Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Opdrey]

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?

No. I had a knock-off TI-58 (made by Radioshack by TI but sold under the RS brand). A couple of my friends in high school had HP's (might have been the 65 but I'm not sure at this point. Their dad was a math prof at the local university). When I was in grad school I saved up a huge amount of money to buy an HP-11C, though. Now I have my 11C (still works 34 years later), a 32S and a 35S (re-issue on the 35th anniversary of the original HP35 the first scientific pocket calculator)

 

[Mountainmike]

No i didn’t , blatter did in 909 , claimed I was a college dropout, I answered not so , in as vague terms as possible.

Why do you STILL refer to me?

I want to talk phenomena with people willing to actually study them , and that know the difference between straw men and critical thinking.

That’s why I say little about myself, when I quote Rogers, it’s his research on the line, but you want to make it about me. I’m not playing.

I will say this -and it’s not meant to be critical - your take on science is that of a pure specialist, in the same niche for a very long time. For those in applied science, where application hopping is standard, all science is cross discipline and learning new stuff is an occupational hazard.

eg If you want to track sonar and radar, or look at electromagnetic footprints first you need to study curvature of sound , effect of sea state and current , specific noise phenomena , thermoclines, practical microwave propagation and noise mechanisms , the charaxteritics of real antennae ( or hydrophones or flux gate magnetometers) , distribution of mag field patterns in geology etc etc etc. Even the motion of ships and inertial platforms! Noise spectra and the effect of nonlinearity on them.

Only then do your models , detectors and trackers work.
Super resolving maths is fun, as are the matrix calcs. But useless unless you understand the world around them!

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

 

[Opdrey]

Why do you STILL refer to me?

It's not like you have been particularly kind to my qualifications.

I want to talk phenomena with people willing to actually study them

Not according to your posts.

That’s why I say little about myself,

Except for your "4 sigma IQ". And your alma mater.

 

[Mountainmike]

No. I had a knock-off TI-58 (made by Radioshack by TI but sold under the RS brand). A couple of my friends in high school had HP's (might have been the 65 but I'm not sure at this point. Their dad was a math prof at the local university). When I was in grad school I saved up a huge amount of money to buy an HP-11C, though. Now I have my 11C (still works 34 years later), a 32S and a 35S (re-issue on the 35th anniversary of the original HP35 the first scientific pocket calculator)

Interesting. I still have the ti 58 , no power supply though.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's not like you have been particularly kind to my qualifications

If you did not mention them, how could I be unkind?
Have you never noticed , I never ask others about their qualifications! It’s their reasoning that interests me.

My mention of alma mater was in response to you claiming I didn’t have one. Ad hominem gets out of hand. It’s part of why I say little about myself.

 

[Opdrey]

If you did not mention them, how could I be unkind?

You have REPEATEDLY insulted my skills as a scientist.

Hypocrisy is unseemly. It is not a virtue you should strive for.

My mention of alma mater was in response to you claiming I didn’t have one.

NO IT WASN'T. You were talking to someone else about Imperial and Oxford. Get your story straight.

Ad hominem gets out of hand. It’s part of why I say little about myself.

YOU use ad hominem fallacies literally all the time. You insult entire journals because they come from Oxford Publishing!

I don't know if this some game you are playing but literally everything you complain about me, you yourself have done in spades.

 

[Astrid]

Every physics dept must have a crazy German

Every forum must have a pseudo pscientist.
Its entertaining.
Sort of for a while.

 

[Mountainmike]

You were talking to someone else about Imperial and Oxford. Get your story straight

I answered in those terms only because you- insultingly - queried whether I was a graduate at all. I threw in a clue answering another. That’s the problem with ad hominems, they end up as a progression. I am studiously avoiding naming degrees despite being goaded!

YOU use ad hominem fallacies literally all the time. You insult entire journals because they come from Oxford Publishing!

Seems you don’t understand ad hominem. Do you really expect eg Arizona to publish a paper that destroys their own dating enterprise?

That is a case of vested interest. Not ad hominem.
Vested interests are real and need recognising. Like tobacco scientists remember!

