Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[TimCallahan]

In reality, everything said about carbon dating is going to be wasted on Jabba. If the Shroud were carbon dates all over again in a way that satisfied all his objections, and it still gave a medieval dating, he (or she) would simply come up with new objections.

Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus.

[David Mo]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

(...)

Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus.

The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by David Mo

The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.

THE William Meacham?

Oh, that's a lovely find, Dave Mo.

Meacham is familiar to us all as a victim of the Kouznetsov scam.

Quote:

Kouznetsov et al, writing in the Journal of Archaeological Science (23:109-122) argue, very convincingly I felt, about the possibilities for carbon exchange during the 1532 fire and especially about how the C13/C12 ratio would NOT reflect this event.

http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

Ian Wilson wrote his expose of Kouznetsov here:

Quote:

In the last Newsletter (no.43) I expressed some warnings regarding Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov, the Moscow scientist who claimed to have scientifically demonstrated how the Shroud was 'enriched' with carbon 14 during the fire of 1532, thereby making misleadingly 'young' the date attributed to it by radiocarbon dating. In a letter also published in Newsletter 43 Dr. John Jackson, Director of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado, queried the manner in which Dr.Kouznetsov had represented certain of his (Dr. Jackson's) calculations as if these were his own.

http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm
and here:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4301.htm


ETA:
As of 2011, Kouznetsov still has an Internet presence as a legitimate Sindonologist!
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/pro...rgetid=profile

Truly amazing.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Note that by giving in and responding to Dinwar's post, I stirred up a hornet's nest -- giving me numerous more 'stings' to deal with, when I was already overwhelmed by numerous new stings from Dave's #3913.
- So, once again, I'll try to resist the temptation to defend my whole perimeter -- and focus, instead, upon one 'small' front at a time. Back to 3913...
--- Jabba

Don't you think it would be better if you focused on the facts instead of defending your perimeter?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by wollery

Once you've drawn an ace from a normal pack of cards the probability of drawing a second ace is 3/51, not 1/13. The 3rd ace is 2/50 (1/25) and 4th ace is 1/49.

Colour me unimpressed with your statistical abilities.

He starts with a deck of cards and arrives at Jesus.

"Worldview" is usually a sign of woo.

[David Mo]

Originally Posted by pakeha

THE William Meacham?

Oh, that's a lovely find, Dave Mo.

Meacham is familiar to us all as a victim of the Kouznetsov scam.

http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

Ian Wilson wrote his expose of Kouznetsov here:

http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm
and here:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4301.htm


ETA:
As of 2011, Kouznetsov still has an Internet presence as a legitimate Sindonologist!
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/pro...rgetid=profile

Truly amazing.

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...mbers.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...bers.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone...l_tessuto.html .

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by IanS

Can you give a link to the photos which have convinced you that scourge marks and clot retraction rings are present on the shroud?

I’d like to see how clear these marks are.

He's already been asked to support his contention about the alleged clot rings but hasn't done so.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by David Mo

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...mbers.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...bers.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone...l_tessuto.html .

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

[Jabba]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

[sleepy_lioness]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

Not really, no. Since I also constitute a side in this debate (well, I do now), can I claim that the Shroud of Turin was made by my Gran on her old Singer sewing maching last week, and have that ruled relevant by definition?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?

Claim what you like, it has no bearing on the validity of carbon dating.

You have yet to demonstrate that there are any "serum clot retraction rings", nor, if there were, that they could only have been made in the first century.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

No.

No competent scientist with access to the cloth has ever documented blood, much less "serum contraction rings", on the cloth which was not "wrapped" around the anatomically incorrect, stylized representation of a human in typical Byzantine style. A cloth which, BTW, has been competently and accurately dated by three independent laboratories as a medieval artifact.

Any claims made about the medieval artifact are relevant only to the extent that evidence can be produced to support them.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness

Not really, no. Since I also constitute a side in this debate (well, I do now), can I claim that the Shroud of Turin was made by my Gran on her old Singer sewing maching last week, and have that ruled relevant by definition?

This.

We claim it, therefore it matters is the cry of the intellectually bankrupt. It reminds me of so much woo out there -- the reiki practicioners who say that someone "got better" when someone else waved her hands around or the psychics who dredge incompetent studies for the tiniest straw in order to shout that what they claim is proven.

Let me put it another way, and I'm serious about this, Jabba: Let's suppose that it is irrefutably proven that no 14th century artist could have produced the image on the shroud. How do you know it wasn't aliens who used superior technology to create the image in that same century? After all, that would be more consistent with the evidence than your claim; at least it fits the C14 dating.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by David Mo

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...mbers.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...bers.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone...l_tessuto.html .

