"Science Corrects Itself"
biblear...@hotmail.com
the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
40 Years.
Obvious Filed Down Marks.
Conspired second specimen.
Acceptance into textbooks.
It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
hoax can succeed.
RAM
Wiki's take on it: "In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery
in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic
aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as
demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere." [1] Lewin, Roger (1987),
Bones of Contention, ISBN 067152688X
It was always viewed as a problematic specimen by some scholars.
Because it had some serious anomalies associated with it.
Your assertions: 40 Years. Obvious Filed Down Marks. Conspired second
specimen. Acceptance into textbooks.
You appear overwrought at the above.
That is because they are acontextually overdone. By you and other
creationists. Your present troll is a repeat.
The discipline that dealt with these specimens was very young, did not
have our present knowledge about many of the features and their
metrics that we know have, very new hominids were found in this forty
year period compared to the next forty year period and text books
oftne carried anomalies and one PM was clearly a fake.
I'm sure you would have know immediately it was faked. If and only if
you were trained in the post fifties era.
The real fraud is you, for implying that science is engaged in self
deception when it is you who lives by self deception. When you find
that Ark, let us all know.
David Hare-Scott
2/10
D
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> The discipline that dealt with these specimens was very young, did not
> have our present knowledge about many of the features and their
> metrics that we know have, very new hominids were found in this forty
> year period compared to the next forty year period and text books
> oftne carried anomalies and one PM was clearly a fake.
Also, weren't there other things going on in the early 20th century?
Probably at least some scientists were otherwise engaged?
[...]
John Stockwell
Piltdown was eventually rejected because it didn't fit the other pre-
human fossils that people
were finding. This led to more careful investigation of the fossil,
using more modern techology.
It was not "obvious" that this was a hoax at the beginning, because
the expertise of the
community was not that advanced.
The point is, indeed, that the Piltdown hoax was eventually revealed,
and Piltdown appears in
scientific literature as "the Piltdown Hoax".
-John
biblear...@hotmail.com
There are obvious problems with Obama's birth certificate yet that
hasn't dislodged any of those who wish to believe in Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw
Also, while it is true that there was some question in regard to
Piltdown Man, that is just an opinion. The real proof (apparent proof)
was found in the flouride dating method which supposedly debunked the
specimen. Last time I checked Wikipedia had no mention of this dating
method, perhaps because it was joke.
Randy C
The Piltdown Man is VERY interesting. One of the suspects for who
planted the fossil is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - the very well-known
author of the Sherlock Holmes mystery series. Here are the clues:
1. Conan Doyle was a physician, Therefore he would have known enough
about anatomy to construct a fossil that would have fooled many
people, even trained biologists.
2. Conan Doyle was a strong believer in spiritualism. Then, as now,
spiritualism was scoffed at by scientists. Therefore he had a strong
motive for making science look silly, Surely a fraudulent fossil
claim would have accomplished that goal.
3. Conan Doyle lived close to where the fossil was found and visited
at least once and possibly more often.
How cool is that?
There are other interesting aspects. For example, it is often
overlooked that TWO "fossils" were found. The second fossil
eliminated the possibility of a pure accident such as an ape and human
dying in the same area. The only alternative explanation after the
second fossil was scientific fraud. You could argue that the length
of time required to determine fraud was a direct result of fraud being
so rare in the scientific community.
Then, as others have suggested, there were minor distractions.. You
know...like two world wars.
But I think that the single most INTERESTING aspect is that
creationists have to go back almost a century to find a SINGLE
confirmed case of fraud in evolutionary science!
How many scientific papers have been written about evolution in that
time? Millions?
But only ONE is a fraud?
Have you heard the expression, "The exception proves the rule?" The
Piltdown Man is the prototypical example showing this expression has
some validity.
Will in New Haven
On the other hand, the nonsense that people, my ancestors, wrote to
justify genocide and xenophobia (God ordered us to kill all the
Amelkites" etc) has never been refuted by any theists. The whole bible
is a hoax.
--
Will in New Haven
Red
<biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5ed0a74-1e8b-4ea8...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
You are trying to demonstrate that a hoax can succeed by giving an example
of a hoax that failed?
Red
Boikat
All your post shows is that you are ignorant. That's all that really
needs to be said.
Boikat
Grandbank
Thank you for displaying the depth your analytical skills in a context
that helps those who lack strong a science background understand the
general quality of your insights. Arguably the most useful comment
you have made to date. Perhaps the stupidest as well, although you
have set that particular bar very, very high.
KP
chris thompson
I would also add that politics and national pride played a role.
England (speaking generically) was dismayed that such old hominid
fossils had been found on the mainland. Post-Victorian Englishmen were
all too ready to accept a fossil that predated anything found
elsewhere, especially France (and later, obviously, Germany).
So scientists are human. Should we line them up against the wall for
that? It's gonna be a damned crowded wall, if so.
Chris
RAM
wrote:
That's a very good point. Many were amateur or part-time scholars or
had to be self funded.
Bill
Not as cool as a fruit bat.
Burkhard
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The 2 world wars also played another role, I think. Yes, there were
people who desperately wanted Piltdown to be true, but not to prove a
scientific theory, but because at a time of great national problems,
insecurity and anxiety, it played a role for "keeping up the spirits"
- the cradle of mankind in England, how cool is that?
Which you can see in the pattern of rejection: it was really mainly
the UK where Piltdown was kept alive until the 50s. The French by
contrast were the first to debunk it, and never really bought the
story afterwards (Marcellin Boule (1915) La paléontologie humaine en
Angleterre, L'Anthropologie, t. XXVI), the Germans followed soon
(Franz Weidenreich in 1923)
John S. Wilkins
Doyle was not opposed to science. Spiritualism was thought to be a
nascent science at the time (like parapsychology in the 50s), and Doyle
himself promoted science in the Sherlock Holmes books.
The idea that Doyle was the forger was proposed by Milner but I think it
is unlikely. Much more likely is Charles Dawson, the "discoverer" after
whose death the discoveries at Piltdown dried up. Several of his
discoveries have been proven fakes.
> >
> > 3. Conan Doyle lived close to where the fossil was found and visited
> > at least once and possibly more often.
> >
> > How cool is that?
>
> Not as cool as a fruit bat.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Steven L.
"biblear...@hotmail.com" <biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:f5ed0a74-1e8b-4ea8...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
At least there were scientists who doubted the Piltdown Man within a lot
less time than 40 years.
Yet whenever I hear on the news that there's been another sighting of
the Virgin Mary, how come that no theologians, ministers or priests come
forward to express skepticism about it?
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"biblear...@hotmail.com" <biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:102520ed-c92b-4ed7...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
That is true, just like:
The Shroud of Turin. (How long will it take before it's commonly
accepted as fake)
Numerous sightings of the Virgin Mary
The difference is this: Those who doubted Piltdown Man were not told
that they should stop "insulting" the believers in Piltdown Man.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Red" <pi...@my.place> wrote in message
news:Urnup.4050$h%4....@newsfe22.iad:
What else can he do?
The best hoaxes, the ones that succeeded, we will never know about. We
can't cite those.
It is believed that at least *one third* of all the art works in the
global art market are actually forgeries. The best ones will remain
forever accepted as genuine--unless the forger comes forward to admit
what he did.
-- Steven L.
John Stockwell
Birther = racist.
