U.K. I didn’t see it other than magazines, I think it was a kings ransom to buy even in the US, so not in the “ practical “ league not for a student anyway. Did you have one?

 

[Opdrey]

Because It’s none of your business what degrees I have.

Except YOU were the one who brought up your degrees (HERE)

And I really don’t care what you think.

Yes you do! Why else did you highlight your amazing IQ? (HERE)

I am not an academic snob

Yeah you are. Why else would you hint that you graduated from Imperial College or Oxford? (HERE)

like you: most of those who shout about qualifications

You mean like your "4 sigma IQ"?