Archeometry is not a place that can ever be expected to be critical of Oxford dating. Radiocarbon will not be critical of Arizona. Certainly not if it hurts reputation. Neither of them can be expected to critical of a joint enterprise between the two, not least because each are peers for each other, that was the shroud! A joint enterprise.

A fact!
Neither of them would publish Marinos paper , which if true would have wrecked their perception of competence - not least because both had actively tried to avoid using agreed protocols, and marinos work demonstrated meachams warnings had come true. Journals are limited by vested interest in what they will publish.
As indeed is the joke of them all “ skeptical enquirer”.

For obvious reasons:
A referee cannot be a player on one of the teams.
A judge cannot be a prosecutor.

Conflict of interest is real.
Vested interest is a serious problem.
Stating a vested interest is not adhominem.

Both RC magazine and Archeometry are too close to the daters to be impartial.
Although I suspect they are less constrained now. There was a time they would not have published a paper challenging homogeneity. They now have.

Ad hominem is when you attack me for pointing at the main chemist - Rogers research on the material construction of the sample and earlier the shroud body which is different stuff.

It doesn’t matter who I am , my qualifications or what i believe. It matters what Rogers did, and whether it has ever been validly contested.

Whatever I say about the daters attitude problem is not a reflection on me, other than showing that I am widely read. They condemn themselves with their own correspondence and actions. You would recognise it if you ever read any of it. It is horrifying for scientific integrity.

 

[Opdrey]

I answered in those terms only because you- insultingly - queried whether I was a graduate at all.

And yet I still find myself in doubt.

I threw in a clue answering another. That’s the problem with ad hominems, they end up as a progression.

I think you fail to appreciate what an ad hominem actually is. You seem to treat "insults" as an ad hominem. Indeed that is incorrect. An ad hominem is when you argue against someone's points by questioning the PERSON, not the content of the point. As you do when you question journals like Archeometry (HERE and HERE). Not because of anything Archeometry actually does. You simply dismiss the article because it comes from Oxford Publishing.

Stating a vested interest is not adhominem.

Not addressing the content of the articles by simply assuming they are corrupted in some way because of association is textbook ad hominem.

Whatever I say about the daters attitude problem is not a reflection on me

It is very much a reflection on you. Your hatred of the 14-C dating scientists is palpable. It is positively unhinged. In the defense of your faith you find a way to violate one of the commands of Jesus himself. You judge. You judge harshly. You don't even stop at simple disagreement. You accuse them of every crime known to academe and in the most extreme way.

You have lost perspective. Not becoming of a "scientist"

 

[Astrid]

And yet I still find myself in doubt.



I think you fail to appreciate what an ad hominem actually is. You seem to treat "insults" as an ad hominem. Indeed that is incorrect. An ad hominem is when you argue against someone's points by questioning the PERSON, not the content of the point. As you do when you question journals like Archeometry (HERE and HERE). Not because of anything Archeometry actually does. You simply dismiss the article because it comes from Oxford Publishing.



Not addressing the content of the articles by simply assuming they are corrupted in some way because of association is textbook ad hominem.




It is very much a reflection on you. Your hatred of the 14-C dating scientists is palpable. It is positively unhinged. In the defense of your faith you find a way to violate one of the commands of Jesus himself. You judge. You judge harshly. You don't even stop at simple disagreement. You accuse them of every crime known to academe and in the most extreme way.

You have lost perspective. Not becoming of a "scientist"

Its ok. Theres nobody left who cant see it
but the one who wont admit it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your hatred of the 14-C dating scientists is palpable. Etc "

One day you might actually study the facts instead,

You criticise me when I am simply reporting what was written.

You give the daters a free pass, when they are in WRITING, their correspondence showing utter CONTEMPT for the whole of STURP and gonella of pontifical academy. They were Wholly dismissive of meachams and others concerns to the point of rudeness.. The entire corespondence was elicited by information requests and published in marinos book. See Gove for what he was.

My comments on the RC daters are thoroughly deserved. Stuff you refuse to read. It is not hatred, it is contempt for bad science and arrogance.

They could not even get basic sample documentation right. Those sums did not add up either! Basic weights and sizes. They ignored the warnings and agreed protocol, they ridiculed STURP, then they fiddled the figures to pretend homogeneity.

