Rate each hypotheses based on criteria of adequacy.
Claim: The Shroud of Turin is the linen cloth placed over the body Jesus Christ at his burial and bears the likeness of his face.
Testability: This claim is testable. Carbon-14 dating can test the age of the cloth and compare it to the time of Jesus Christ. The image on the cloth can be compared to the description of Jesus Christ in biblical sources.
Fruitfulness: This hypothesis is fruitful, it can be used to create new predictions/hypotheses. For example it creates the prediction that Jesus Christ had a medium to large nose and wore facial hair.
Scope: This hypothesis does not have a great scope. It explains that Jesus had been crucified and suffered a traumatic death, that he had a burial cloth, and that he lived centuries ago. But it does not explain exactly what Jesus looked like, his skin color, what kind of blows he suffered, and more.
Simplicity: This is not the simplest of hypotheses on the Shroud of Turin. There is not exact way to prove that the blood on the Shroud belongs to Jesus Christ or to depict the actual face on the Shroud. So to believe this, you would just have to hope that the blood and the face of Jesus.
Conservatism: This hypothesis is conservative because it goes along with the beliefs in Jesus Christ. It is in line with the crucifixion that many believe in and depicts a face that is similar to that of what is illustrated as Jesus for hundreds of years.
Analyzed by: Diamond Vu
Alternative Hypothesis 1: The Shroud of Turin is a primitive photograph, the hypothetical photograph technique is the only plausible explanation for the image formation on the Shroud.
Testability: The testability of this claim was explored by Nicholas Allen, the dean of the Faculty of Art and Design in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He constructed a device known as a camera obscura , and used it in order to try to reproduce the photographic image of the Shroud. This method included the use of 1)rock crystal 2)silver salts and 3)salt of ammonia. This method was produced in order to try to replicate the materials and resources that would have been available to an artist back in the estimated time of production of the Shroud in the fourteenth century in order to create a photographic image without modern technology.
Fruitfulness: The fruitfulness of this claim is that Nicholas was able to produce an image that closely resembled the Shroud with help from the camera obscura that he constructed in order to replicate the subject at hand, the Shroud.
Scope: The scope of this claim is that it explains how it would be possible for an someone in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century to use materials available to them to create a photographic image such as the Shroud of Turin.
Simplicity: The simplicity of this claim isn't very great because by accepting this claim, you will assume that the medieval photographer in question would've known the properties of ultraviolet radiation and that they would've also known how to stabilize his image through the use of ammonia. Not only would the photographer have to be knowledgeable regarding this process but another fact to keep in mind is that this process is claimed to have taken place at a time when the chemical properties of silver nitrate were unknown and there was no knowledge of optics.
Conservatism: The conservatism of this claim is that all of the resources needed to produce this type of primitive photographic image were known to be available at the proposed time the Shroud was made in this claim and that Professor Allen was able to produce these type of photographic images with the camera obscura.
After examining this hypothesis through the criteria for adequacy, I give this claim a low rate for adequacy because even though there was experimentation done to prove that this type of art was able to be produced in the Middle Ages, there is still no proof of who was responsible for the creation of the Shroud and no way of proving its means of creation. In my opinion, it has about the same rate of adequacy as our original claim.
This information was retrieved from a library book entitled "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin. Containing the most up to date analysis of all the facts pertaining to the Shroud of Turin.
Analyzed by: Susan Yera
Alternative Hypothesis 2: The Shroud of Turin is a burial cloth that was placed over a crucifixion victim and bears a likeness of Jesus Christ’s face.
Testability: This claim is testable. The blood stains on the cloth can be compared to the wounds of a person who has been crucified, and the image of the face can be compared to the historical descriptions of Jesus Christ’s face.
Fruitfulness: This claim is fruitful. It allows for predictions to be made as to who was crucified, as well as the characteristics of Jesus Christ’s face, and even predictions about how the image appeared on the cloth.
Scope: This claim does not have a large scope. There is a question of who the cloth could have covered. The image of Jesus’ face leaves many unanswered questions about his height, his skin color, and the state of his health before he died (was he healthy before he was crucified? Had he been beaten? Was he sick?).