>
> Also, while it is true that there was some question in regard to
> Piltdown Man, that is just an opinion. The real proof (apparent proof)
> was found in the flouride dating method which supposedly debunked the
> specimen. Last time I checked Wikipedia had no mention of this dating
> method, perhaps because it was joke.
Perhaps you should learn that scholarship goes beyond reading
Wikipedia.
See:
Oakley, K. P., and Hoskins, C. R., New evidence on the antiqity of
Piltdown,
Nature, 165, 379 (1950).
-John
Randy C
From what I've read, Charles Dawson was almost certainly the forger.
We know that he forged other fossils. He had a lifelong dream to be
elected to the Royal Society and probably thought that finding such a
significant fossil would make that happen. (It didn't. But he died
fairly soon after the fossil was discovered.)
But Conan Doyle is easily the more interesting possible culprit.
Conan Doyle also had another possible motive for planting the fossil.
He published a book titled "The Lost World" in 1912. The subject of
the book was that there was a place on Earth where dinosaurs still
lived as well as a tribe of ape-like creatures. Finding a fossil of
an ape-like creature could have promoted that book.
Piltdown Man was discovered that same year - 1912. Some think that is
more than a coincidence.
Paul J Gans
One could add that the notion of an "inerrant bible" was shown
to be false over a thousand years ago, and yet there are folks
who still take the bible to be inerrent. People are, as you
say, human.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"biblear...@hotmail.com" <biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>message
>news:f5ed0a74-1e8b-4ea8...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
>> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
>> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
>> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
>> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
>> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
>> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>>
>> 40 Years.
>> Obvious Filed Down Marks.
>> Conspired second specimen.
>> Acceptance into textbooks.
>>
>> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
>> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
>> hoax can succeed.
>How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
It was debunked on discovery. Yes, even back then it was
considered to be a fake. Did the debunking take? Ha.
>At least there were scientists who doubted the Piltdown Man within a lot
>less time than 40 years.
>Yet whenever I hear on the news that there's been another sighting of
>the Virgin Mary, how come that no theologians, ministers or priests come
>forward to express skepticism about it?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Perseus
to religious to throw the Piltdown hoax at us, he would first declare
something about the duplicated genealogy hoax of Jesus in the NT.
Preseus
Perseus
> "Red" <pi...@my.place> wrote in message
>
> news:Urnup.4050$h%4....@newsfe22.iad:
>
>
>
in this case of art, the real versus fake works, it only proves how
doubtful can be the putative geniality of any work of art.
Perseus
Mitchell Coffey
And consider their point of view: they looked around their clubs an saw
nothing but old hominid fossils.
Mitchell
JennyB
> But Conan Doyle is easily the more interesting possible culprit.
>
And then there's Teilhard de Chardin, Stephen jay Gould's favourite suspect.
Randy C
I think that you can argue that Piltdown Man demonstrates the
INTEGRITY of science more than it does the fraudulent nature of
science.
The Piltdown Man "fossil" [note the quote marks] was discovered in
1912. That is obviously very close to a century ago.
So creationists have to go back very nearly a century in order to find
even ONE example of well-known fraud!
I'm willing to trust a science that makes a mistake every century or
so.
J. J. Lodder
> On Apr 28, 10:49 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The discipline that dealt with these specimens was very young, did not
> > > have our present knowledge about many of the features and their
> > > metrics that we know have, very new hominids were found in this forty
> > > year period compared to the next forty year period and text books
> > > oftne carried anomalies and one PM was clearly a fake.
> >
> > Also, weren't there other things going on in the early 20th century?
> > Probably at least some scientists were otherwise engaged?
> >
> > [...]
>
> The 2 world wars also played another role, I think. Yes, there were
> people who desperately wanted Piltdown to be true, but not to prove a
> scientific theory, but because at a time of great national problems,
> insecurity and anxiety, it played a role for "keeping up the spirits"
> - the cradle of mankind in England, how cool is that?
Yes, and they already played cricket.
> Which you can see in the pattern of rejection: it was really mainly
> the UK where Piltdown was kept alive until the 50s.
The whole thing was reactionary to begin with.
The Germans had their Neanderthals, the French their Cro-Magnons,
the English just -must- have something too.
> The French by
> contrast were the first to debunk it, and never really bought the
> story afterwards (Marcellin Boule (1915) La paléontologie humaine en
> Angleterre, L'Anthropologie, t. XXVI), the Germans followed soon
> (Franz Weidenreich in 1923)
There is still a cast in Teylers Museum, Haarlem,
without any comment, just the name,
sitting in a very dusty case,
next to more bona-fide copies of skulls,
(please don't tell them)
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Mitchell Coffey
> Steven L.<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "biblear...@hotmail.com"<biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:f5ed0a74-1e8b-4ea8...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
>>> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
>>> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
>>> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
>>> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
>>> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>>>
>>> 40 Years.
>>> Obvious Filed Down Marks.
>>> Conspired second specimen.
>>> Acceptance into textbooks.
>>>
>>> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
>>> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
>>> hoax can succeed.
>
>> How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
>
> It was debunked on discovery. Yes, even back then it was
> considered to be a fake. Did the debunking take? Ha.
As I recall we even know the name of the guy who confessed to forging it.
Mitchell
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> How cool is that?
>
> Not as cool as a fruit bat.
I prefer gummy worms...
DJT
>
Randy C
>
> And then there's Teilhard de Chardin, Stephen jay Gould's favourite suspect.
Yeah, but imagine if the author of the Sherlock Holmes books created a
real-life mystery that still hasn't been solved with certainty a
century later. That's the part that I think is really cool.
Dana Tweedy
The one who probably suffered the most from the Piltdown matter was
Arthur Smith Woodward, although he died before the hoax was discovered
and published in 1950. His reputation suffered from the bad publicity,
and he wasn't alive to defend himself.
DJT
Don Winslow
youth of the truth of evolution. So, it depends on your prospective as
to whether or not it harmed anyone.
>
> Jan
>
Don Winslow
> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Steven L.<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
>>>> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
>>>> hoax can succeed.
>>
>>> How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
>>
>> It was debunked on discovery. Yes, even back then it was
>> considered to be a fake. Did the debunking take? Ha.
> [snip]
>
> As I recall we even know the name of the guy who confessed to forging it.
>
> Mitchell
>
New Information: A team of nine scientists at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory has confirmed that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
is wrong. See the Fact Check at Shroud of Turin Blog
The sampling for the carbon 14 dating was botched. Clues that there were
problems were known and ignored. Now, new studies show how invalid the
samples were because of material intrusion of new thread from reweaving
repairs. The date range of 1260 to 1390 is nothing but an average for a
mixture of material. Ronald Hatfield, a scientist at Beta Analytic, has
concluded that it could be a mixture of 1st century cloth and 16th
century repair material in roughly equal proportions.
The area of the Shroud from which the samples were cut is chemically
unlike the rest of the Shroud. There are cotton fibers only in the
sample area. The sample area contains madder root dye, plant gum and
hydrous aluminum oxide. The dyestuff, probably used to make the repairs
imperceptible, are not found elsewhere on the Shroud. See: Carbon 14
Dating of the Mended Corner of the Shroud of Turin.
Another chemical difference is vanillin content. There is no vanillin in
the Shroud fibers just as there is no vanillin in the linen wrappings of
the Dead Sea Scrolls. From that fact alone, we can estimate that the
Shroud is at least 1300 years old. There is, however, an abundance of
vanillin in the area adjacent to the carbon 14 samples meaning that this
area is newer than the rest of the cloth.