Thanks for the Meacham link- and for the other goodies, too.

Originally Posted by catsmate1

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

Catsmate1, as always, you come up trumps.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

I'll see it more clearly when I see your sources for these claims, so I'm looking forward to having you post them up.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

Rubbish. Yet again you are trying to divert attention. You supposed "serum lot rings" have nothing to do with the validity of the radiocarbon dating.
Why are you so scared to actually address the radiocarbon dating?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Humots

I believe that in .../ACT2Scene1.php Jabba miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the All-Ace deck.

This is an example of conditional probability: the probability that an event would have, given that another event has occurred. In this case, the probability we want is the probability that, given that an Ace has been drawn, the Ace was drawn from the all-Ace deck.

Let's represent this probability by the expression P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn).

Bayes’ theorem (see …/wiki/Bayes’_theorem) states that for conditional probabilities A and B,

P(A|B) = ( P(B|A) * P(A) ) / ( P(B) )

In this case, for A = All-Ace deck and B = Ace drawn,

P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) =
( P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) ) /
( P(Ace drawn) )

For Jabba’s example,

P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) = 1.0 since the All-Ace deck contains Aces only;

P(All-Ace deck) = 1 / 50 = 0.02;

P(Ace drawn) = P(Ace drawn | All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) +
P(Ace drawn | not All-Ace deck) * P(not All-Ace deck)
= 1.0 * (1/50) + (1/13) * (49/50)
= 0.02 + 0.075385

So, P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) = (1.0 * .02) / (0.02 + 0.075385)
= .02 / 0.09538
= 0.2097,

which is slightly better than 1 chance in 5.

While this is not that far from Jabba’s result ( 0.07538 / .02 ) which he called 1 in 4, it indicates to me that Jabba misapplied conditional probability, and probably Bayes’s Theorem, by leaving out one term and getting the expression upside down.

This does not support Jabba's claim to be a certified Statistician (whatever that means). It looks to me like Jabba is cutting and pasting a few statistical arguments he understands poorly if at all.

Humots,

- This is going to take me awhile, but so far, I can't figure out why we can't just compare the 2 "combined" probabilities -- i.e. combined probability #1) the probability of randomly selecting the ace deck from the total number of decks (.02), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the ace deck has been chosen (1.00), and #2) the probability of randomly selecting a normal deck from the total number of decks (.98), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the normal deck has been chosen (.076923077).
- Consequently, before we get started, the probability of chosing the ace deck and then drawing an ace is .02*1.00, or .02, while the probability of chosing a normal deck and then drawing an ace is .98*.076923077, or .075384615. And, the probability of drawing an ace via the second route is almost 4 times as large as the probability of doing it via the first.

--- Jabba
- The smilie at the top is an accident, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

[Jabba]

- I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree for now about the relevance here of serum clot retraction rings.
--- Jabba

[pakeha]

Why, Jabba?
Why not at least post up your linked sources so we can read them over?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

You don't even know if any of these marks even exist on the shroud ("clot rings" and "scourge"), do you?

You are simply accepting the unpublished claims of the same group of shroud believers all over again.

Can you give a reference to any independent scientist who has ever confirmed any such marks in any well known science journal?

Or are all your stories of clots and marks just yet more religious faith nonsense from shroud fanatics?

Where are your marks? Lets see them.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Why, Jabba?
Why not at least post up your linked sources so we can read them over?

Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.
- The argument I'm putting aside for now is that SCRR's are relevant.
--- Jabba

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist.

Just as well, since, as already pointed out, they don't prove anything of the sort. You've yet to show that they exist, let alone produce a chain of logic to show how they would prove your assertion.

Now, back to the carbon dating. Got anything that proves the carbon dating is flawed?

[carlitos]

If Jabba's a "certified statistician" then I'm the Pope. In which case, I will remind everyone that the shroud of Turin is a medieval relic.

[Humots]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,

- This is going to take me awhile, but so far, I can't figure out why we can't just compare the 2 "combined" probabilities -- i.e. combined probability #1) the probability of randomly selecting the ace deck from the total number of decks (.02), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the ace deck has been chosen (1.00), and #2) the probability of randomly selecting a normal deck from the total number of decks (.98), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the normal deck has been chosen (.076923077).
- Consequently, before we get started, the probability of chosing the ace deck and then drawing an ace is .02*1.00, or .02, while the probability of chosing a normal deck and then drawing an ace is .98*.076923077, or .075384615. And, the probability of drawing an ace via the second route is almost 4 times as large as the probability of doing it via the first.