Numbers from lab books DO NOT get manipulated by accident.
It was probably done out of desperation. Homogeneity was forced, but they could not even get that straight so one of the standard deviations in nature CANNOT be derived from any of their data they did publish. It was pulled out of thin air.

Archeometry and radiocarbon had a clear conflict of interests in reporting the RC dating failure, and it showed by refusal to publish the Papers that contested the date, like marinos first.

Those are the facts and they are uncontestable.

One day you might actually STUDY the shroud to find out what it is.
I promise you a fascinating journey.

You might also read meachams warnings and papers written
before the test that stated that dates are never certain. It is only a piece of evidence which may be invalidated by other things.

Perhaps you might consider that the 95% bounds of the two RC tests done on the sudarium of Oviedo ( you refuse to research) don’t even overlap! There is a gap between them. So much for RC consistency. The “ accuracy” they quote is meaningless. It ignores systematic errors.

The likelihood is both of those dates are wrong. When Zurich did a pre test before the shroud dating it got one known sample 1000 years wrong. I don’t think they dared publish that in nature!

Take the rose tinted glasses off, and study the shroud comprehensively, starting with Rogers , adlers, Fantis & meachams books. Or stay ignorant as you are now , take your choice. You had no idea of the lack of homogeneity till I pointed you there.

My beliefs do not come into it, as proven by the fact I was only too happy to see the civatecchia statue proven a fraud by DNA. Frauds help nobody.

I study comprehensively then comment.
You look for the first paper whose conclusions you like. But skeptical inquirer? Seriously? Do you descend that far?

 

[Mountainmike]

The elephant in the room of course, and the oddity in all the sceptic blather:

It is me that issupporting the overwhelming consensus of the science and scientists of the shroud!

1/ that the daters ignored agreed protocols and warnings including sampling , and characterisations, taking Only one sample from a dubious area according to spectrographs. ( provable fact)

2/ They ended up with non homogenous dates ( that were hidden by an “unknown transformation “ to make them appear homogenous. Accident? I don’t think so! .) . Since the daters were forced by legal process to release the books it is now known the data was manipulated , and that in reality there is a steep date gradient and general inconsistency. ( provable fact)

3/ Rogers- who studied the bulk of the shroud on sturp - and others have proven that area is different in material. There is cotton, and the linen is different and died, unlike the rest of the shroud. That’s why it fluoresces differently. That is why the date is irrelevant The dating is therefore void in the context of the shroud.
( provable fact) . That alone doesn’t disprove mediaeval origin, it says the RC date is void.

4/ and in any event even if RC dating had shown consistency it is still not a slam dunk. As meacham said. It is a pile of evidence not the piece of evidence. The opinion of the main archeologist involved, and serial user of dating.

5/ Adler and others have shown the pathology is that of a crucified, traumatized man, including serum not visible to naked eye.. The bright red is billirubin. No forger in mediaeval times knew enough pathology to produce it.

6. it has substantial forensic corespondence with the Millenium older sudarium, and some in common with the linceul

7. A variety of other as yet uncommon unproven dating methods show it is first century.

8/ various aspects, pollens ,mtdna , minerals show substantial connection to the holy land.

9/ to this day the mark is unreproducable. It is not realistically a forgery Since nobody knows how to do it.

The above is the consensus of science.and I am the one supporting it!

Just as I support the views of pathologists on Eucharistic miracles.

If as at civatecchia - or naju - there is grounds to support fraud, I support the science that says fraud.

10/ Science sometimes behaves badly around relics. Study the dean of bialystock about sokolka. Or the corrspondence of RC daters of shroud. They are condemned by their own writings and actioms. Get over it. My pointing at the evidence of that is just like my pointing at science of the shroud. I search for the truth.

The rest of the thread is just sceptic blather, that dislikes my presenting conclusions of science so turns on the messenger.

Its ok. Theres nobody left who cant see it
but the one who wont admit it.

 

[Opdrey]

One day you might actually study the facts instead,

I love how reading the actual scientific papers doesn't count in your world.

My comments on the RC daters are thoroughly deserved.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Those are the facts and they are uncontestable.

"Uncontestable". You know the most interesting thing is that upon a cursory examination of the more recent scientific articles NONE of them seem to make a case for rampant corruption and academic fraud. NONE of them. The only things that seem to indicate this cabal are the books (written for profit by the authors) presenting what appears to be a rather one-sided view.