No one knows for sure if the Shroud of Turin is real. But if we focus
only on what is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals then we
know certain facts. The Shroud of Turin is at least 1300 years old. It
could be older. The images are unexplained. As Philip Ball wrote in
Nature, in commenting on a 2005 article in Thermochimica Acta that
showed that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was invalid, "It is simply not
known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made" If we
turn to a 2003 article in Melanoidins we find that the images on the
Shroud of Turin are a chemical caramel-like darkening of an otherwise
clear starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the shroud\u2019s
fibers It is definitely not paint.
There is the enigma of the second face on the backside of the Shroud as
reported in 2004 in the Journal of Optics published by the Institute of
Physics. Other peer-reviewed evidence is clear: The bloodstains are
human blood. The images have peculiar 3D properties. The Shroud was
bleached by methods used in the first century and not later in the
medieval era.
Add in some history, and given what is known scientifically, and there
is ample reason to infer that the Shroud of Turin is genuine. Because
the thoughtful skeptical inquirers aims not to achieve this or that
conclusion, but rather their aim is the process of honest skeptical
inquiry, there is ample room for the thoughtful skeptical inquirer in
Shroud of Turin research. But the articles that appear now and then in
the Skeptical Inquirer magazine are preposterously polemic, filled with
arguments refuted by peer-reviewed scientific observation and lack
proper historical investigation.
The American Chemical Society website quotes a thoughtful skeptical
inquirer, the late Raymond Rogers, the Los Alamos scientist who showed
that the carbon 14 dating was invalid: "The observations do not prove
how the image was formed or the "authenticity" of the Shroud. There
could be a nearly infinite number of alternate hypotheses, and the
search for new hypotheses should continue."
Nathan Levesque
> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> discovered from the start.
There were suspicions early on, and the composite fossil itself was
left alone for quite some time. In a storage locker if I remember
correctly. It really only ever had a display, and some naturalists
and other related people's contemporary to it argued that it was a
legitimate fossil hominid extant to humans. **
> Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> 40 Years.
> Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> Conspired second specimen.
> Acceptance into textbooks.
>
> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> hoax can succeed.
**ie the "hoax" didn't really ever take off.
What does piltdown man have to do with the accuracy of evolution? And
in what fashion, where, and when was piltdown man accepted into
textbooks?
Dana Tweedy
> On 04/29/2011 04:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> Anyone got hurt by the Piltdown fraud?
> >
> It was seen as evidence which convinced many young impressionable
> youth of the truth of evolution. So, it depends on your prospective as
> to whether or not it harmed anyone.
Evolution is the truth. It's highly unlikely that anyone was convinced
of the fact of evolution on the strength of the Piltdown fossil alone.
It was the vast amount of other evidence that indicates that evolution
is correct.
DJT
Mitchell Coffey
My, my, the dishonesty of that website just reeks!
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Do you have evidence that it convinced anyone of evolution? The
"Piltdown man" was evidence against what the evolutionary sciences
predicted at the time, and since; which caused much of scientists'
skepticism about the alledged find.
Mitchell Coffey
Mike Painter
> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> 40 Years.
> Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> Conspired second specimen.
> Acceptance into textbooks.
>
> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> hoax can succeed.
Biblearchelogy, bieng a good scientist talks about everything except
archeology, teh one area where bible archeologists for hundreds of years
accepted the bible as a valid historical source.
Now that they don't do that anymore than field shows the bible to be worse
historical fiction than Doc Savage novels.
Don Winslow
Such charges proves absolutely nothing. I really would like to know. The
same conclusions was aired on History Channel several times this week.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
>
jillery
> On 04/29/2011 09:28 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/29/2011 6:13 PM, Don Winslow wrote:
> >> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> >>> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
For one thing, the Shroud of Turin has nothing to do with Piltdown
Man. For another thing, the individuals responsible for selecting the
sample areas had a vested interest in subverting positive
identification. I think that pretty much covers all the bases.
Burkhard
I don't quite get your point? the website makes no mention of
Piltdown, that just came from this strand (and the connection is: what
counts as evidence for fraud)
The second sentence i understand even less. do you mean the scientists
who did the c14 testing, or those who criticised the test? if the
former, then you agree with the website. If the latter, I can't see
how this would matter: If you find at any part of the shroud evidence
for contamination, _and_ there was no control for that contamination
at the c14 testing, then you raise valid doubts about the reliability
of the results - its analogous to the falsification/verification
asymmetry, the latter, not the former is affected by sampling.
You could argue that the website draws the wrong conclusions from this
- invalidating the c14 analysis that dated it to the middle ages of
course does not show that it is _not_ from the middle ages (just that
we don't know), let alone that it is older. They are not that clear on
that point as one would like, but also don't explicitly make this
wrong inference
Dakota
century CE and even if science finds no evidence that it was made
artificially, we will still have to idea who the image represents.
Burkhard
Sure. The "hierarchy of propositions" that the British forensic
science service developed is quite helpful there.
Roughly speaking, on the base level if we could reliably date the
cloth to the 13th century, we could rule out any connection to the
biblical story.
If the cloth were dated to the first century by contrast, there are
(at least) three possibilities: The image is of a person crucified at
that time through one of the hypothesised transfer processes, the
shroud is a first century forgery, or the shroud is a medieval forgery
using original material.
If chemical analysis of the image itself (as opposed to the textile)
detects material used only in the middle ages (say a type of pigment),
we can rule out one and two.
If all these tests are consistent with a first century origin by
contrast , we still can't rule out a medieval forgery (that is one of
the interesting lessons, for TO purposes btw - once you let
intelligent design in as a possibility, and even if it is like here
purely human intelligent design, lots of bets are off - the
possibility of a forgery pretty much every positive ID, leaving only
falsification by proving fraud as an unequivocal option)
Assume now that the evidence, with the above proviso, supports 1st
century origin and transfer from a person who likely died from
crucifixion. That's when we would have to go from classification to
individualisation, which is when the hard sciences come to a limit in
this case.
Still leaves you some forms of evidence - first are possible
inconsistencies between the image and the biblical account. To the
extend that they could be substantiated, there are again two possible
conclusions: the shroud is from a different person, or the biblical
account of the crucifixion is wrong (already Calvin argued along these
lines against the authenticity of the shroud)
Assuming there are no inconsistencies, the next question would then be
if there are elements of this account which allow to differentiate it
from the evidence you would expect to find after any crucifixion -
historically the main candidate was the "crown of thorns" and then the
paper last year that claimed some sort of inscription or tag.
At each step up th hierarchy from identification to classification to
individualisation, your likelihood of error accumulates.
As a case study in reasoning about past events using a variety of
scientific disciplines it is quite nice though, which is why i tend to
give it (together with the Shakespeare authorship issue) to my master
students in the AI and Law course, they have to reconstruct the logic
behind the reasoning and it is always quite interesting to see what
they come up with)
jillery
Don Winslow injected the Shroud of Turin into a thread which up to
that point has been principally focused on the Piltdown Hoax, and
certainly contained no prior reference to SoT. I infer from this
jarring juxtaposition that he feels there are some parallels between
the two situations. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain. ISTM the SoT
has never been a scientific fraud analogous to Piltdown. If Winslow's
point is as you say, and his comments suggest to me it is not, then I
would have expected an example closer to Piltdown, or an example that
unambiguously fraud. Hopefully this explanation is sufficient to put
your apparent confusion to rest on this point.