Simplicity: I believe this claim to be simpler then our original claim. I think that it would be easier to prove that the cloth was placed over a person who was crucified then to prove that the person was Jesus Christ. Tests could be performed to determine if the stains are actually blood, and experts can verify that the placement of the blood stains are consistent with the wounds that are a result of crucifixion. Without DNA tests, however, there is no conclusive way to determine if it was really used to cover Jesus Christ. A factor that is not simple to explain is the question of the description of Jesus’ face. Yes, that is what we believe him to look like today, but is it really an image of his face? Or something that we have constructed at a later date to fit our perceptions of what he looked like?
Conservatism: This theory is conservative in that it agrees with the views largely held by Christianity. For those who hold no religious beliefs, however, it may be considered to be less conservative.
Analyzed by: Madeleine Vaughn
Best hypothesis based on criteria of adequacy:
Alternative Hypothesis # 2 is the best based on the criteria of adequacy. It is testable, fruitful, most simplistic, and conservative. This hypothesis does have a low scope but overall it is a better claim than our claim.
Alternative Hypotheses
Alternative Hypothesis 1:
Author- Susan Yera
The Shroud of Turin is a primitive photograph, the hypothetical photograph technique is the only plausible explanation for the image formation on the Shroud.
The testability of this claim was explored by Nicholas Allen, the dean of the Faculty of Art and Design in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He constructed a device known as a camera obscura , and used it in order to try to reproduce the photographic image of the Shroud. This method included the use of 1)rock crystal 2)silver salts and 3)salt of ammonia. This method was produced in order to try to replicate the materials and resources that would have been available to an artist back in the estimated time of production of the Shroud in the fourteenth century in order to create a photographic image without modern technology.
The fruitfulness of this claim is that Nicholas was able to produce an image that closely resembled the Shroud with help from the camera obscura that he constructed in order to replicate the subject at hand, the Shroud.
The scope of this claim is that it explains how it would be possible for an someone in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century to use materials available to them to create a photographic image such as the Shroud of Turin.
The simplicity of this claim isn't very great because by accepting this claim, you will assume that the medieval photographer in question would've known the properties of ultraviolet radiation and that they would've also known how to stabilize his image through the use of ammonia. Not only would the photographer have to be knowledgeable regarding this process but another fact to keep in mind is that this process is claimed to have taken place at a time when the chemical properties of silver nitrate were unknown and there was no knowledge of optics.
The conservatism of this claim is that all of the resources needed to produce this type of primitive photographic image were known to be available at the proposed time the Shroud was made in this claim and that Professor Allen was able to produce these type of photographic images with the camera obscura.
After examining this hypothesis through the criteria for adequacy, I give this claim a low rate for adequacy because even though there was experimentation done to prove that this type of art was able to be produced in the Middle Ages, there is still no proof of who was responsible for the creation of the Shroud and no way of proving its means of creation. In my opinion, it has about the same rate of adequacy as our original claim.
This information was retrieved from a library book entitled "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin. Containing the most up to date analysis of all the facts pertaining to the Shroud of Turin.
Alternative Hypothesis 2:
Author: Madeleine Vaughn
Alternative Claim - The Shroud of Turin is a burial cloth that was placed over a crucifixion victim and bears a likeness of Jesus Christ’s face.
Testability – This claim is testable. The blood stains on the cloth can be compared to the wounds of a person who has been crucified, and the image of the face can be compared to the historical descriptions of Jesus Christ’s face.
Fruitfulness – This claim is fruitful. It allows for predictions to be made as to who was crucified, as well as the characteristics of Jesus Christ’s face, and even predictions about how the image appeared on the cloth.
Scope – This claim does not have a large scope. There is a question of who the cloth could have covered. The image of Jesus’ face leaves many unanswered questions about his height, his skin color, and the state of his health before he died (was he healthy before he was crucified? Had he been beaten? Was he sick?).
Simplicity – I believe this claim to be simpler then our original claim. I think that it would be easier to prove that the cloth was placed over a person who was crucified then to prove that the person was Jesus Christ. Tests could be performed to determine if the stains are actually blood, and experts can verify that the placement of the blood stains are consistent with the wounds that are a result of crucifixion. Without DNA tests, however, there is no conclusive way to determine if it was really used to cover Jesus Christ. A factor that is not simple to explain is the question of the description of Jesus’ face. Yes, that is what we believe him to look like today, but is it really an image of his face? Or something that we have constructed at a later date to fit our perceptions of what he looked like?
