Is science at odds with philosophy?

[AV1611VET]

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to take on point by point!

 

[Opdrey]

The bottomless pit is lined with question marks.

That's interesting. Because the only people who are 100% sure of their claims are usually religious people. It is a blessing to have no doubts. It is a blessing to never question, to have stuff predigested and spoon fed without question, to drink deeply the draught and close one's eyes.

Alas, some of us are wired differently and the questions are always there. It's those questions which provided you with the world you enjoy living in today. The fact that you ever saw anyplace further away from your home than you could walk in a day, the fact that you are typing on a computer, the fact that you are living nearly 2X longer than people did at the time when ULTIMATE PERFECTED TRUTH was handed down to them.

Enjoy a world without question marks. It is a gift to you from those of us who see virtually nothing but question marks. We will attempt to keep you safe from them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Enjoy a world without question marks. It is a gift to you from those of us who see virtually nothing but question marks. We will attempt to keep you safe from them.

No you won't. You'll abuse them.

"Yea, hath God said?"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah, more grammar lessons for the grammar school students.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, more grammar lessons for the grammar school students.

Is that what you got from the point I made?

 

[Opdrey]

"Yea, hath God said?"

Yea hath people assumed that their personal feelings were the word of God?

 

[Opdrey]

Is that what you got from the point I made?

Nope, it had nothing to do with YOUR post. Re-read the thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is that what you got from the point I made?

You were making a point? (<---- look a question mark)

 

[AV1611VET]

You were making a point? (<---- look a question mark)

I guess I gave you too much credit.

 

[Opdrey]

Another interesting article on the Shroud from 2016 (HERE)

Some interesting highlights (to give an insight into the ACTUAL scientific consensus):

"There have been many reports (too numerous to list here) that questioned various aspects of the dating measurement, but none of these were sufficient to challenge the 14C dating measurement itself."

For something that Mike claims is incontrovertible and debunked it is interesting that legitimate scientists still fail to see the "truth". Perhaps Mike will tell us about their university association as a means of debunking their science as well. (It will help if Mike knows the difference between universities in the US, but I'm sure he'll see one word and extrapolate...let's see!)

The goal of this paper was: "...to characterize more carefully the sample used for 14C dating of the shroud at Arizona for the following reasons: to see if we could confirm that the dated sample is consistent with the rest of the cloth, and to assess the possibility of contaminants that might have affected the 14C age. Our purpose is to describe the textile’s visible properties, for the record, so that there will be no question as to the nature of the sample that was 14C dated."

They take on Rogers' assertion about his fiber analysis:

"...we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. Rogers (2005) and others assert that the Raes and the “radiocarbon samples” he studied are dyed, in contrast to the main part of the shroud. As stated by Rogers (2005), “No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.”"

Further:
"We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously."

While none of this means that the 14-C dating is ipso facto correct. But it shows that there ARE questions around the various fringe theories used to question the 14-C dates. And it shows that the 14-C dates are still accepted by scientists. Unlike the hyperbole @Mountainmike undertakes which would make you think only nutjobs still believe in the Medieval Date.

Interesting how bias can skew someone's position so much.

 

[Astrid]

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 D





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



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



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



There are those who doubt it.



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.



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

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.







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



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



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



There are those who doubt it.



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.



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

Ammonia and bleach from janitors closet!

 

[Mountainmike]

You mean other than it being different stuff?
The sample includes cotton and splicing and linen of different diameter, pitch and lignin? One end of a fibre clearly coloured , the other not. East to see of you look at the micro graphs.
I know Arizona / RC magazine doesn’t want to admit they screwed up, but they did. That ship has sailed. The test was a dud, all for foreseen reasons. A triumph of hubris over ability by the daters.

Another interesting article on the Shroud from 2016 (HERE)

Some interesting highlights (to give an insight into the ACTUAL scientific consensus):

"There have been many reports (too numerous to list here) that questioned various aspects of the dating measurement, but none of these were sufficient to challenge the 14C dating measurement itself."

