LACMA double-niche Anatolian carpet
Hi Pat,
You say in Part 3: The session on the LACMA double-niche
Anatolian carpet, a rug whose age and authenticity have been questioned, showed
that it had been repaired extensively and at least three different times. Carbon
dating appears to indicate an age ranging from 1460 to 1650, more or less in the
range given when it was purchased by the museum.
Wasn’t that the rug
our most faithful reader and troll (and self-elected Supreme Galactic Authority
on ANY kind of textiles), Jack Cassin, has claimed for years that was much more
recent?
Wasn’t that - Jack kept on saying - the “perfect opportunity” for
the rugdom to learn the truth… attending Dr. Gilberg’s lecture on the
carbon-dating of LACMA rug? What happened then?
Could you please
elaborate a bit on the matter?
It sounds like Jack’s nth fiasco, we have the right to know
more!
Regards,
Filberto
Hi Filiberto
Well, he was only off by about 200 years in his
oh-so-confident date attribution.
It is ironic that he now (yesterday)
claims to be able to place Winston Chorlton's juval into a 25 year window (1825
to 1850) on the basis of photos displayed on a monitor.
I think the big
obstacle in making date attributions is that we don't have databases of rugs
with well documented ages, at least not for most genres. There probably aren't
10 Turkmen pieces for which there is documentary or physical evidence of ages
more than 125 years. That being the case, estimates (educated guesses) are
possible based on the conventional wisdom, but it is absurd to think that they
can't be wrong. The estimates become less reliable as the estimated age
increases and as the window of the attribution becomes smaller. His belief that
he can accurately attribute a Turkmen juval to the period 1825-1850 is
self-deception if he believes it, something much worse if he doesn't. Likewise
for his insistence for more than 2 years (maybe 3 years, I've lost track) that
the LACMA Turkish carpet is ca 1800.
Regards
Steve Price
LACMA is close to Hollywood
The talk was only about a half an hour, so we were not provided with
graphical analysis of the carbon dating of the rug in question, only that the
carbon 14 results indicated a date in the range from 1460 to 1650. This range is
significant in that radiocarbon dating is either conclusively pre-1650 or, if
later than 1650, possibly from multiple age ranges due to the fact that carbon
14 peaked in the late 18th century to a level equal to that of earlier ages.
So the pre-1650 dating removes the uncertainty of whether it could possibly
have been made later.
As Jurg Rageth notes in his book Anatolian Kilims and
Radiocarbon Dating,
"Because of the statistical uncertainties of both
the C14 analysis and the calibration curve, it is not possible to quote an exact
historical age. Only a time interval can be given, in which the true age lies
with a certain probability."
And:
"The radiocarbon dating method may be
somewhat imprecise for our purposes, and for the period after 1650 must be used
with great care."
We were not informed how many tests were made or what
the percentage of confidence of the test(s) was, and I do not recall if tests
were conducted at more than one facility.
Interestingly, it was shown with
the other testing methods that the rug has been significantly repaired and that
the repairs had been done three different times. I do not recall what percentage
of the rug was repaired, but it was not just a small area.
More C14 testing
is being done on the repaired areas to see if they can determine the age of the
repairs.
I suppose it is a bit like deciding how old Michael Jackson or any
Miss Universe is based on the percentage of original material remaining.
Patrick Weiler
As expected, our most faithful troll is foaming with rage and multiplying his
activity against us.
If there aren’t any significant contributions to this
thread today, I suggest closing it down.
I have no time, patience nor the
inclination for dealing with mentally insane people.
Filiberto
Hi All
There is a post on that (ugh) "discussion forum" yesterday that
I think says it all. Here is the relevant excerpt:
... steve price or
filiberto ... have the ignorance and false sense of righteousness to claim RK is
off base.
From anybody except him, it would be astonishing. From a
narcissist, it's expected.
Steve Price
Yeah...
…like if we were the ones who performed the C14
text, right?
Steve, I have found a new emoticon: we could use it in Turkotek at the place
of JACK CASSin’s name.
If you like it, copy it in the “smilies”
folder.
The
name is jackass.gif, of course.