Conservatism – This theory is conservative in that it agrees with the views largely held by Christianity. For those who hold no religious beliefs, however, it may be considered to be less conservative.
Alternative Hypothesis #3: The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that bears the likeness of a man that was created by an artist in medieval times.
Author: Jennifer Tavernier
Testability: The claim is testable, from the novel Real Life X-Files by Joe Nickel the author states that the "blood" on the shroud was put through numerous tests and it was proven to be "red ocher and vermilion tempera paint." Also the patterns the "blood" made were said to be inconsistent with real blood.
Fruitfulness: The claim is fruitful for now you can question the reasons this shroud was created and what was it's original function?
Scope: The scope of the claim is limited to explaining the appearance of a human figure on the Shroud.
Simplicity: This claim has great simplicity as the Shroud has tested positive for the red paint like substances, and both of these substances were readily available at the time.
Conservatism: This claim is consistent with our beliefs and the evidence discovered scientifically.
I believe this claim is a simpler explanation then the original claim. Although not as fruitful as the previous alternatives I believe it is the most conservative. The scope is not as great as the other claims but, this claim has a high rate of adequacy
Author- Susan Yera
The Shroud of Turin is a primitive photograph, the hypothetical photograph technique is the only plausible explanation for the image formation on the Shroud.
The testability of this claim was explored by Nicholas Allen, the dean of the Faculty of Art and Design in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He constructed a device known as a camera obscura , and used it in order to try to reproduce the photographic image of the Shroud. This method included the use of 1)rock crystal 2)silver salts and 3)salt of ammonia. This method was produced in order to try to replicate the materials and resources that would have been available to an artist back in the estimated time of production of the Shroud in the fourteenth century in order to create a photographic image without modern technology.
The fruitfulness of this claim is that Nicholas was able to produce an image that closely resembled the Shroud with help from the camera obscura that he constructed in order to replicate the subject at hand, the Shroud.
The scope of this claim is that it explains how it would be possible for an someone in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century to use materials available to them to create a photographic image such as the Shroud of Turin.
The simplicity of this claim isn't very great because by accepting this claim, you will assume that the medieval photographer in question would've known the properties of ultraviolet radiation and that they would've also known how to stabilize his image through the use of ammonia. Not only would the photographer have to be knowledgeable regarding this process but another fact to keep in mind is that this process is claimed to have taken place at a time when the chemical properties of silver nitrate were unknown and there was no knowledge of optics.
The conservatism of this claim is that all of the resources needed to produce this type of primitive photographic image were known to be available at the proposed time the Shroud was made in this claim and that Professor Allen was able to produce these type of photographic images with the camera obscura.
After examining this hypothesis through the criteria for adequacy, I give this claim a low rate for adequacy because even though there was experimentation done to prove that this type of art was able to be produced in the Middle Ages, there is still no proof of who was responsible for the creation of the Shroud and no way of proving its means of creation. In my opinion, it has about the same rate of adequacy as our original claim.
This information was retrieved from a library book entitled "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin. Containing the most up to date analysis of all the facts pertaining to the Shroud of Turin.
Alternative Hypothesis 2:
Author: Madeleine Vaughn
Alternative Claim - The Shroud of Turin is a burial cloth that was placed over a crucifixion victim and bears a likeness of Jesus Christ’s face.
Testability – This claim is testable. The blood stains on the cloth can be compared to the wounds of a person who has been crucified, and the image of the face can be compared to the historical descriptions of Jesus Christ’s face.
Fruitfulness – This claim is fruitful. It allows for predictions to be made as to who was crucified, as well as the characteristics of Jesus Christ’s face, and even predictions about how the image appeared on the cloth.
Scope – This claim does not have a large scope. There is a question of who the cloth could have covered. The image of Jesus’ face leaves many unanswered questions about his height, his skin color, and the state of his health before he died (was he healthy before he was crucified? Had he been beaten? Was he sick?).