For something that Mike claims is incontrovertible and debunked it is interesting that legitimate scientists still fail to see the "truth". Perhaps Mike will tell us about their university association as a means of debunking their science as well. (It will help if Mike knows the difference between universities in the US, but I'm sure he'll see one word and extrapolate...let's see!)

The goal of this paper was: "...to characterize more carefully the sample used for 14C dating of the shroud at Arizona for the following reasons: to see if we could confirm that the dated sample is consistent with the rest of the cloth, and to assess the possibility of contaminants that might have affected the 14C age. Our purpose is to describe the textile’s visible properties, for the record, so that there will be no question as to the nature of the sample that was 14C dated."

They take on Rogers' assertion about his fiber analysis:

"...we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. Rogers (2005) and others assert that the Raes and the “radiocarbon samples” he studied are dyed, in contrast to the main part of the shroud. As stated by Rogers (2005), “No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.”"

Further:
"We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously."

While none of this means that the 14-C dating is ipso facto correct. But it shows that there ARE questions around the various fringe theories used to question the 14-C dates. And it shows that the 14-C dates are still accepted by scientists. Unlike the hyperbole @Mountainmike undertakes which would make you think only nutjobs still believe in the Medieval Date.

Interesting how bias can skew someone's position so much.

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile the same Kelly Kearse pays tribute to heller and Adler when heller passed on

“ Dr. Heller confidently concludes that it is real blood. He was the right man for the job. He knew what to look for. His experience speaks for itself, as does his choice of Adler as a coworker. Are there still some issues regarding the color and the precise composition of the bloodstains? Of course. There probably always will be. But these don’t invalidate the main conclusion.“

Adler was more than a coworker. He was one of the best porphyrin chemists around. Its real blood.
A real crucifixion, get over it.

All the smokescreens in the world won’t change that.

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.



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.



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.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you had not wasted so much of my time in vexatious attacks on my background and qualifications , and asked meaningful questions many posts ago I might have dug it up .

My actual suggestion is you go back to the beginning and study the shroud starting with sturp. You clearly never have by the basic questions you ask, or you would know the answer to minerals. SO PLEASE STUDY IT. I do not have time to spoon feed.

So I will give a clue to one of your questions.
It was a specific Travertine aragonite.

Sturp found it - and got a specialist to identify it. The same had also been found on the sudarium.
Just Like the pathology - the analysis of minerals at that level , was unknown in mediaeval times. The rest you can find yourself.

When meacham said the shroud had been “ raped” by the so called
“ conservation”, he meant it. The Holland cloth and some patches replaced, all dust removed. So the chance to repeat sturps work has been probably wrecked forever.

Occam’s razor says the shroud is real. There is simply too much for a forger to get right, invisible and unknown. There is still no compete answer to how to make the body image.

The dating was , as Rogers said, of different stuff. AMS worked fine. It was The daters that were the failure - they ignored all the warnings.

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.



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.



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.

 

[Mountainmike]

That is sceptics for you.
The daters had certainty that the shroud was false. Halls said someone “just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.”.

Despite there being no evidence it was faked, or how it could be faked, and certainly no evidence it was ever sold! Halls made his faith statement, and that attitude wrecked the dating.

Overwhelmed by actual evidence ,( and of his own errors contributing to that) even Tite now admits it wrapped a body! ( he’s a very slow learner, most of us knew that 25 years ago.

But then he said ( no evidence at all ) it was a crusader, crucified, despite no mention of that event in history and despite all the other correspondences to such as the sudarium. (Tites claim just happens to align with freemasonry , and there is some hint of interference from that direction, is that his faith? )

Keep repeating the sceptic faith mantra. The RC date is all that matters.

Meanwhile the rest of us ( who unlike sceptics don’t have the certainty of halls belief) we study the lot. That’s how I know it is blood on the shroud .
And it’s why I think it is ancient. And holy land.
it’s called Science.
It clearly does match the passion of Christ.