This is why popular trade paperbacks are less than ideal for the discussion.

If there was "uncontestable" evidence of this most damning fraud it would be prominent across the literature. I would be able to Google Scholar and find countless take-downs of this and the news stories of the fraud would be overwhelming.

It would have been in newspapers all over the world! This is the Shroud of Turin...the thing that literally everyone in the West in Christendom has heard of.

One day you might actually STUDY the shroud to find out what it is.

You astound me. You honestly think that when someone has failed to read your favorite books on a subject that they have no idea about the subject.

How haughty are you?

I study comprehensively then comment.

No, here's what you do. You come at the topic and see that the dates for the Shroud, a venerated item in your faith, come out indicating it is a fraud. That offends your sensitivities. You find some books that take a very positive approach to the Shroud's authenticity and you find works by people involved in the dating which point out the problems. Some of these books even sound like they go so far as to uncover evil actions on the part of the daters. All of it is pre-digested (so you don't have to struggle through the actual science) and it simplifies it for you. That's what popular trade paperbacks do. And they do it quite well.

I tried bringing up Climategate as an analogue to your "correspondences" but you clearly blew past that. Perhaps too uncomfortable? It's a good example of why behind-the-scenes correspondences are dodgy at best to indict someone.

You look for the first paper whose conclusions you like. But skeptical inquirer? Seriously?

I cited and discussed at some length MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED PAPERS and only once did I post SI link and that is all you ever talk about. This is your patented CONFIRMATION BIAS in action.

CONFIRMATION BIAS, MIKE. That's you in a nutshell.

You demonstrate it every time you post. This is just one more piece of evidence.

You repeatedly misrepresent what I post, so I wonder if you are misrepresenting other things you talk about?

Hmmm, maybe that's why you are so hot after academics "fiddling" with things....it seems to be something you have some knowledge of?

 

[Mountainmike]

More blather.

Science says the dates were inconsistent because the sample is inconsistent and unrepresentative. The date is void.

I am gobsmacked that your science is apparently so shoddy , that you accept the idea that data can be fiddled between lab book and publication, and that Variances don’t have to match the underlying data, that heterogeneity can be claimed when the data does not support it.
If that’s your science it **sucks*
*. I am sure it isn’t, so please express outrage at fiddling of data.

In my line of science fiddling data and wishful thinking can kill people, so we didn’t do it. We double and triple checked everything. Any red flags we investigated That’s how proper scientists behave. I am guessing you do too.

If you want to see contempt, read the corrspondence of the daters. The rudeness with which they attacked sturp and the pontifical academy. Gonella was livid behind the scenes. The daters arrogance way exceeded their ability, as later events confirmed.

Pathology says the shroud is that of a crucified man, it is not an artwork, and the pathology was unknown in medieval times, so it wasn’t a forgery. Eg Nobody knew what billirubin was back then!

Only the illinformed or flat earth sceptics quote mcrone any more, he was roundly disproven in every regard.

All the rest of this thread is sceptic blather.
You are welcome to your apriori sceptic beliefs , but don’t confuse it with science.

I love how reading the actual scientific papers doesn't count in your world.



Judge not lest ye be judged.



"Uncontestable". You know the most interesting thing is that upon a cursory examination of the more recent scientific articles NONE of them seem to make a case for rampant corruption and academic fraud. NONE of them. The only things that seem to indicate this cabal are the books (written for profit by the authors) presenting what appears to be a rather one-sided view.

This is why popular trade paperbacks are less than ideal for the discussion.

If there was "uncontestable" evidence of this most damning fraud it would be prominent across the literature. I would be able to Google Scholar and find countless take-downs of this and the news stories of the fraud would be overwhelming.

It would have been in newspapers all over the world! This is the Shroud of Turin...the thing that literally everyone in the West in Christendom has heard of.



You astound me. You honestly think that when someone has failed to read your favorite books on a subject that they have no idea about the subject.

How haughty are you?