Regards,
Filiberto
Now, let's brace for more of 's messages...
Hi Pat
I'd like to return to the LACMA carpet, as entertaining as it
is to point out Cassin's ridiculous narcissism. Two issues in
particular.
First, one that you raised: LACMA's intention to do C14
analysis of the restorations. I'm kind of puzzled by about this one; it seems
pointless to me. All they can hope to learn is the age of the wools used in
those restorations, which is not the same thing as knowing when the restorations
were done. So, I wonder, why do they even care? C14 analysis isn't
cheap.
Second, the more general problem of date attribution. There's a
central fact: the rug was woven at some particular time. The problem is to know
when that was. The typical approach in Rugdom is to get expert opinions. This
involves, first, identifying the experts (not as trivial as it might seem).
Second, and usually overlooked, is recognizing the limitations of the opinions
of the experts. Expert opinion must sooner or later be traced to the database of
rugs of documented dates from which properties can be extracted that allow
accurate discriminations to be made. Sadly, the database for rugs that can be
documented to predate 1875 or so is very small. Since the experts derive their
criteria from the same sources, the fact that they all agree that a piece dates
to, say, 1750, is better than nothing. But it isn't something on which you'd
want to bet your life.
The less usual approach is to get hard data, like
C14 analysis, on a rug. Now, C14 dating has lots of problems. For instance, a
C14 date of 1750 or later is meaningless. In addition, trace contamination from
smoke can increase the apparent age by centuries. There are other problems as
well. But people who do C14 analysis professionally are usually aware of these
problems, and results from professional practitioners of the method should be
considered reliable unless there is good reason to think otherwise (a history of
fraud, for instance).
So, in the case of the LACMA carpet, the C14 data
overrides whatever expert opinions there are about it. Indeed, unless and until
there is data to contradict it, this becomes one of the very few rugs that can
now be documented to have been made between 1450 and 1650, and is part of that
very small database. It may require that experts (and, of course, pseudo
experts) revise their criteria for date attributions of rugs of this
genre.
Anyway, that's where I am on all of this.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
If I am understanding what you said in regard to the first
point in your last post C14 dating is useless in telling whether the wool tested
was reprocessed and respun from old wool in more modern times. Am I
understanding correctly? Sue
Hi Sue
C14 dating of wool gives the approximate time the wool was
removed from the sheep.
Restorations nowadays are often done with wool
taken from old kilims. If you were to do C14 analysis on such a restored area,
you'd get the age of the wool. The restoration could have been done last week;
if the wool was 500 years old, it would show up as 500 years old.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
Thank you. Now were you, alone, aware of that? Would you
expect it to be common knowledge within the scientific community or, at least,
well known amongst specialists who are qualified as capable of performing such
tests? Sue
Hi Sue
I think anyone conversant with C14 dating would know it.
Strictly speaking, if C-14 was perfectly accurate and precise, it would give you
the date on which the vegetation that the sheep ate was last part of a living
plant. That isn't likely to be more than a year before the shearing, and when a
method has a 95% confidence interval of more than 100 years, who worries about a
year or two?
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
I don't think a year or two matters much either unless one
year the 500 year old wool is in an old kilim and the next year it is used to
restore pile in rug. As you say, that happens, and I agree with you that it
does. So I don't see how a restored rug can be useful in establishing a data
base of dated rugs based on C14 tests, from what you have said. I think the
test's usefulness may be more appropriate for, and limited to, a dated wool data
base. Sue
Hi Anyone
We just blocked a reply from JACK cASSin. It
objects to the notion that sheep feed on vegetation. Here's the relevant
part:
... clown....you are too stupid to even bother to
critique....sheep vegetation? idiot
Does this mean that there's
actually someone in Rugdom who doesn't know that sheep graze? If he knows that
they graze, what does he think they eat when they graze?
Cheeseburgers?
This belongs in the Urban Dictionary - it's
what they call a "cassinization".