> The second sentence i understand even less. do you mean the scientists
> who did the c14 testing, or those who criticised the test?
The problem with the C14 analysis has nothing to do with the testing
laboratories, but with the sample itself. In its lifetime, the SoT
has been repaired numerous times, and the sample was cut from one
large spot containing many of these later-dated repairs. This one
large sample was then cut up and sent to separate laboratories. IIUC
C14 tests prefer to use multiple samples taken from different
locations on the object in question. The persons actually responsible
for selecting where to cut were not associated with the testing
laboratories. I don't know why Franco Testore and Giovanni Riggi cut
one large sample from a compromised location, as opposed to multiple
smaller samples from original material.
There is also the problem with the sampling and testing protocol.
There was much heated debate over the exact steps to follow, and who
was to supervise the overall process. IIUC the steps actually done
had only a vague resemblance to any of the previously proposed
protocols. Ultimately SoT is private property of the Church, and the
Church has a vested interest in keeping the authenticity of SoT a
matter of faith. IMO that last point is the source of the problems I
described.
Hopefully this explanation is sufficient to put your apparent
confusion to rest on this point.
> if the
> former, then you agree with the website. If the latter, I can't see
> how this would matter: If you find at any part of the shroud evidence
> for contamination, _and_ there was no control for that contamination
> at the c14 testing, then you raise valid doubts about the reliability
> of the results - its analogous to the falsification/verification
> asymmetry, the latter, not the former is affected by sampling.
>
> You could argue that the website draws the wrong conclusions from this
> - invalidating the c14 analysis that dated it to the middle ages of
> course does not show that it is _not_ from the middle ages (just that
> we don't know), let alone that it is older. They are not that clear on
> that point as one would like, but also don't explicitly make this
> wrong inference
None of my comments have anything to do with Don Winslow's cite. They
have everything to do with his injection of SoT without explanation.
I understand you recognize parallels, but I would prefer that Don
Winslow explained his point himself. Hopefully this explanation is
sufficient to put your apparent confusion to rest on this point.
jillery
Of course. The authenticity of SoT relies on many unknowns, one of
which you identify.
Burkhard
Oh, but it did. A three way between Steven, Paul and Mitchell: here the
context:
> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Steven L.<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> ,snip>
>>>>> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
>>>>> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
>>>>> hoax can succeed.
>>>
>>>> How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
>>>
>>> It was debunked on discovery. Yes, even back then it was
>>> considered to be a fake. Did the debunking take? Ha.
>> [snip]
>>
>> As I recall we even know the name of the guy who confessed to forging it.
>>
>> Mitchell
The question simply is how long does it normally take to debunk a claim
and to establish forgery.
I infer from this
> jarring juxtaposition that he feels there are some parallels between
> the two situations. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain. ISTM the SoT
> has never been a scientific fraud analogous to Piltdown. If Winslow's
> point is as you say, and his comments suggest to me it is not, then I
> would have expected an example closer to Piltdown, or an example that
> unambiguously fraud. Hopefully this explanation is sufficient to put
> your apparent confusion to rest on this point.
I think Winslow's point was precisely that it is not a good analogy,
because its status as a fraud is contestable - but it was used this way
by Steven and Paul
>
>
>> The second sentence i understand even less. do you mean the scientists
>> who did the c14 testing, or those who criticised the test?
>
>
> The problem with the C14 analysis has nothing to do with the testing
> laboratories, but with the sample itself. In its lifetime, the SoT
> has been repaired numerous times, and the sample was cut from one
> large spot containing many of these later-dated repairs. This one
> large sample was then cut up and sent to separate laboratories. IIUC
> C14 tests prefer to use multiple samples taken from different
> locations on the object in question. The persons actually responsible
> for selecting where to cut were not associated with the testing
> laboratories. I don't know why Franco Testore and Giovanni Riggi cut
> one large sample from a compromised location, as opposed to multiple
> smaller samples from original material.
>
> There is also the problem with the sampling and testing protocol.
> There was much heated debate over the exact steps to follow, and who
> was to supervise the overall process. IIUC the steps actually done
> had only a vague resemblance to any of the previously proposed
> protocols. Ultimately SoT is private property of the Church, and the
> Church has a vested interest in keeping the authenticity of SoT a
> matter of faith. IMO that last point is the source of the problems I
> described.
>
I see. That is an interesting theory. I'd agree that the sampling
protocol was deeply flawed, and that the results are hence unreliable.
That is was engineered to be deniable is a new one for me. It seems also
not quite to fit the fact - in this case, you would have expected the RC
to heavily promote this reading as soon as the 13th century date was
released - which as far as I know they did not do. it was only until
much later, first with the fabric analysis by Benford, and the Roger's
comments.
The more parsimonious explanation seems to me to be the usual cock up,
caused also by the relative inexperience with this type of method for
this type of artefact.
> Hopefully this explanation is sufficient to put your apparent
> confusion to rest on this point.
>
>
>> if the
>> former, then you agree with the website. If the latter, I can't see
>> how this would matter: If you find at any part of the shroud evidence
>> for contamination, _and_ there was no control for that contamination
>> at the c14 testing, then you raise valid doubts about the reliability
>> of the results - its analogous to the falsification/verification
>> asymmetry, the latter, not the former is affected by sampling.
>>
>> You could argue that the website draws the wrong conclusions from this
>> - invalidating the c14 analysis that dated it to the middle ages of
>> course does not show that it is _not_ from the middle ages (just that
>> we don't know), let alone that it is older. They are not that clear on
>> that point as one would like, but also don't explicitly make this
>> wrong inference
>
>
> None of my comments have anything to do with Don Winslow's cite.
Ah, I see. It was that they appeared as a response (to a repsnse) to this :
>>>>> My, my, the dishonesty of that website just reeks!
jillery
> and to establish forgery.
>
> I infer from this
>
> > jarring juxtaposition that he feels there are some parallels between
> > the two situations. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain. ISTM the SoT
> > has never been a scientific fraud analogous to Piltdown. If Winslow's
> > point is as you say, and his comments suggest to me it is not, then I
> > would have expected an example closer to Piltdown, or an example that
> > unambiguously fraud. Hopefully this explanation is sufficient to put
> > your apparent confusion to rest on this point.
>
> I think Winslow's point was precisely that it is not a good analogy,
> because its status as a fraud is contestable - but it was used this way
> by Steven and Paul
I missed this. My apologies.
Steven L.
"Nathan Levesque" <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30ec948b-fe29-4515...@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
It wasn't, but it had an effect. Or maybe it was nationalism and
racialism that had the effect.
The modern notion that the cradle of humanity was in Africa got delayed
by many years, because the European scientific community had such a
national vested interest in "proving" that modern humanity started in
Europe.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ipeqs3$dp8$4...@reader1.panix.com:
> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >"biblear...@hotmail.com" <biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >message
> >news:f5ed0a74-1e8b-4ea8...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> >> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> >> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> >> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> >> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> >> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
> >>
> >> 40 Years.
> >> Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> >> Conspired second specimen.
> >> Acceptance into textbooks.
> >>
> >> It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
> >> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> >> hoax can succeed.
>
> >How long has it taken to debunk the Shroud of Turin?
