Shroud of Turin redivivus - Not following where the evidence leads

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

We have P(A/H1) >> P(A/H2).

Do we? Says what calculation, exactly?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

@Giltil

For evidence that the Pray codex was based on the shroud:
Discussion about the Pray Codex and its relation to the Shroud is over? – Shroud of Turin Blog

That’s not evidence, it’s a dubious probability calculation. Even if correct, it only shows that the two images are related, not which came first.

A bayesian analysis of the situation shows that you are wrong.
Indeed, let’s called A the probability that the painting of the Pray codex display the six elements, H1 the hypothesis that the Pray codex was based on the shroud and H2 the hypothesis that the shroud was based on the Pray codex.
We have P(A/H1) >> P(A/H2).

No we don’t. That’s not a Bayesian analysis, that’s just an assertion on your part.

@Roy

So it is not evidence that the shroud predates the radiocarbon date, and you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘evidence’.

You’re doubly wrong here, as I’ve just shown.

You didn’t “show” anything. You only asserted it.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

No we don’t. That’s not a Bayesian analysis, that’s just an assertion on your part.

It is evident that P(A) rises if the codex is based on the shroud (compared to the case where the codex is not). And it is clear also that if the shroud is based on the codex, this does nothing to increase P(A). Therefore we do have P(A/H1)>P(A/H2). If you are too biased to recognize this obvious point, there is nothing more I can do for you.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

No we don’t. That’s not a Bayesian analysis, that’s just an assertion on your part.

It is evident that P(A) rises if the codex is based on the shroud (compared to the case where the codex is not). And it is clear also that if the shroud is based on the codex, this does nothing to increase P(A).

Of course it does.

If the shroud is based on the codex, and the shroud shows some feature A, then the probability of the codex also showing feature A increases.

So P(A) - the probability that the codex shows the same features that are shown on the shroud - increases if the codex is based on the shroud and also increases if the shroud is based on the codex

So P(A/H1) ~ P(A/H2)

You seem to be living in some strange universe where if the codex was based on the shroud the codex would look like the shroud, but if the shroud was based on the codex the shroud wouldn’t look like the codex.

Apparently you are not only too biased to recognise this obvious point but also too stupid to think of it.

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

It is evident that P(A) rises if the codex is based on the shroud (compared to the case where the codex is not). And it is clear also that if the shroud is based on the codex, this does nothing to increase P(A).

So… If the Codex is based on the Shroud, that increases the probability that they should share some feature or another. But if the Shroud is based on the Codex, that does in no way affect the probability, that they should share some feature or another. Am I understanding you correctly here?

You do understand, that the sharing of a feature, a similarity, is a symmetrical relation, right? “X is similar to Y” is logically equivalent to “Y is similar to X”, correct?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

So… If the Codex is based on the Shroud, that increases the probability that they should share some feature or another. But if the Shroud is based on the Codex, that does in no way affect the probability, that they should share some feature or another. Am I understanding you correctly here?

HI Gisteren
I agree with your basic logic. The analysis is based on random reasons for similarity vs one being a copy of the other. What is hard to explain if the Shroud was based on the codex how some of the random features were included in a painting such as the hole marks. Why would you expect these random features? We would expect some random defects from a cloth that is 1200 years old if it was indeed authentic. Points C,E,F support the Codex based on the Shroud hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is that the Shroud was based on the Pray codex that needs more development. Are you claiming that the Shroud was created in Hungry?

[Gisteron]

@colewd

What is hard to explain if the Shroud was based on the codex how some of the random features were included in a painting such as the hole marks. Why would you expect these random features? (emphasis added)

Hi, Bill.

Bluntly put, I do not know why I would expect, that an artist basing their work on a previous work would try and replicate features of said previous work in their own work. To me, this is an obvious entailment of what is meant by “based on”. If to you it is not, then I’m afraid the way we each use language is just too alien for us to effectively communicate about such matters.

The fact, then, that some details appear in two works the making of which we know naught else about, including even the exact timeline, may at most indicate that one of the works could be based on the other. What is not clear from such naive comparison, however, is exactly which of the two would be based on the respective other.

@colewd

We would expect some random defects from a cloth that is 1200 years old if it was indeed authentic.

In my opinion, this is irrelevant, if true. The cloth in question – the Turin Shroud – was not, as a matter of fact, 1200 years old at the time of the Pray Codex’ writing. So what we should or should not expect under that assumption may be a fun mental exercise, but ultimately inconsequential, seeing as the assumption is evidently false.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

What is hard to explain if the Shroud was based on the codex how some of the random features were included in a painting such as the hole marks. Why would you expect these random features?