Steve Price
Hi Sue
My understanding is that the C14 dating of the LACMA rug was
based on wool from pile that was original. The fact that they say that they
intend to do C14 analysis on restored parts implies this to be the case. If
that's so, the rug is a documented example of a mid-16th century (plus or minus
100 years) Turkish rug. For the most part, it should be useful in contributing
criteria for recognizing Turkish rugs of that period. The design and colors were
probably reproduced pretty faithfully in the restoration (that's nearly always
the case), and the pile and foundation in the parts that are original are
mid-16th century work.
It may be typical of the period, it may not be.
But I don't see how any database of mid-16th century Turkish rugs can fail to
include it.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
I read about this rug being C14 tested, (at the above,
emoticonned, person's site), long before I read there about it's having been
restored so my understanding is that the carbon dating was done before it was
generally known that the rug had been restored because the above mentioned
person would have brought that into his argument long before it appeared there
if he knew about it.
There must be a timeline somewhere recording the
testing sequence which could clear some things up. It's a shame the talk Pat
attended did not include an informative handout for participants. Did anyone
else attend that talk who remembers anything that Pat may have forgotten? Maybe
an answer puzzling all understandings--- why more C14 tests? Sue
Hi Sue
I assume that Gilberg was aware of the extensive restoration
and of the C14 data before he took the podium at ICOC. If the C14 analysis was
done on snippets of restored pile rather than on original sections, he would not
have reported that the C14 data date the rug to between 1450 and 1650. He is,
after all, a professional conservator.
So Cassin knew that C14 analysis
was done (but not the results) but didn't know about the restoration until after
the talk. So what? Even as we discuss it, he is insisting that the C14 analysis
was flawed by contamination and that his own attribution is correct.
My
default position in assessing the reliability of data obtained by professionals
is that they are aware of the well known pitfalls in their methodology, and know
how to avoid them (avoiding the contamination problem is easy once you know it
is a problem). If someone can produce evidence that the analytical lab has a
history of fraud or is incompetent, I'll change my view. But at the moment, my
choices are to accept one of two lines of evidence:
1. Professional C14
analysis that leads to a date of 1550, plus or minus 100 years.
2. Opinions
based on comparison of this rug with other rugs whose ages are, for the most
part, undocumented, that attribute it to around 1800. Oh, and did I mention that
the major proponent (in fact, the only one who's made his opinion public) of
this point of view has a well documented history of presenting fabrications as
facts?
That's where I stand on this. Open to persuasion that I'm wrong,
but haven't seen any reason to think so thus far.
Regards
Steve
Price
A bargain?
Sue,
You said:
"my understanding is that the carbon dating was done
before it was generally known that the rug had been restored"
In fact,
numerous other testing methods had discerned the repaired areas prior to the rug
having been C14 tested. Only the areas of the rug that predated the restorations
were C14 tested prior to ICOC.
Steve is correct when he states that the
"restorations" retained the original design of the rug as woven.
This rug has
been proven by C14 analysis to be, as Steve said: "a mid-16th century (plus or
minus 100 years) Turkish rug" And C14 testing is extremely accurate with rugs
and other organic items that are more than 300 years old.
It may have been a
rural copy of the urban, royal prototype, but it is as old as it was represented
when sold to LACMA.
They may have paid too much for it, but 50 years from now
it may be seen as a bargain.
Send me an e-mail in 2057 and we will compare
notes.
Patrick Weiler
Hi,
An observation:
If the C14 analysis had confirmed ’s thesis, would have glorified the C14 method
and sung hymns to himself (or the other way around).
Now that the C14 has disproved him,
he’s trashing the method.
Classical for a .
Filiberto
(Note: from the tone of the e-mails I’m
receiving, I think he’s on the brink of a heart attack. Should take a crash
course on “Rage Management”…)
Hi Pat
The issues of whether LACMA overpaid or underpaid, or whether
it is of the age that the seller believed it to be when they bought it, are
irrelevant for our purposes. The item of interest here is the rug and the
attention it has drawn to the weaknesses in the usual methods of date
attribution.