>
> It was debunked on discovery. Yes, even back then it was
> considered to be a fake. Did the debunking take? Ha.
That was my point. By "debunked" I meant effectively debunked, i.e.,
"generally accepted as fake." Maybe I should have made that more clear.
While experts are sure it's a fake,
It's still widely accepted by Christians as real.
-- Steven L.
Randy C
> Man. For another thing, the individuals responsible for selecting the
> sample areas had a vested interest in subverting positive
> identification. I think that pretty much covers all the bases.
Also, in regard to Piltdown Man, it is worth mentioning that there
were scientific skeptics soon after the find was published. One
zoologisy, named Gerrit Miller published a short book in 1915 titled
"The Jaw of the Piltdown Man". In the book he concluded that Piltdown
has the skull of a human and the jaw of a chimpanzee. He was close to
exactly correct. The jaw was actually that of an orangutan.
To get some sense of how clever the forgery was, you can read the
response to Miller's claims at http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_receptionfav/jawpiltman.html.
It was published in 1917. The author, someone named W. P. Pycraft had
these credential: F.Z.S., A.L.S., Member Royal Anthropological
Institute. I'm not sure what that all means, but presumably he should
have known what he was talking about. Nonetheless he goes into quite
a bit of detail defending Piltdown as real. In fairness to Pycraft a
lot of his argument is that the jaw is not that of a chimp, which is
correct. But it is the jaw of an orangutan not that of some human
ancestor. My guess is that both Miller and Pycraft were relatively
unfamiilar with orangutans relative to chimps. If so the forger was
especially clever in choosing to use an orangutan jaw rather than that
of a chimp.
J. J. Lodder
What's a confession compared to a good conspiracy theory?
Jan
Don Winslow
correcting itself.
J. J. Lodder
Seems no great harm to me.
Any popular science book for the youths
of a hundred years ago
contains many misconceptions,
seen with present day knowledge.
Yet many of those youths
made enthousiastic for science this way
went on to study science,
and to improve our knowledge of the world we live in.
If you think that harmful
you should forbid popular science writing,
science journalism, etc.,
and perhaps give up on science altogether,
Jan
Steven L.
"Don Winslow" <Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xgVup.5422$Du7....@newsfe04.iad:
That was not why I brought it up.
I raised it, because religious people who point out the apparent success
of the Piltdown hoax (for a few years anyway) don't notice how long it's
taken for the alleged religious miracles like Shroud of Turin and the
various sightings of the Virgin Mary to finally be rejected by the
public as fake.
Faith and gullibility are not synonymous.
-- Steven L.
Don Winslow
forensic scientist to examine the cloth to determine whether or
not the wounds and fluids are consistent with actual crucifixion
or just the result of an artist brush. Surely, to make such a
determination would be within the scope of forensics.
jillery
Yes it was. As I said, I missed it, and I apologize. In fact, I miss
a lot of Steve's posts. I have to aim better :)
Steven L.
"Randy C" <randy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ab8296a-d137-4caa...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 11:46 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 28, 5:50 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 28, 3:11 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> > 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> > >> > the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> > >> > discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> > >> > the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> > >> > to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> > >> > chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
> >
> > >> > 40 Years.
> > >> > Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> > >> > Conspired second specimen.
> > >> > Acceptance into textbooks.
> >
> > >> > It just goes to show that with enough ingenuity and persistence, and a
> > >> > scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> > >> > hoax can succeed.
> >
Science makes mistakes more frequently than that.
For many years, reputable scientists thought that human cells had 48
chromosomes. That was, of course, wrong.
And in scientific frauds, the Ketek antibiotic fiasco was much worse
than Piltdown Man--because that drug actually killed people.
"By April 2008, independent analysis using FDA data has linked Ketek
(Telithromycin) to 18 deaths and at least 134 cases of liver damage.
Some researchers say the total may be far greater....
"Study 3014 was a key clinical trial of more than 24,000 patients which
Sanofi-Aventis submitted to the FDA seeking approval for Ketek. The
doctor who treated the most patients in Study 3014, Maria 'Anne' Kirkman
Campbell, is currently serving a 57-month sentence in federal prison
after pleading guilty to defrauding Aventis and others. The indictment
states that Dr. Campbell fabricated data she sent to the company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telithromycin
And then there are all those scientists who were funded by tobacco
companies to downplay the harmful effects of smoking.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry/1998barnesandbero.htm
Scientists can be educated, dedicated to their work, and even highly
intelligent.
But there's no reason to believe that they have any more moral integrity
than workers in any other line of work. The scientist may be smarter,
he may be more educated--but he's not necessarily a *better person* than
the mechanic who repairs his car.
-- Steven L.
Richard Harter
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2:50 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Also, while it is true that there was some question in regard to
>> Piltdown Man, that is just an opinion. The real proof (apparent proof)
>> was found in the flouride dating method which supposedly debunked the
>> specimen. Last time I checked Wikipedia had no mention of this dating
>> method, perhaps because it was joke.
The flouride dating of the bones did not expose the hoax. What it did
was establish that the bones were much younger than had been supposed
from the geology. This implied that Piltdown Man was a much later
side branch of humanity, or that the bones were an artifact.
>
>Perhaps you should learn that scholarship goes beyond reading
>Wikipedia.
>See:
>
>Oakley, K. P., and Hoskins, C. R., New evidence on the antiqity of
>Piltdown,
>Nature, 165, 379 (1950).
The wikipedia article should have mentioned the flouride test.
>
Burkhard
brush, that would indeed prove forgery. If it is provably not a brush,
then we still have two option: a) it is authentic from someone who was
crucified and b) it was forged with an as yet unidentified method.
a) of course leaves to sub-options: the person was crucified at around
the time of Christ and the impression is the unintentional side result
of the burial or b) some forger did really pull out the stops and
crucified someone to create the impression.
As to be within the scope of forensics: that too depends. If the
putative forger was not very good (and rather recent) , he might have
used chemicals that can only be found in paint, or only at a very late
date.
If on the other hand the forger was either very good (and used e.g.
blood as paint) or lucky (a medieval forger woudl have used colours from
organic material which, after thislenght of time, can be chemically
indistinguishable from blood)that is not straightforward.
That's why I said, once you bring intelligence into the equation, things
get difficult. depending on the knowledge of a putative forger and
access to resources, you could fake almost everything.
there are a couple of tests one could do - most of them however woudl
cause serious damage to the shroud.
Richard Harter
<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I think that you can argue that Piltdown Man demonstrates the
>INTEGRITY of science more than it does the fraudulent nature of
>science.
>
>The Piltdown Man "fossil" [note the quote marks] was discovered in
>1912. That is obviously very close to a century ago.
>
>So creationists have to go back very nearly a century in order to find
>even ONE example of well-known fraud!
>
>I'm willing to trust a science that makes a mistake every century or
>so.
Chortle. Every century or so, eh? I suggest you do a google search
on scientific hoaxes. You might just want to revise that timeline.
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> intelligent.
>
> But there's no reason to believe that they have any more moral integrity
> than workers in any other line of work. The scientist may be smarter,
> he may be more educated--but he's not necessarily a *better person* than
> the mechanic who repairs his car.
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
And scientist can be blinded by ideological proclivities.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Don Winslow
> a lot of Steve's posts. I have to aim better :)
>
Richard Harter
Lodder) wrote:
>Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/29/2011 04:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Randy C<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > Anyone got hurt by the Piltdown fraud?