That's interesting. Because the only people who are 100% sure of their claims are usually religious people. It is a blessing to have no doubts. It is a blessing to never question, to have stuff predigested and spoon fed without question, to drink deeply the draught and close one's eyes.

Alas, some of us are wired differently and the questions are always there. It's those questions which provided you with the world you enjoy living in today. The fact that you ever saw anyplace further away from your home than you could walk in a day, the fact that you are typing on a computer, the fact that you are living nearly 2X longer than people did at the time when ULTIMATE PERFECTED TRUTH was handed down to them.

Enjoy a world without question marks. It is a gift to you from those of us who see virtually nothing but question marks. We will attempt to keep you safe from them.

 

[Opdrey]

....

 

[Opdrey]

If you had not wasted so much of my time in vexatious attacks on my background and qualifications , and asked meaningful questions many posts ago I might have dug it up .

Excuses, excuses.

So I will give a clue to one of your questions.
It was a specific Travertine aragonite.

Thanks for the vague lead. I'd love to see a more detailed description of it, because calcium carbonate (even stuff associated with hot springs, hence the travertine) is pretty common. I'd have to know more details but I can't count on you because you don't understand any of that science. You just take what is pre-digested for you. Travertine can be found all over the world. Aragonite is not itself limited to Jerusalem. I'd honestly be quite interested in what makes this aragonite so special. If only there was a scientist who had an interest in the Shroud on here who knows all about it.

Sturp found it

There is literally NOTHING that keeps you from providing a citation and maybe a quote.

The rest you can find yourself.

That's all I ever do in conversation with you. So far I've provided more peer reviewed literature citations and in-depth discussions than you have. One of us actually knows how to do scientific research and then there's you.

Occam’s razor says the shroud is real.

Like "apriori", "ad hominem" and now Occam's Razor you don't seem to have much facility with logic and philosophical topics.

 

[Opdrey]

Meanwhile the same Kelly Kearse pays tribute to heller and Adler when heller passed on

Who cares? That has literally NOTHING to do with the science. You simply cannot address technical topics can you? You have to have it predigested in a trade paperback for you, don't you?

Adler was more than a coworker. He was one of the best porphyrin chemists around

C'mon...what do you know about porphyrin chemistry?

. Its real blood.
A real crucifixion, get over it.

You speak only in certainties. It's either 100% true or a lie and fraud with you. If you want to hone this act of "scientist" you'll have to dial it back a bit.

All the smokescreens in the world won’t change that.

It's hilarious that I'm the one on here marshaling actual scientific citations for my points and all you have is bluster and unrelated topics of who liked whom and who has the most authority. You seem to trying to play FALLACY BINGO and you've pretty much hit ever fallacy known to man. Kudos.

 

[Opdrey]

The sample includes cotton

I believe that in that article they extensively discuss the cotton. Of course you would have had to read the link I provided and that would take you to a science paper and that would immediately make unreadable for you. You have to have it pre-digested for popular non-scientific audiences.

<Portion Redacted since I was in error>

 

[Hans Blaster]

ove it! You don't know the difference between University of Arizona and Arizona State University! LOL. If you knew ANYTHING about universities in the US you'd know that they are VERY DIFFERENT institutions. But you can be forgiven for your ignorance of how universities in the US are organized. But since you can't construct an argument without it being larded with logic fallacies another true ad hominem is nothing for you.

It's hilarious. I KNEW you didn't know the difference. LOL.

Take it from someone who has lived in the US his entire life and been through more than his fair share of state schools...as per usual you don't know what you're talking about.

It does appear that that article in Radiocarbon is from an author at the Arizona State *Museum* which happens to be at the U. of Arizona.

Of course none of this matters. Radiocarbon (a journal, not a magazine) has dozens of editors and (no doubt) has a deconfliction protocol for dealing with authors at the same institution as editors or referees.