I don't know how many rugs of documented similar age there
are out there, probably very few by any standard. Rugs with documented ages are
the only ones that can ultimately provide the criteria on which to base
reasonably reliable eyeball (and tactile) age attribution. They are, for that
reason, important to art history. The notion, "if I like it, it must be old; if
I like it a lot it must be REALLY old", the underpinning of so much date
attribution, may collapse like a house of cards once there are enough rugs with
proven ages. On the other hand, it may wind up being supported by the evidence.
Until there are lots more old rugs with documentable provenance or
scientifically derived dates, there's no way to know.
Incidentally, one
criticism that's been leveled at the C14 analysis is that it gives probabilities
for the dates being within certain ranges, not absolute results. This is a
general problem, not peculiar to C14 dating. Every scientific "truth" is
really a statistical probability. Often, the probability is so high that it
isn't calculated or stated, but it is a finite probability nevertheless. For
most purposes, 95% probability is the accepted scientific standard of "truth".
It is impossible to understand science, its power, and its limitations without
understanding that fact.
Regards
Steve Price
Steve,
Now I'm getting confused. Didn't you say C14 cannot be used to
determine when a rug was woven? Sue
Hi Sue
C14 dating of wool gives the date at which whatever vegetation
the sheep ate (and more or less converted into that wool) was last part of a
living plant. Typically, shearing is a twice a year event, so it's nearly true
to say that C14 dating of the wool gives the date of the shearing (plus or minus
100 years). Since shearing and using the wool for weaving are unlikely to be
more than a year or two apart (if that), talking about the C14 date from
analysis of the wool as the date of the weaving is a reasonable approximation.
Since the C14 data gives a window of plus or minus 100 years on the date, it
does no great violence to the truth to treat it as the date of the
weaving.
Now for restoration. If a rug is restored with wool taken from
kilims that are, say, 100 years older than the original rug, C14 analysis of
wool from the restoration won't give the date at which the rug was woven, but
the date at which the kilim was woven (with the slop of a year or two in the
estimate for the reasons I outlined in the first paragraph).
Does this
help?
Steve Price
old is old
Sue,
The percentage of radioactive carbon 14 in the atmosphere today
is the same as the percentage that is in living tissue-such as bones, hair,
wool, plants and animals that are alive right now.
This percentage of
atmospheric C14 has been shown to change, generally declining over time, until
the above-ground nuclear tests increased it to a level that existed right around
1650. That is why items that were alive AFTER 1650 could have died either in
1650 or 1950. Experts and art historians need to use other means to decide which
date is correct.
This rug has C14 that predates 1650.
A baseline database
derived from tree rings of known age is used to compare items that are tested
today.
Since carbon 14 is radioactive, it decays from the moment a living
tissue stops "consuming" it (when it dies) and this decay occurs at a known
rate. So, when the sheep that wore the wool died, the C14 started to decay and
testing can determine, within a range, when it died. What the testing cannot
tell is when the wool was woven into a rug. It is like folks use old lumber from
a barn for their new furniture. C14 testing would show that the furniture is
"old", even though it is only the wood that is old and the furniture is
new.
P.S. The C14 test compares the relative amounts of C14 with
non-radioactive (therefore non-decaying) C12 and C13.
Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Steve and Patrick. Sue
Hi Steve,
I don't want to be a statistical nitpick, and I know very
little about C14 dating, but a "95% confidence interval" is not strictly the
same as a "95% probability" (that's why it's called a "confidence interval", not
a "probability interval").
The 95% confidence interval is a statistical
concept that relates to the inherent sampling error in a particular measurement.
A 95% confidence interval is equal to +/- 1.96 times the standard error of an
estimate. Each time a study is carried out, you can estimate the standard error,
and compute a 95% confidence interval. Each time you carry out the same
experiment using the same procedures the size of the 95% confidence interval is
the same. So as I understand it, the 95% confidence interval for C14 dating is
+/- 100 years, and for this LACMA rug analysis, the date estimate would be 1550
with a 95% confidence interval of 1450-1650.
Here is the tricky part...