No, here's what you do. You come at the topic and see that the dates for the Shroud, a venerated item in your faith, come out indicating it is a fraud. That offends your sensitivities. You find some books that take a very positive approach to the Shroud's authenticity and you find works by people involved in the dating which point out the problems. Some of these books even sound like they go so far as to uncover evil actions on the part of the daters. All of it is pre-digested (so you don't have to struggle through the actual science) and it simplifies it for you. That's what popular trade paperbacks do. And they do it quite well.

I tried bringing up Climategate as an analogue to your "correspondences" but you clearly blew past that. Perhaps too uncomfortable? It's a good example of why behind-the-scenes correspondences are dodgy at best to indict someone.



I cited and discussed at some length MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED PAPERS and only once did I post SI link and that is all you ever talk about. This is your patented CONFIRMATION BIAS in action.

CONFIRMATION BIAS, MIKE. That's you in a nutshell.

You demonstrate it every time you post. This is just one more piece of evidence.

You repeatedly misrepresent what I post, so I wonder if you are misrepresenting other things you talk about?

Hmmm, maybe that's why you are so hot after academics "fiddling" with things....it seems to be something you have some knowledge of?

 

[Opdrey]

It is me that issupporting the overwhelming consensus of the science and scientists of the shroud!

Doesn't sound like it. You are finding evidence of wide-scale fraud. No one in the recent peer reviewed literature characterizes it thusly.

8/ various aspects, pollens

Palynology studies (that's the study of pollen) conducted in the 1970's have since been found somewhat "wanting" in light of more modern analyses. Improvements in palynology have lead Vaughn M. Bryant Jr., director of the pollen laboratory at Texas A&M University (as well as "most other scientists") unconvinced of the provenance of the pollen (HERE).

minerals

I don't know what mineralogical evidence you are talking about, but I did find THIS interesting paper that found evidence of hematite and cinnabar in or near the "bloodstains" on the Shroud. (I assume you have sufficient scientific knowledge to know what color those mineral phases usually are...if not, the answer is RED). The authors explain that these red minerals are not sufficient to cover all of the red "blood stains" on the shroud. But they do say "The cinnabar particle is clearly a paint-fragment of vermilion; because this vermilion particle is unique, and this establishes that the blood spot is, on the whole, not red coloured by such a painted dye."

They also found evidence of ochre particles.

Now, I don't think they were making a case that these were paints or dyes as frauds, but it is interesting that paints/dyes are found on the red parts. Don't you think that's interesting?

The above is the consensus of science.

Not really.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not going blow for blow. Pointless.

The blood is real blood containing billirubin. The most likely source of Vermillion comes from touching relics with other relics. There are also a few red threads from historic stitching. That is not the nature of the blood. The mark incidentally is not below blood areas, so if it was faked, the blood came first the mark sexond! It’s one more aspect near impossible to fake.

I said pollens, mtDNA ( of pollens) and minerals found ( eg feet area)
There is a hotspot in the holy land,( but with others -consistent with the idea it traveled via Constantinople. Not consistent with the idea it was essentially France.

There is a lot of this.

Doesn't sound like it. You are finding evidence of wide-scale fraud. No one in the recent peer reviewed literature characterizes it thusly.



Palynology studies (that's the study of pollen) conducted in the 1970's have since been found somewhat "wanting" in light of more modern analyses. Improvements in palynology have lead Vaughn M. Bryant Jr., director of the pollen laboratory at Texas A&M University (as well as "most other scientists") unconvinced of the provenance of the pollen (HERE).



I don't know what mineralogical evidence you are talking about, but I did find THIS interesting paper that found evidence of hematite and cinnabar in or near the "bloodstains" on the Shroud. (I assume you have sufficient scientific knowledge to know what color those mineral phases usually are...if not, the answer is RED). The authors explain that these red minerals are not sufficient to cover all of the red "blood stains" on the shroud. But they do say "The cinnabar particle is clearly a paint-fragment of vermilion; because this vermilion particle is unique, and this establishes that the blood spot is, on the whole, not red coloured by such a painted dye."

They also found evidence of ochre particles.

Now, I don't think they were making a case that these were paints or dyes as frauds, but it is interesting that paints/dyes are found on the red parts. Don't you think that's interesting?



Not really.