This is yet another example of the painfully impaired thinking of believers in the “shroud.”

If the painting was based on the shroud, these are not “random features”. They are, instead, features of the object that the artist is attempting to represent.

How is this not obvious?

Anyway, as Hugh Farey points out, these supposed “holes” are not even depicted as being part of the shroud. They are part of the sarcophagus lid. So that’s another piece of “evidence” dismissed.

@colewd

If the hypothesis is that the Shroud was based on the Pray codex that needs more development. Are you claiming that the Shroud was created in Hungry?

LOL! How ridiculous, right, BIll? A piece of cloth being painted in Hungry (sic)!! Who could imagine something to improbable!!

Obviously, the image was created by nuclear radiation emitted by the cadaver of a dead Jewish rabbi who was being resurrected. Happens all the time!

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

Bluntly put, I do not know why I would expect, that an artist basing their work on a previous work would try and replicate features of said previous work in their own work. To me, this is an obvious entailment of what is meant by “based on”. If to you it is not, then I’m afraid the way we each use language is just too alien for us to effectively communicate about such matters.

Hi Gisteren
I own several pieces of european art some around the time of possible forgery. The three exceptions that are mentioned C,E,F, in the article @Giltil mentioned do not look typical of what we would see in a painting. Two are more typical of an artefact that has accumulated defects when aged.

Why is there so much more detail on the shroud than the codex if it is based on the codex?

[Gisteron]

Hi Bull

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Strong counter argument

[Gisteron]

Cheers.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

If the painting was based on the shroud, these are not “random features”. They are, instead, features of the object that the artist is attempting to represent.

How is this not obvious?

I agree if the painting was based on the shroud. The opposite is what @Gisteron and @Roy are arguing.

[Gisteron]

Please, do not lie.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Gisteron

@Giltil

It is evident that P(A) rises if the codex is based on the shroud (compared to the case where the codex is not). And it is clear also that if the shroud is based on the codex, this does nothing to increase P(A).

So… If the Codex is based on the Shroud, that increases the probability that they should share some feature or another. But if the Shroud is based on the Codex, that does in no way affect the probability, that they should share some feature or another. Am I understanding you correctly

No, you don’t understand me correctly. I think the reason is that you confuse two different probabilities, namely the probability P(A) that the codex displays the six elements A to F that O.K. is referring to in his piece and the probability that the shroud and the codex share some features. Do you understand that these two probabilities refer to different things? If yes, then you may understand why P(A/H1)>P(A/H2).

@Gisteron

You do understand, that the sharing of a feature, a similarity, is a symmetrical relation, right? “X is similar to Y” is logically equivalent to “Y is similar to X”, correct?

Yes, even if according to Roy I am stupid, I understand this

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

Do you understand that these two probabilities refer to different things?

No, I really do not understand how the probability that features A through F seen on the Shroud and the Codex is different from the probability that features A through F should be shared between the Shroud and the Codex.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

I agree if the painting was based on the shroud.

Sorry, I meant to say the opposite: If the “shroud” was created based on the painting in the Codex, then the “shroud” would have details that were depicted in the Codex. That should be obvious.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Roy

So P(A) - the probability that the codex shows the same features that are shown on the shroud - increases if the codex is based on the shroud and also increases if the shroud is based on the codex

So P(A/H1) ~ P(A/H2)

Except that P(A) is not the probability that the codex shows the same features that are shown on the shroud, not at all. Rather, it is the probability that the codex displays the 6 features that O.K. is referring to in his piece. And with this correction, it is obvious that in the event that the shroud would be based on the codex, this would do nothing to increase P(A). So you’re completely wrong here, again! Will you be able to admit it?

@Roy

You seem to be living in some strange universe where if the codex was based on the shroud the codex would look like the shroud, but if the shroud was based on the codex the shroud wouldn’t look like the codex.

You’re wrong, again

@Roy

Apparently you are not only too biased to recognise this obvious point but also too stupid to think of it.

Given all the times you’ve been wrong in this discussion, you may well be wrong here again

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Gisteron

Please, do not lie.

Please do not make accusations that have you have no basis to make.

[Gisteron]

@colewd

Please do not make accusations that have you have no basis to make.

Are you saying I made accusaitons that have I have no basis to make?