The strict definition of a 95% percent confidence interval is... "if I
repeatedly conduct this experiment and estimate 95% confidence intervals, 95% of
such intervals will contain the true value". So for this particular experiment
you have "95% confidence" that your interval contains the true value. This is
different from probability because this confidence interval either does or does
not contain the true value. An analogy that I like is having a professor go
outside a room of 100 students and ask each of them to make a 1 meter horizontal
line on the same wall. The professor goes outside the room draws a vertical line
on the opposite side of the wall. He returns to the class and announces, "95% of
your lines crossed my line." Then he asks each student "how confident are
your that your line crosses my line?" Each student would correctly answer "I
have 95% confidence that my line crosses your line", even though 5 of them are
wrong.
From a purely statistical perspective, if one accepts the basic
accuracy and precision of C14 dating, then postulating that the true date is
outside of the 95% confidence interval is illogical. Insisting that it must be
outside the 95% confidence interval at one end (i.e. later date) is even less
supportable statistically.
Of course, if one doesn't accept the validity
or stated precision of C14 dating and prefers another method for dating then the
issue of the C14 confidence intervals is moot. But then I would anticipate that
the burden of proving the accuracy and precision of the alternative method
should also be expected.
James.
It seems like it would be a real hassle to carbon date a rug with as much restoration as, apparently, the LACMA rug has. How do you determine what's truly original, and what's truly not? Some restoration work can be truly exceptional. Couldn't such work be judged as original and then lead us to a bogus date? Couldn't even the restoration have been done with wool older than the original parts of the rug--leading us to a bogus early date? And what happens if you take samples both from restored and non-restored portions of the rug? How would that affect the results, and how can we be certain that didn't happen given just how excellent some restoration can be? This method just seems ill-suited to overly restored textiles, so maybe we need to rely on other indicators to determine an appropriate age range? Just a few thoughts...
Hi James
You're right (you already knew that).
Incredible as
it may seem, Cassin believes - really, truly believes - that scientific truth
(as, for example, a date derived from C14 analysis, smoking is bad for your
health, etc.) is invalid unless the probability that it is wrong is precisely
0%. Here is something he wrote this morning, in response to the post to which
you refer:
"Every scientific "truth" is really a statistical
probability" and "95% probability is the accepted scientific standard of
"truth"? Phuleeze, steev you rug-dunce, such a statements would be laughable
were they not uttered from the droopy lips of a PhD professor.
There is
little doubt price is an idiot who twists reality to support his boners and
dumb-bell opinions, as he has done here to vainly try to validate his belief in
C14 dating of old oriental rugs is viable.
Truth is 100% steev and
without truth in science there would be no science, clown.
There you
have it. From God's lips to your eyes.
Steve Price
Hi Ben
My impression is that determining which parts of a rug are
original isn't hard. Although I don't know the details, one approach is to look
at it under UV light. I've also heard different numbers for the percentage of
the LACMA rug that are original. Cassin says 50%, I heard 35% a month or so ago.
Anyone have the straight skinny on that?
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
Various kinds of light were used to locate restorations
before the C-14 process was begun, which is one reason that they knew that
restoration had been done at different times. 35% is right.
Gilberg
himself has a scientific background and stated that the C-14 results were as
reliable as any that could be obtained. He seemed to have no questions about
their accuracy.
Wendel
"Ultraviolet (UV) light is a basic tool of the fine arts and the forensic
sciences, used primarily to expose repairs and forgeries. When a rug is
repaired, or purposely altered such as by changing an inscribed date, the
affected areas may show up strongly when viewed in UV light unless the worker
has employed heroic efforts to disguise his or her endeavors. In Turkey, it is
said, some repair shops use wool unraveled from old kilims in their
restorations. To the extent that the old dyes match those in the rug under
repair, UV detection may be difficult or impossible."
Detecting Frauds
and Repairs on Oriental Rugs with Ultraviolet Light, Phillip R. Lichtman,
Oriental Rug Review, volume 15/6
Last of 's
message:
Dr Gilberg has stated the rug is 50 % repair
plus, you
idiot, science is different than pseudo-science
2 plus 2 equal four --
this is truth
a 1460-1650 C14 date with a 95.4% probability is not
truth
it is "opinion"
So, when Dr. Gilberg says something (exaggerated
by Jack, of course) that
likes, he’s OK.