Simplicity – I believe this claim to be simpler then our original claim. I think that it would be easier to prove that the cloth was placed over a person who was crucified then to prove that the person was Jesus Christ. Tests could be performed to determine if the stains are actually blood, and experts can verify that the placement of the blood stains are consistent with the wounds that are a result of crucifixion. Without DNA tests, however, there is no conclusive way to determine if it was really used to cover Jesus Christ. A factor that is not simple to explain is the question of the description of Jesus’ face. Yes, that is what we believe him to look like today, but is it really an image of his face? Or something that we have constructed at a later date to fit our perceptions of what he looked like?
Conservatism – This theory is conservative in that it agrees with the views largely held by Christianity. For those who hold no religious beliefs, however, it may be considered to be less conservative.
Alternative Hypothesis #3: The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that bears the likeness of a man that was created by an artist in medieval times.
Author: Jennifer Tavernier
Testability: The claim is testable, from the novel Real Life X-Files by Joe Nickel the author states that the "blood" on the shroud was put through numerous tests and it was proven to be "red ocher and vermilion tempera paint." Also the patterns the "blood" made were said to be inconsistent with real blood.
Fruitfulness: The claim is fruitful for now you can question the reasons this shroud was created and what was it's original function?
Scope: The scope of the claim is limited to explaining the appearance of a human figure on the Shroud.
Simplicity: This claim has great simplicity as the Shroud has tested positive for the red paint like substances, and both of these substances were readily available at the time.
Conservatism: This claim is consistent with our beliefs and the evidence discovered scientifically.
I believe this claim is a simpler explanation then the original claim. Although not as fruitful as the previous alternatives I believe it is the most conservative. The scope is not as great as the other claims but, this claim has a high rate of adequacy
Evidence (Discrediting and Supporting)
Analyzed by: Diamond Vu
Shroud of Turin from the novel "Evolution & Religious Creation Myths" Evolution and Religious Creation Myths : How Scientists Respond
Author: Lurquin, Paul F.; Stone, Linda
This excerpt details facts about the carbon dating of the Shroud.
"One interesting twist regarding variable rates of radioactive decay has to do with the dating of the Shroud of Turin (Italy). This large piece of cloth is purported to have been used to wrap the body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. Not everybody necessarily agreed that the shroud was genuine, regardless of their faith. In a courageous move, the Catholic Church allowed three independent laboratories to use the carbon-14 dating technique on small samples of the shroud. This particular technique works well with samples of biological origin, such as cloth, if they are not older than about 60,000 years. All three labs agreed: the Turin shroud was made in the fourteenth century. In other words, it is a medieval forgery".
Dr. Paul Lurquin is Professor of Genetics at the School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University.
He is one of the pioneers of the science of plant genetic engineering and the author of The Green Phoenix: A History of Genetically Modified Plants (2001).
Dr. Lurquin has written multiple books on the science of plant genetics and molecular biosciences.
I could not find how much experience he has, but his books have been written over ten years ago, so he has at least over a decade of experience.
About carbon dating: It is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years. (Wikipedia, Carbon Dating)
Assessment: Dr. Lurquin has the proper education to make his claim against the carbon dating of the Shroud. He has the knowledge of genetics and can assure that the tests from the labs proves to be true. The carbon found on the Shroud is dated back to the 14th century.
Analyzed by: Madeleine Vaughn
Scientific Journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 Issue 1-2, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers) The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
Analyzed by Jennifer Tavernier
The Grail, the Shroud, & other Religious Relics
Kenneth McIntosh, M.Div.
In the year 1898 the Shroud of Turin was discovered to be a negative image by a photographer named Secondo Pia. He took the first photographs of the shroud and found that when viewed as a negative image (with dark spots and light spots) the image on the Shroud becomes three dimensional. The science of photography was developed in the 1800's, therefore raising the question of how it could possess such properties if it is in fact from the times of Jesus.
The claim that the Shroud could not have originated from the time of Jesus is based on the originations of photography. The claim is featured in Kenneth Mcintosh's book The Grail, The Shroud, and other Religious Relics. The claim made is based on actual fact that photography was not developed until the 1800's. I searched for information on Kenneth McIntosh and any experience that would pertain to this topic but I could find none. I can only assume that this is a claim made by an observer with no actual experience in the field.
Shroud of Turin from the novel "Evolution & Religious Creation Myths" Evolution and Religious Creation Myths : How Scientists Respond
Author: Lurquin, Paul F.; Stone, Linda
This excerpt details facts about the carbon dating of the Shroud.