>> >
>> It was seen as evidence which convinced many young impressionable
>> youth of the truth of evolution. So, it depends on your prospective as
>> to whether or not it harmed anyone.
>
>Seems no great harm to me.
>Any popular science book for the youths
>of a hundred years ago
>contains many misconceptions,
>seen with present day knowledge.
>Yet many of those youths
>made enthousiastic for science this way
>went on to study science,
>and to improve our knowledge of the world we live in.
>
>If you think that harmful
>you should forbid popular science writing,
>science journalism, etc.,
>and perhaps give up on science altogether,
We may grant that popular science writing is replete with
misconceptions. However the Piltdown hoax did do considerable harm,
albeit not in the way that Winslow thinks. See
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#myths
Harry K
>
> > 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> > the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> > discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> > the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> > to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> > chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> > 40 Years.
> > Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> > Conspired second specimen.
> > Acceptance into textbooks.
>
> > scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> > hoax can succeed.
>
> human fossils that people
> were finding. This led to more careful investigation of the fossil,
> using more modern techology.
> It was not "obvious" that this was a hoax at the beginning, because
> the expertise of the
> community was not that advanced.
>
> The point is, indeed, that the Piltdown hoax was eventually revealed,
> and Piltdown appears in
> scientific literature as "the Piltdown Hoax".
>
> -John
And the embarrassing thing to the creationists is that it was exposed
by scientists, not the creatoidiots.
Harry K
chris thompson
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
>
LOL. Mistakes happen ALL the time. Real frauds are fewer and further
between (as in other endeavors) but they happen.
This is a totally muddled case, but see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore
for a possible example involving a Nobel laureate.
Chris
Don Winslow
> cause serious damage to the shroud.
>
Biblical Jesus is limited at best. The artist concepts show Jesus
having nails driven through his hands and feet. But the man in
the cloth shows nails through his wrist, not his hands. How important
is this? The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could age cause the
image to appear to be a negative? The man in the shroud had wounds in
his side. And wounds about his head, back and chest. The man in the
cloth seems to have had coins on his eyes, is there reference to
this in the Bible? I guess my question
is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
the wounded image of the man in the cloth: and how consistent was this
with other crucifixions by the Romans?
Paul J Gans
>On 4/29/2011 6:13 PM, Don Winslow wrote:
>> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
No kidding. I didn't even bother to reply. There are a few
serious rebuttals to this floating around on the internet, but
the medievalists think it is silly and the scientists think that
it isn't worth their time to rebut all the wrongness.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> www.skepticalspectacle.com/carbon14.htm
> >>
>
> >My, my, the dishonesty of that website just reeks!
>
> No kidding. I didn't even bother to reply. There are a few
> serious rebuttals to this floating around on the internet, but
> the medievalists think it is silly and the scientists think that
> it isn't worth their time to rebut all the wrongness.
It would be like rebutting birtherism. The people who still believe are
unreachable by evidence and logic.
Frank J
> On Apr 30, 9:36 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat 4/30/11 1:49, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 30, 6:22 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 30, 12:42 am, Don Winslow<"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >>>> On 4/29/2011 6:13 PM, Don Winslow wrote:
> > >>>>> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> > >>>> My, my, the dishonesty of that website just reeks!
>
IMO a 13th century cloth, if anything has *more* connection to the
biblical story than a 1st century one. As Dakota noted, the latter
could be the shrould of anyone crucified in that era. Whereas one
"faked" 12 centuries later would most likely be a loving tribute to
Jesus. Thus someone who truly loves Jesus would *want* it to be a 13th
century product. Whereas someone who puts their love of (or addiction
to) pseudoscience and superstition above their love of Jesus would
want (or need) it to be a 1st century product.
> they come up with)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
J. J. Lodder
Your site doesn't contain the word 'harm'.
(except in 'charmed')
Neither does it contain the word 'damage',
(except once in respect to a reputation)
If you want to maintain this assertion
you would have to add a section
on 'harm done by the fraud',
Jan
Paul J Gans
>In article <iphhh0$1ih$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> www.skepticalspectacle.com/carbon14.htm
>> >>
>>
>> >My, my, the dishonesty of that website just reeks!
>>
>> No kidding. I didn't even bother to reply. There are a few
>> serious rebuttals to this floating around on the internet, but
>> the medievalists think it is silly and the scientists think that
>> it isn't worth their time to rebut all the wrongness.
>It would be like rebutting birtherism. The people who still believe are
>unreachable by evidence and logic.
Quite right.
Richard Harter
Lodder) wrote:
Chortle. I take it that you having a bit of fun playing games by
giving us an example of the sort of argument seen all too often in
this newsgroup. However for those who aren't quite up to finding
relevant text in a web site I will quote the relevant section. I
grant that the word "harm" is not included; however I submit that a
case for the substance has been made. YMMV.
BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL:
Robert Parson pointed out in a talk.origins posting that the
Piltdown hoax was a scientific disaster of the first magnitude.
He said:
Piltdown "confirmed" hypotheses about our early ancestors
that were in fact wrong - specifically, that the brain case
developed before the jaw. The early Australopithecine
fossils found by Dart in South Africa in the 1920's failed to
receive the attention due to them for this reason. The
entire reconstruction of the history of the evolution of
humanity was thrown off track until the 1930's.
Prominent anthropologists, such as Arthur Smith Woodward, Arthur
Keith, and Grafton Elliot Smith, wasted years of their lives
exploring the properties of what turned out to be a fake. The
lingering suspicion that one of them might have been involved in
the forgery will cloud their reputations forever.
More than five hundred articles and memoirs were written about
the Piltdown finds before the hoax was exposed; these were all
wasted effort. Likewise articles in encyclopedias and sections
in text books and popular books of science were simply wrong. It
should be recognized that an immense amount of derivative work is
based upon a relatively small amount of original finds. For many
years the Piltdown finds were a significant percentage of the
fossils which were used to reconstruct human ancestry. In his
book The Piltdown Forgery J.S. Weiner remarks (p.204):
This ill-begotten form of primitive man in the several
hundred papers devoted to him received nearly as much
attention as all the legitimate specimens in the fossil
record put together.
It is a black mark on science that it took 40 years to expose a
hoax that bore directly on human ancestry. Creationists have not
been slow in pointing to the hoax, the erroneous reconstructions
based on the hoax, and the long time it took to expose the hoax.
Burkhard
woudl be rather time consuming), and also outside my area of work, but
that's what I remember:
There has been a theory, tested in the 1930s, that crucifixion requires
the nail through the wrist to carry the weight. It was also claimed that
this knowledge had been lost at some point, resulting in popular
depictions that are wrong. So potentially, we have here an example of
"guilty knowledge" - only someone who was there could have known this,
to a putative medieval forger.
So potentially quite interesting, but it is based on several highly
problematic claims/assumptions.
First, it is not generally true that a nail through the palm does to
support a body - it depends where exactly the nail is put in (on the
side of the thumb or the little finger) As far as I recall, the 30s test
only tried one, and later tests showed that if you chose the other side,
it works just fine.
Second, it assumes that there was no additional support through
bandages/robes - but these are frequently used in crucifixion in many
cultures (here we have the problem that the number of detailed
description of Roman crucifixions from that time are sparse, and bodies
for comparison even rarer.