When Dr. Gilberg says something that doesn’t like, he’s wrong.
And
that's the TRUTH.
Filiberto
Anybody,
Are there really light tests that can reveal if old wool has
been reprocessed and spun or how long a time a knot has been in a rug? I'm sure
I' m not the only one who would like an explanation of those tests. I've never
heard of them before. Sue
Hi Sue
I don't think detecting repairs with UV light is looking at
different properties of wool of different ages, but of different dyes or, at
least, of differences that occur in the fluorescence and light absorption
properties of dyes over time.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi People
The latest, even more incredible than what he's written so
far, appeared today.
1. Although he's repeatedly raised the objection
that C14 rug dating is impossible without calibrating the method with rugs of
known dates, his story today is that calibration of C14 is done with methods
like dendrochronology. He's right, it is. The calibration was done decades ago,
and is considered accurate for things more than 250 or 350 years old (depending
on which expert is doing the regarding). Yes, Jack, it's true. C14 dating is
done against a calibration standard. So is every measurement of any kind. That
makes it scientific, not unscientific. It is unscientific to report a
measurement that can't ultimately relate to a calibration standard.
2.
He cites a 20+ year old paper discussing the problems of dating the shroud of
Turin by C14 as evidence of the method's lack reliability.
3. But the
most astonishing is this jaw-dropping display of reasoning. It is copied and
pasted as a block of text, straight from the source. Although it is an excerpt
of a lengthy post, I have not edited it in any way.
Then, of course,
there is the caveat of "probability" any resulting date carries.
Why
would someone blindly accept a "scientific" procedure, like C14 which is not
really scientific (because it produces "probabilities" not "certainties"), in
comparison to an expert art historical analysis of the object with others of its
type?
Well, we all know most people when stricken with cancer go to a
doctor, even though the doctor knows nothing about the cause of the cancer, how
it came into the body or its cure.
RK believes most cancer patients
would be as well served going to an expert holistic healer or a witch-doctor
shaman.
We pose this example to show the rather illogical and
blind-faith and trust most people put in "science" even when it is not
scientific.
I present it without comment except to note the irony of
the fact that the author often presents himself with the title, "Founder (or
Director, it varies), Weaving Art Museum and Research Institute", with frequent
assertions that he plans to pursue the application of modern forensic science to
the study of rugs. If he's aware of any methods in modern forensic science that
provide something other than statistical probabilities, the entire scientific
community would love to hear about them.
Steve Price
Hi People
I must retract part of my criticism. I said that Cassin has
repeatedly insisted that C14 dating of rugs requires calibration against rugs
with known dates. That's incorrect. He didn't. He has repeatedly stated that
calibration is a problem in C14 dating of rugs. He implies that it is a problem
peculiar to applying the method to rugs, since he acknowledges that many other
kinds of objects can and have been dated by the method.
On the other
hand, the calibration by C14 analysis of wood whose age is documented from tree
ring counts was done several decades ago, and is still in use. There is no
special calibration needed or used for rug analysis.
So, I apologize for
the error.
The notion that a method requiring calibration is
unscientific is bizarre. Any measuring device - ruler, thermometer, scale; you
name it - involves calibration against a standard.
Steve
Price
Note, added on the morning of June 6, 2007
I believe the
following passage, copied and pasted from a post dated yesterday (although I
think it was actually posted a day or two earlier; the dates on the posts on
that site seem to change from day to day), is part of the basis for my
impression of Cassin's position on the need for rugs of known dates against
which to calibrate C14 rug dating:
"So, in fact, any C14 result must be
compared and calibrated against a known. This is why RK has always
maintained a comparison of the C14 result must be compared to a known."
(emphasis in original).
His explanation now is that the "known" to which
he refers is the calibration based on tree ring dates published about 50 years
ago, something that seems not to even be worth mentioning as a special problem
related to analysis of rugs.
Hi People
JACK cASSin's buddy and intellectual equal,
John Lewis, has now weighed in on the matter. He begins by misstating the date
attribution given by C14 (it's 1550, John, not 1650), following it up by
misstating the percentage of the LACMA rug that is said to be restoration (I've
seen two numbers, 35% and 50%; he refers to the rug as 65% restored).