 

[Opdrey]

I am gobsmacked that your science is apparently so shoddy , that you accept the idea that data can be fiddled between lab book and publication,

That's because my science is predicated on trade paperbacks written for the general audience consisting of pre-digested simplifications of the science coupled with what clearly sounds like biased point of view from the partisans involved.

If that’s your science it **sucks*
*. I am sure it isn’t, so please express outrage at fiddling of data.

In my line of science fiddling data and wishful thinking can kill people,

I'm sure mixing the wrong things in the janitor closet can lead to problems. Chloramines and whatnot.

so we didn’t do it.

But you seem to be able to see that kind of fraud in others, though, right?

If you want to see contempt, read the corrspondence of the daters. The rudeness with which they attacked sturp and the pontifical academy.

I read many of the Climategate e-mails as well and they were easily twisted and misrepresented by climate denialists.

Pathology says the shroud is that of a crucified man,

There are those who doubt it.

it is not an artwork,

With the possible exception of some cinnabar and ochre pigments that are similar to those used in paints which show up in some of the "red" areas of the cloth.

You are welcome to your apriori sceptic beliefs , but don’t confuse it with science.

Are you actually incapable of learning? It's two words: a priori. What kind of latin did you get taught????

 

[Opdrey]

The blood is real blood containing billirubin.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to take on point by point! Let's talk bilirubin in the "blood stains".

HERE's yet another peer reviewed article that I am going to discuss so you can blow it off (because you can't discuss science without someone digesting it for you).

They are testing the blood composition hypotheses. One of the things they note is: "however, as noted by many who have examined the cloth, the bloodstains are more reddish than would be expected for aged blood. "


The researches also noted that in their study: "Bloodstains with a high bilirubin content were not found to maintain a reddish color, regardless of the specific form of bilirubin present."

Here they discuss Adler's hypothesis about bilirubin (I have highlighted the important bits for you):

"A central tenet of Adler’s bilirubin hypothesis is that mixing together methemoglobin plus high levels of bilirubin results in the color red. Methemoglobin is the deoxygenated form of hemoglobin that forms within minutes to hours upon the exposure of fresh blood to air. As blood dries, the iron present in the hemoglobin undergoes a conversion from the Fe2+ form to the Fe3+ form (creating methemoglobin), which cannot efficiently bind oxygen. Oxygen bound to the Fe2+ form of iron is what gives fresh blood its red color. Methemoglobin is formed during the natural aging of bloodstains, but may also be rapidly induced by chemical treatment with NaNO2.20 As shown in Figure 7, NaNO2 treatment effectively oxidized blood to a brownish color (Figure 7), which occurred using either whole blood or hemolysates (Figure 8). Importantly, as Figure 9 demonstrates, when high levels of unconjugated bilirubin are added to hemolysates containing methemoglobin the color remains brown, similar to what is observed in control groups (Figure 9). These results demonstrate that Adler’s prediction of methemoglobin plus high bilirubin in hemolysates yields a red color is not fulfilled."

Interestingly they also note: "Reportedly, Adler used a concentration of bilirubin some 500x above normal levels in the creation of a blood simulacrum to try to achieve a match with Shroud bloodstains for spectroscopic studies."

Hmmm, sounds like he was really amping up the variables to achieve a preferred effect. That's not, in and of itself, evidence of fraud, but rather what someone might do in a first-pass effort to see an effect. I wonder if he ultimately brought the levels down to human levels. At least we know from the present article that those levels would be insufficient to achieve the color.

I said pollens, mtDNA ( of pollens)

the Mitochondrial DNA of the pollen spores??? Could you please provide an actual reference for that? I knew a palynologist back in undergrad and it wasn't usually done with DNA. It's a rather different area of study and relies on the morphology of the pollen. But I'd be very interested in learning about the DNA extraction of the pollen you speak of. If you can muster the ability to cite a reference and/or provide a quote that would be much appreciated.

and minerals found ( eg feet area)

What minerals, specifically? I'm genuinely curious as my degrees are in geology/geochemistry and I spent a great deal of time in mineralogy. Citation, please.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you actually incapable of learning? It's two words: a priori. What kind of latin did you get taught????

Grammar school Latin. So likely alongside finger painting, memorizing the multiplication tables, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not going blow for blow. Pointless.

The bottomless pit is lined with question marks.