Third, it assumes that what we have on the shroud is a nail through the
writs - but since what we see is the exit, not the entry point, this too
is far from conclusive.
Fourth, it assumes that that knowledge was lost. The basis for this are
artist' depictions. But there are at least some (though the minority) of
medieval and renaissance artworks which have the nails at the wrist -
and there was also an ongoing practice of crucifixion, in particular in
the Islamic world, plus assorted lunatics who went for the full
re-enactment. Depending on the time and place of the putative forgery,
you might also have to throw in at least some medical people, so it is
far from clear if this is really unexpected.
There is a more general problem here of course: the one account of the
events is of course the NT - which would have been known by any forger.
So distinguishing between "guilty knowledge" (displays features not in
the Bible) and "being therefore proven wrong" is sort of difficult
> The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could age cause the
> image to appear to be a negative?
No sure what you mean with that.
The man in the shroud had wounds in
> his side. And wounds about his head, back and chest.
From (the little) we know about crucifixions , mistreatment of
prisoners before, during and after are common, so that would not be to
unsurprising and could not distinguish between authentic shrouds of
different executed people. The bare back against the cross itself would
account for blood on the back, e.g. And none of this helps of course
with the forgery issue
The man in the
> cloth seems to have had coins on his eyes, is there reference to
> this in the Bible?
No, there isn't. Question then is what you make of it. Assuming there
are coins (on this more below), you could see it as disproving the claim
that it is Christ's shroud - if you also assume the Bible is
sufficiently complete. As there is a detailed (especially John)
description of the other activities after his death, someone would have
mentioned the coins. This is along the lines already Calvin argued - who
said that the whole shroud would be mentioned as a miracle if it had
been found after the resurrection. Calvin also points out that according
to John, head and body shoudl not be on the same linen.
Of course, Calvin assumes the bible to be correct _and_ complete - a
secular position would in principle not be bound by this. So assuming
the bible is incomplete on this, is this "guilty knowledge", something
that from an archaeological perspective we would expect to find, but was
not mentioned in the bible and hence unknown to a possible forger?
That's where it gets rather complicated, and finally interesting from a
theological perspective too. At the time of the crucifixion, some, but
not all Jews had adopted this practice, which seems to have been an
import from Greek culture (the coins to pay the ferryman...) Now
assuming the shroud is Christ's, and assuming the coins are there, that
would cast some serious doubt on the way his group and his teaching are
normally understood. Out goes the idea that if not an Essene himself,
then at least someone with strong sympathies to the ascetic, mystical
strands in Judaism In comes someone not just mainstream, but embracing
the import of fashionable Greek pagan ideas - and then you get coins on
the eyes of someone who while alive is said to have driven the money
changers out of the temple... (coins with the name and possible face
of a Roman emperor, no less and while Tiberius did not generally permit
to be worshipped as God during his lifetime, permitted at least on
temple in his name, and was seen as deity by many Romans his
protestation notwithstanding)
Again, if there is an impression of coins, what would it show? Well,for
dating purposes, that the event coudl not have been before Tiberius (if
it was his fragment of the name that was claimed)but not much more-
coins at that time were used for their real (metal) as opposed to their
notional value, and hence remained in circulation long after the issuing
authority had disappeared - you find e.g. Roman coins used in Britain
right into the middle ages.
In any case, most of this is arguably moot - at least if you mean Alan
Whanger's claim to have discovered impression of coins, which is an
excellent example on how not to do analysis (which is why I use it as
teaching example)
I guess my question
> is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
> the wounded image of the man in the cloth: and how consistent was this
> with other crucifixions by the Romans?
>
> www.shroudstory.com/forensics.htm
"Being consistent with" in forensic terms is about as weak as you can
get - essentially it is a way to say we are non the wiser. As indicated
above, it is not straightforward to distinguish inconsistencies
(disprove) from "guilty knowledge" (proof) - not the least because our
knowledge of crucifixions in Rome is rather limited.
The site you link to seems not to get this (and it is a common mistake
when dealing with forensic scientists) Interesting, and sort of typical
their analysis of the "washing " issue. The are between a rock and a
hard place here, and try to claim it is a cushion. There seems to be two
possibilities: the body was washed, as would have been Jewish custom,
and John ore or less says so. In that case though (giving that we are
talking here long after death) we should not expect _any_ blood
transfer. But if the body was not washed, we shoudl expect something
much less clear and "artistic" than what we actually see, it looks
rather staged. Somehow they try to parley that dilemma into an argument
for the authenticity
>
Burkhard
I understand it. It does to really matter of they are historical, it is
the accumulated devotion of the worshippers that makes them holy. A very
Pratchet-ian view of religion, I approve ;o)
Mike Lyle
wrote:
[...]
>
>Of course, Calvin assumes the bible to be correct _and_ complete - a
>secular position would in principle not be bound by this. So assuming
>the bible is incomplete on this, is this "guilty knowledge", something
>that from an archaeological perspective we would expect to find, but was
>not mentioned in the bible and hence unknown to a possible forger?
>That's where it gets rather complicated, and finally interesting from a
>theological perspective too. At the time of the crucifixion, some, but
>not all Jews had adopted this practice, which seems to have been an
>import from Greek culture (the coins to pay the ferryman...)
I haven't actually got a primary source at home, and the OCD doesn't
mention the practice; but is my memory at fault in leading me to
believe the ferryman's fee was placed in the voyager's _mouth_?
>Now
>assuming the shroud is Christ's, and assuming the coins are there, that
>would cast some serious doubt on the way his group and his teaching are
>normally understood. Out goes the idea that if not an Essene himself,
>then at least someone with strong sympathies to the ascetic, mystical
>strands in Judaism In comes someone not just mainstream, but embracing
>the import of fashionable Greek pagan ideas - and then you get coins on
> the eyes of someone who while alive is said to have driven the money
>changers out of the temple... (coins with the name and possible face
>of a Roman emperor, no less and while Tiberius did not generally permit
>to be worshipped as God during his lifetime, permitted at least on
>temple in his name, and was seen as deity by many Romans his
>protestation notwithstanding)
--
Mike.
Burkhard
> On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:41:00 +0100, Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> Of course, Calvin assumes the bible to be correct _and_ complete - a
>> secular position would in principle not be bound by this. So assuming
>> the bible is incomplete on this, is this "guilty knowledge", something
>> that from an archaeological perspective we would expect to find, but was
>> not mentioned in the bible and hence unknown to a possible forger?
>> That's where it gets rather complicated, and finally interesting from a
>> theological perspective too. At the time of the crucifixion, some, but
>> not all Jews had adopted this practice, which seems to have been an
>> import from Greek culture (the coins to pay the ferryman...)
>
> I haven't actually got a primary source at home, and the OCD doesn't
> mention the practice; but is my memory at fault in leading me to
> believe the ferryman's fee was placed in the voyager's _mouth_?
True for Greece - typical for religious borrowing, you never copy in a
too obvious way. You find the same when Christianity took the concept
and translated it into "viaticum", or sustenance for the journey
Kermit
> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> > the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> > discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> > the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> > to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> > chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> > 40 Years.
> > Obvious Filed Down Marks.
> > Conspired second specimen.
> > Acceptance into textbooks.
>
> > scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> > hoax can succeed.
>
> archeology, teh one area where bible archeologists for hundreds of years
> accepted the bible as a valid historical source.