He
concludes his learned dissertation with,
As for Professor Price's
comments about science - he had better take a \"Science 101\" class or is he a
creationist as well?
I presume that he's objecting to my saying that
science deals in probabilities, truth in science being synonymous with
acceptably low probabilities of being incorrect. His position, like that of
JACK cASSin, is that scientific truth is absolute. His earlier
example was the sum of the angles of a triangle (or some related piece of
elementary trigonometry; I'm not sure of the details and don't care enough to
check). JACK cASSin's, reproduced in this thread, is 2+2 =
4.
Well, John and JACK cASSin, here's a chance for you to
unambiguously prove that I'm ignorant about science. With this link, you can
search the
membership of the US National Academy of Sciences. There are
about 1500 members; it brings you to contact information for each of them.
Select as many as you like, and send each a message asking him or her to confirm
that scientific truth is exact and has a 100% probability of being correct. Be
sure to mention that you understand that the notion of scientific truth being a
probability statement is nonsense, you just need affirmation by a few undisputed
experts in order to convince certain idiots who believe the opposite about
scientific truth. Don't forget to tell them that these idiots teach their stupid
ideas to students in American institutions of higher education. That will help
them grasp the gravity of the situation. Oh, do mention that your companion in
this quest is the founder and director of a research institute, and that he
intends to bring modern science to bear on a much neglected area. That will
impress them.
It will take awhile for whoever you contact to stop
laughing, but you'll probably get some replies. Let us know the outcome. If even
one of them supports your position, I will apologize as publicly as I am now
mocking you for being ignorant and too dumb to know it and JACK
cASSin for being ignorant and too narcissistic to know it.
Steve
Price
Hi People
I'd like to return to a cassinization that appeared in the
last few days.
Well, we all know most people when stricken with cancer
go to a doctor, even though the doctor knows nothing about the cause of the
cancer, how it came into the body or its cure.
RK believes most cancer
patients would be as well served going to an expert holistic healer or a
witch-doctor shaman.
In case any readers think this is even an
approximation to fact, I refer you to this
link, which summarizes the success rate of cancer treatment by
physicians. I've been unable to find data on the success of witch doctors or
holistic healers with which to compare it.
Regards
Steve Price
I bet a survey of witch-doctors, shaman, and MD's would probably conclude that the best way to avoid cancer is to avoid rk. Sue
Hi Sue
I find JACK cASSin's a little surprising, but not
astonishing. The notion that science deals in absolute truths is a misconception
that is more common than it should be. His aggressive insistence that he's right
is ridiculous, but not unexpected from him.
But his ignorance about
cancer is shocking, even coming from him. Just about any sixth grader in central
Virginia (which is not exactly the Athens of the USA) knows some of the causes
of cancer and is aware of the fact that some cancers are curable. It's hard to
believe that JACK cASSin has managed to avoid learning any of
that.
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
What I find surprising is that he says he saw this rug in
person and failed to notice, or mention, that it was heavily restored. Some
expert. Sue
Hi Sue
Restorations that are done well are virtually invisible in
normal light, even when the piece is examined closely. So, that part is
understandable.
But, having said that, I'll add that I don't put much
faith in his self-proclaimed expertise in rugs. My experience has been that any
time he talks about something of which I am well informed, he's wrong. Some
recent examples are, of course, the certitude of scientific information and the
world of medicine's total ignorance of the causes and cures of cancers. If he's
clearly full of prunes when talking about things that they know, why should
anyone take his statements seriously when he talks about things of which they
know little?
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
Maybe you are not alone in thinking it is too much to
expect of an expert in historic rugs to be able to determine that a third of a
rug is restorations. No rebuttal from dr. pisstiche, at least, who sees to have
moved his charge onward to higher virtual reality ground by challenging another
rug expert to a duel over c14 methodology, challenging yet another rug expert to
some unspecified something else, (a rug flashcard game or a rugdom spelling bee
or something?), and of course, most importantly, reminding people to vote for
his candidate in 2008 to save the world. Yawn. Sue