"One interesting twist regarding variable rates of radioactive decay has to do with the dating of the Shroud of Turin (Italy). This large piece of cloth is purported to have been used to wrap the body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. Not everybody necessarily agreed that the shroud was genuine, regardless of their faith. In a courageous move, the Catholic Church allowed three independent laboratories to use the carbon-14 dating technique on small samples of the shroud. This particular technique works well with samples of biological origin, such as cloth, if they are not older than about 60,000 years. All three labs agreed: the Turin shroud was made in the fourteenth century. In other words, it is a medieval forgery".
Dr. Paul Lurquin is Professor of Genetics at the School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University.
He is one of the pioneers of the science of plant genetic engineering and the author of The Green Phoenix: A History of Genetically Modified Plants (2001).
Dr. Lurquin has written multiple books on the science of plant genetics and molecular biosciences.
I could not find how much experience he has, but his books have been written over ten years ago, so he has at least over a decade of experience.
About carbon dating: It is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years. (Wikipedia, Carbon Dating)
Assessment: Dr. Lurquin has the proper education to make his claim against the carbon dating of the Shroud. He has the knowledge of genetics and can assure that the tests from the labs proves to be true. The carbon found on the Shroud is dated back to the 14th century.
Analyzed by: Madeleine Vaughn
Scientific Journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 Issue 1-2, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers) The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
In 2005, Raymond N. Rogers published his findings that the Carbon-14 dating that was completed on a sample of The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was not valid, and that the Shroud is actually much older then those samples indicated.
Education – Raymond N. Rogers received his Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry in 1948 from the
Experience –
Accomplishments –. He received the Los Alamos National Laboratory Distinguished Performance Award in 1984. He received the Exceptional Civilian Service Medal in 1991 from the Department of the Air Force. His work on the Shroud was published in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta.
Position -
Reputation –
Bias – I do not believe that
Analyzed by Jennifer Tavernier
The Grail, the Shroud, & other Religious Relics
Kenneth McIntosh, M.Div.
In the year 1898 the Shroud of Turin was discovered to be a negative image by a photographer named Secondo Pia. He took the first photographs of the shroud and found that when viewed as a negative image (with dark spots and light spots) the image on the Shroud becomes three dimensional. The science of photography was developed in the 1800's, therefore raising the question of how it could possess such properties if it is in fact from the times of Jesus.
The claim that the Shroud could not have originated from the time of Jesus is based on the originations of photography. The claim is featured in Kenneth Mcintosh's book The Grail, The Shroud, and other Religious Relics. The claim made is based on actual fact that photography was not developed until the 1800's. I searched for information on Kenneth McIntosh and any experience that would pertain to this topic but I could find none. I can only assume that this is a claim made by an observer with no actual experience in the field.
Claim
The Shroud of Turin is the linen cloth placed over the body Jesus Christ at his burial and bears the likeness of his face.
Write and design the website. It's fine to assign roles, but don't turn it into several individual projects. Work together to design a website that covers the entire SEARCH process (see below).
Post the completed project on a website and submit the URL here. In your personal submission of the URL describe what you did on the project (e.g. read all of the files, contributed to discussion, worked on the simplicity and scope criteria statements, found graphics, etc.).VERY IMPORTANT: Be sure that you INDIVIDUALLY send me the URL and assess your own participation. The grade is based on your contribution to ensure the overall quality of the group project. Individual members of a group can, and do, get radically different grades. However, without an individual statement and posting of the URL, I can't grade your work.
SEARCH process:
Your project is due by July 29th
Post the completed project on a website and submit the URL here. In your personal submission of the URL describe what you did on the project (e.g. read all of the files, contributed to discussion, worked on the simplicity and scope criteria statements, found graphics, etc.).VERY IMPORTANT: Be sure that you INDIVIDUALLY send me the URL and assess your own participation. The grade is based on your contribution to ensure the overall quality of the group project. Individual members of a group can, and do, get radically different grades. However, without an individual statement and posting of the URL, I can't grade your work.
SEARCH process:
- STATE the claim.
- EXAMINE the evidence for the claim.
- CONSIDER alternative hypotheses.
- RATE according to the criteria of adequacy each HYPOTHESIS
Your project is due by July 29th
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)