> Now that they don't do that anymore than field shows the bible to be worse
> historical fiction than Doc Savage novels.
Doc Savage is a hoax?
<lip quiver>
Kermit
Don Cates
it's a fake.
A contact image of a three dimensional structure onto a two dimentional
surface does not create a nice 'photographic' image, it is highly distorted.
The back/front images are joined at the head. It should go 'face-top of
forehead-top of head-back of head'; instead it goes 'face-top of
forehead-back of head'. Where is the image of the top of the head?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>On 01/05/2011 23:19, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:41:00 +0100, Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
[...]
>>> theological perspective too. At the time of the crucifixion, some, but
>>> not all Jews had adopted this practice, which seems to have been an
>>> import from Greek culture (the coins to pay the ferryman...)
>>
>> I haven't actually got a primary source at home, and the OCD doesn't
>> mention the practice; but is my memory at fault in leading me to
>> believe the ferryman's fee was placed in the voyager's _mouth_?
>
>True for Greece - typical for religious borrowing, you never copy in a
>too obvious way. You find the same when Christianity took the concept
>and translated it into "viaticum", or sustenance for the journey
For this relief, much thanks. I'm always ready to doubt my
marble-retention.
[...]
--
Mike.
SkyEyes
> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> 40 Years.
You *do* realize that there was a great big enormous World War (II)
that interrupted most civilian scientific endeavors during that time,
don't you?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
SkyEyes
> On Apr 28, 2:50 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> > > the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> > > discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> > > the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> > > to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> > > chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> > > 40 Years.
> > > Conspired second specimen.
> > > Acceptance into textbooks.
>
> > > scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> > > hoax can succeed.
>
> > human fossils that people
> > were finding. This led to more careful investigation of the fossil,
> > using more modern techology.
> > It was not "obvious" that this was a hoax at the beginning, because
> > the expertise of the
> > community was not that advanced.
>
> > The point is, indeed, that the Piltdown hoax was eventually revealed,
> > and Piltdown appears in
> > scientific literature as "the Piltdown Hoax".
>
> > -John
>
> hasn't dislodged any of those who wish to believe in Obama.
No, there *aren't*. He's released his long form. He was born (quelle
surprise!) in Hawaii.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw
So not only are you a creationist loon, you're a birther, too.
Gnarly.
SkyEyes
> The problem with the C14 analysis has nothing to do with the testing
> laboratories, but with the sample itself. In its lifetime, the SoT
> has been repaired numerous times, and the sample was cut from one
> large spot containing many of these later-dated repairs. This one
> large sample was then cut up and sent to separate laboratories. IIUC
> C14 tests prefer to use multiple samples taken from different
> locations on the object in question. The persons actually responsible
> for selecting where to cut were not associated with the testing
> laboratories. I don't know why Franco Testore and Giovanni Riggi cut
> one large sample from a compromised location, as opposed to multiple
> smaller samples from original material.
IIRC, wasn't it the RCC who dictated that they *not* use any of the
original (unrepaired) parts of the shroud?
Mitchell Coffey
> On Apr 28, 2:11 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
>> the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
>> discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
>> the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
>> to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
>> chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>>
>> 40 Years.
>
> You *do* realize that there was a great big enormous World War (II)
> that interrupted most civilian scientific endeavors during that time,
> don't you?
Two great big enormous world wars, in fact.
Mitchell Coffey
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 28, 2:11 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > 1. Took 40 years for 'science' to correct Piltdown Man even though
> > the obvious filed down marks on the specimen should have been
> > discovered from the start. Science almost stopped Piltdown Man from
> > the start except that the founders found another specimen just in time
> > to stop the critics. Then after American criticism subsided and even a
> > chief opponent of PM edited the specimen into his textbook.
>
> > 40 Years.
>
> You *do* realize that there was a great big enormous World War (II)
> that interrupted most civilian scientific endeavors during that time,
I very much doubt that. The op here seems to be totally unaware of
anything connected with reality and determined to keep it that way.
John Stockwell
> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Steven L.<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>,snip>
> >>>> scientific world that is readily willing to believe evolution, any
> >>>> hoax can succeed.
>
Shroud pimps will continue to try to find ad hoc excuses to believe
that the Shroud is
authentic. Interestingly, the radiometric dates agree with the
provenance of the item.
The first historical mention of the Shroud is about 1300.
-John
Mike Lyle
And between them, repeated political crises and a bloody great world
depression. But there's always a silver lining: Aus mostly held onto
the Ashes, and Man U didn't win the FA Cup at all during those years.
--
Mike.
Don Winslow
www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Thermochimica-Acta.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
>
freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2103615/posts
www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/science/27shroud.html
www.shroudstory.com/shroud-of-turin-for-journalists.htm
The first historical mention of the Shroud is about 1300.
>
There are other references to the cloth before 1300s, hoewever,
this is circumstanctial.
>
www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/history.htm
> -John
>
Don Winslow
Don Winslow
desire to vindicate this cloth. But I do have questions and would
like explanations. Your comment might satisfy you, but I require more to
be satisfied that it's a fake.
>
> -John
>
Don Winslow
> On Apr 30, 12:42 am, Don Winslow<"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 04/29/2011 09:28 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> How is it dishonest. It's too easy just to say there is dishonesty.
>> Such charges proves absolutely nothing. I really would like to know. The
>> same conclusions was aired on History Channel several times this week.
>
>
> For one thing, the Shroud of Turin has nothing to do with Piltdown
> Man. For another thing, the individuals responsible for selecting the
> sample areas had a vested interest in subverting positive
> identification.
>
Mitchell Coffey
> On 04/29/2011 09:28 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 4/29/2011 6:13 PM, Don Winslow wrote:
>>> On 04/29/2011 04:37 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2011 1:00 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
1. Burkhard discusses how that site conflates "is consistent with" or
"is not consistent with" with "proves" or "disproves," as convenient to
its purpose. He also gives an example or two.
2. The site extensively evokes what it alleges to be studies and
authorities, yet does not give adequate citations to track down what the
sources actually said. Once the probably source is by guessing and
googling tracked down, one is likely to find (a) the source did not say
what the site claims they said, or said things modifying what the site
claims they said; and (b) the site has withheld from the reader known
and serious criticism of the site's studies and authorities, as well as
withholding studies and authorities that undercut the site's studies and
authorities. (Again, Burkhard and others in this thread have given
examples. Comparing the site with the relevant Wikipedia pages should
suggests some examples of (a) and (b) as well.)
3. The site affects a claim of detachment and skepticism, when in fact
it is polemical in purpose and buys or invents dubious arguments (see
Burkhard's and other's discussions) as necessary to its purposes.
4. The site affects what it evidently considers an academic style. This
is evidently its reason for being long winded and scattered in
presentation. Whatever the reason, the effect appears to be a standard
method of pseudo-scientists: sounding authoritative, while making it
difficult to assess the sourcing or to follow the twists and turns of
the actual arguments; meanwhile maintaining the impression in the reader
that there really is a logical argument going on, with sources that say
what it is claimed they said.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
And if I recall correctly, Cal beat Stanford at least once, or came close.
Mitchell Coffey
AGW Facts
biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 1. Took 40 years for science to correct Piltdown Man even though
You mean it took about 4 minutes. Almost all scientists rejected
the hoax, since it was contrary to evolutionary theory. See
Stephen J. Gould's essay on the subject.