Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

michaelshermer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#51

Post by nonameiguess »

d_theorist wrote: post #41
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits. They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

A negative is just an inversion of the intensity of visible signal. It even has a manifestation in common experience. Stare at something for a long time, then look away. A negative will superimpose on whatever you're now looking at it. I can't think of a good reason humans of the past should not have been able to reproduce this kind of effect artistically.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#52

Post by Maken »

fsckboy wrote: post #4
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then. you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away. you're right, no way to prove it was his and yo…

Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details:

1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents.

2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter.

But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#53

Post by Maken »

encoderer wrote: post #7

The clergy in the 14th century were absolutely unmoored. Everything was for sale. You could pre-pay for absolution for future sins. They sold relics of everything - Jesus hair, even parts of the “burning bush” from the Old Testament. The first crusade brought back real treasures and relics that made the perfect pretense for a century of grifters. That was all pretty much stopped later that century though by a few bad…

No, those were the restrained ones. They at least put some effort in making their relics credible.

The clergy in the 16th century literally wrote "Get out of Hell" cards and sell them for money. What made them stop was Protestantism calling them on their bullshit.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#54

Post by codingdave »

graemep wrote: post #33
mock-possum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you would have to explain how No, you’re making this too complicated. It happened miraculously because god is all-powerful and can do whatever, whenever. Boom. Solved. Easy.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.). A miraculous shroud just seems showy.

Honestly, how would we know what all the miracles were? For arguments sake, whether or not you are Christian, let us say that Jesus did wander around performing miracles. The Bible is certainly not an audit trail of everything he did. It is the stories that survived. There would certainly be a bias in which stories those were.

It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have occurred that were not recorded, in particular considering that one of his teachings was to do good for its own sake, not to have the good be noticed by others.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#55

Post by card_zero »

hluska wrote: post #40
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.

Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.

That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff.

However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#56

Post by atombender »

wrzuteczka wrote: post #29
tsimionescu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect. Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using…

These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.

The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis.

The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with the it.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#58

Post by dpratt71 »

briffid wrote: post #57

The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.

I don't think you can "debunk" something merely with strong evidence.

Besides that, I wasn't aware of this codex, so I'm glad you shared it. Has anyone suggested that (assuming there is a relationship) the arrow of causality might go the other way? That perhaps this image was a reference for the shroud itself?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#59

Post by Tagbert »

d_theorist wrote: post #41
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits. They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

They were very familiar with rubbings where you place paper or canvas on a sculpture or incised surface and rub charcoal on it to capture the image. The result is very much like a negative.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#60

Post by stryan »

briffid wrote: post #57

The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.

The 14th century radio carbon dating is still by far the most accepted dating. Even the wikipedia article you linked describes the Pray-cosex as not being definitive.

IMO a plausible theory here is that imagery of Jesus's death with those "distinctive features" was already popular at the time and both artifacts are representative of that imagery.

Post reply on HN