--- Jabba
- The smilie at the top is an accident, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

Because as I understand it, the question is not:

What is the probability that we select the All-Ace deck and draw an Ace?
vs
What is the probability that we select the regular deck and draw an Ace?

It is:

If we draw a card from a deck (and we don't know which one) and the card is an Ace, what is the probability that we drew from the All-Ace deck?

The point is, there are not two separate events, each with its own probability. There is only one event: drawing a card from a deck and the card is an ace.

[David Mo]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

Of course, no; I don’t call “science” neither creationism nor sindonism. If you can read Spanish you can visit my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.c...rgio-del-frio/ ) where I have quoted the Larhammar’s and others’ work debunking Kouznetsov. You also can find other studies in that sense (Rinaldi and others) in my small bibliography. I have only pointed out how Dr. Kouznetsov is now trying to pave his own way on the ground of normal science. Knowing our hero’s exploits in the past I’m expectant. To be continued.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree for now about the relevance here of serum clot retraction rings.
--- Jabba

"I threw something against the wall it did not stick, buggers I will now ignore again the elephant oin the room and switch to throwing somethign else on the wall hoping it wills ticks"

He does not even have the minimum rationality to recognize that whiping people was done all over time/place, or admit that his 10 year (or was it 20) was just spent mind-masturbating over the same argument without even really checking if those made sense or not. If he had, he would have the reference handy. But he does not have any of those and his arguments are weaker than walls made of bread crumbs.

Remind me a lot of those guy creationist JAQing off. Hoping from argument to the next having none worth a fart in an elevator.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.
- The argument I'm putting aside for now is that SCRR's are relevant.
--- Jabba

Does this mean you will be addressing the ¹⁴C dates?

[pakeha]

Quote:

I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.

I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.

So, 100 pages and we're still waiting for some reason to doubt the dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by pakeha

I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.

So, 100 pages and we're still waiting for some reason to doubt the dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Acleron

Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)

It is reasonably certain that the shroud exists, though if it were claimed only by the Sindonologists I would doubt it.

Here is the entirety of the pro-authenticity argument, though it is dressed up impressively in sciency sounding terms and walls of text:

There is objective, unrefuted scientific proof that the shroud is a hoax as already demonstrated by the historical evidence. On the other hand, there is subjective speculation supported only by the biblical imaginings of a group of biased activists. Obviously, the speculation wins.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Garrette

It is reasonably certain that the shroud exists, though if it were claimed only by the Sindonologists I would doubt it.

Here is the entirety of the pro-authenticity argument, though it is dressed up impressively in sciency sounding terms and walls of text:

There is objective, unrefuted scientific proof that the shroud is a hoax as already demonstrated by the historical evidence. On the other hand, there is subjective speculation supported only by the biblical imaginings of a group of biased activists. Obviously, the speculation wins.

That's the point I was (badly) trying to highlight. The pro-camp haven't found or produced any new evidence about the shroud at all. Their contribution to human knowledge has been zero. It wouldn't be unreasonable to accept that if a group intensively investigated a subject they could find out something novel, but it appears that having a belief completely disrupts rational process. A similar effect is seen in other belief areas such as alt-med.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by David Mo

Of course, no; I don’t call “science” neither creationism nor sindonism. If you can read Spanish you can visit my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.c...rgio-del-frio/ ) where I have quoted the Larhammar’s and others’ work debunking Kouznetsov. You also can find other studies in that sense (Rinaldi and others) in my small bibliography. I have only pointed out how Dr. Kouznetsov is now trying to pave his own way on the ground of normal science. Knowing our hero’s exploits in the past I’m expectant. To be continued.

Yes there are many fields of woo for him to expand his fraud into...
Thanks for the link. However my Spanish is non-existent.

Originally Posted by pakeha

I find it intriguing someone would try to present an idea, in this case, the notion there is blood on the shroud of Turin, here without marshalling their facts.

Well he's alleged there is blood on the shroud before, without being able to support it.
Just more of his efforts to avoid dealing with reality.

Originally Posted by Acleron

Has there been any reliable and verifiable evidence from the shroud pro-antiquity people at all? (That's for any aspect of the shroud)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, evidence for what in particular? They ignore/distort the radiocarbon evidence, allege blood (unsupported by evidence), allege MidEast pollen (unsupported by evidence) et cetera.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

"I threw something against the wall it did not stick, buggers I will now ignore again the elephant oin the room and switch to throwing somethign else on the wall hoping it wills ticks"

To be fair to Jabba, it's quite hard to even hit the wall when there's an elephant in the way.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Humots

Because as I understand it, the question is not:

What is the probability that we select the All-Ace deck and draw an Ace?
vs
What is the probability that we select the regular deck and draw an Ace?

It is:

If we draw a card from a deck (and we don't know which one) and the card is an Ace, what is the probability that we drew from the All-Ace deck?

The point is, there are not two separate events, each with its own probability. There is only one event: drawing a card from a deck and the card is an ace.

Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

Are you claiming the shroud was used as a table cover during a poker game?

[gambling_cruiser]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

Your statistic arguments are as weak as your pseudo lawyer debate style.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

Your statistic arguments are as weak as your pseudo lawyer debate style.

Yes. I've been involved with this thread for months, and it seems Jabba wants an ordered discussion on the Shroud, as if it was a matter for a jury. And then we've to come to a decision either by majority vote, like a Scottish jury, or by consensus, like an English one. And what would that prove? "Verdicts" in matters of physical science are determined by observation and experiment. And the observations say the Shroud is mediaeval, so that's the end of the matter until and unless a more precise observation is performed. There simply isn't anything else to be said!

[wollery]

I notice, Jabba, that you haven't responded in any way shape or form to this post of mine which addresses the fundamental problem with your card analogy.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by wollery

I've just reread the whole screed and although it doesn't specify when you get to the 50 pack part that the aces are returned and the deck shuffled it does appear that this is what he's doing. In that case his argument is flawed. Although the probability becomes incredibly small after a few aces are drawn it never formally becomes zero.

So his maths isn't the problem, it's his application of it that is.

If you read the next two webpages you'll see that he then applies this reasoning to the anthropic principle.

The problem is that the anthropic principle is a posteriori reasoning.

Jabba compares the probability that he was born to drawing an ace from the pack. He reasons that he's the ace of spades, his mother was the ace of diamonds and his father was the ace of clubs. the problem is that in reality he's the three of clubs, his mother was the six of diamonds and his father was the seven of hearts.

Jabba, I don't expect you to understand this, but give it a try. You were born because a certain sperm from your father joined forces with a particular egg from your mother. Now suppose that it had been a different sperm and a different egg a month earlier. Instead of getting Jabba your parents would have had a girl called Muriel who went on to be an English teacher. Let's suppose it's the same egg but a different sperm. Then your parents got a boy called James who became an engineer.

You're just an ordinary card drawn from an ordinary deck.

Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck.

In the example of the cards that you give we know a priori that there's a deck made entirely of aces. but suppose that you don't know that. Suppose that you have no idea how many packs there are or what cards are in those packs to start with. All you know is that you get a pack of cards and draw cards from it. What's the probability that the cards you draw are from a special pack? You have no way of knowing. You don't know what cards are supposed to be in a normal deck, you don't know how many decks there are and you don't know whether there are any special decks.

The probability that any given pack will be in a specific order is 8x10^-67. And yet every single time you shuffle a deck it appears in an order with a probability of just 8x10^-67. Does that mean that every single shuffle of a pack of cards is guided by a higher intelligence? Of course not.

When you shuffle a deck of cards it has to have one, and only one, configuration. Which configuration that happens to be is pure random chance (unless you're a very good magician!), but the probability of that specific configuration occurring was 8x10^-67.

So the approach that Jabba takes in arguing that the probability of his being born is vanishingly small without a guiding intelligence is a red herring. The probability that Muriel would have been born was identically small, as was the probability that James would have been born.

Someone was going to be born, it just happened, by pure random chance, that it was Jabba. That's the way the standard deck of cards was shuffled. No supreme guiding intelligence required.

[Humots]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.
- Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck.
- If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened?
--- Jabba

In your link, you state (bolding mine):

Quote:

So, once you draw the ace, to determine what the probability is that you drew from the ace
deck, you need to compare the two composite probabilities, and ultimately you end up being about 4 times as likely -- .075385/.02 -- to have drawn from the normal deck…

This is wrong. The event is not "drawing from the Ace deck or the normal deck". It is drawing an ace, and there are two possible ways to do this: "from the Ace deck or from the normal deck".

The question is, what is the probability that an ace, once drawn, came from the Ace deck?

One composite probability value is about four times the other, but that does not mean the probability of drawing from the ace deck once an ace has been drawn is as you state.

Determining this probability is a bit more complicated than simply comparing one composite probability against the other.

I'm not a math teacher (nor do I play one on TV) so I can't come up with my own argument in a reasonable time.

So please take a look at the Wiki entry on Bayes' Theorem. I can't give a direct URL (too few posts), but you can copy and paste

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem

into your browser.

See the Introductory Example for a scenario similar to yours.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning.

<snippy>

Oh, sorry. Posted in error.

I don't actually have anything to add to this astute observation.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Oh, sorry. Posted in error.

I don't actually have anything to add to this astute observation.