James Ossuary, Revisited

[stamenflicker]

There are still tremors in the scientific community over the James Ossuary that I find interesting. I stumbled on this one today after following a few links from Biblical Archeology Review (BAR). It generates for me more questions about science (whose science is to be used?), the appeal to scientific authority (which authority do we appeal to?), the scientific method (ideally it is perfect, but in the real world how perfect is it?), and finally, what do we do about it.

Four questions that I'm certain we won't solve here on Randi, but I've got them none the less. I've brought them up before regarding evolutionary study, of which I am admittedly no expert. I admittedly am equally un-astute when it comes to archeology, but that doesn't necessarily make the questions themselves invalid.

Here's the links:

First, James Herrell disgruntled (and somewhat technical) review of the James Ossuary forgery:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswbOOossuary_HarrellrespondstoJAS.pdf

Second, his proposal and I think excellent summary of the scientific problems around questions of this nature (less technical reading):

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswbOOossuary_Harrellforgeries.pdf

If you have time, I'd be curious of your thoughts.

Flick

 

[Meadmaker]

There are a few things about this controversy that I find intriguing. First, there is the whole fact that this is a controversy at all.

I haven't looked up anything at all about this ossuary since I read about it a long time ago in BAR, so forgive me if I have some facts wrong about the ossuary.

As I understand it, and ossuary with the inscription "James, the Brother of Jesus" was found and presented as an authentic relic from the 1st century AD. As the first link you posted showed, there is general belief that it was in fact from the first century A.D., but the inscription might not have been.

O.K. So what? What is the historical and/or religious significance of this artifact?

First, James and Jesus were both common enough names, so the existence of the artifact would not be proof that any particular James or Jesus actually existed. There's nothing here that proves anything about the Gospel story, so non-Christians shouldn't feel threatened.

As for Christians, the Gospels mention "James, the Brother of Jesus", so, if we assume that this particular James was the brother of that particular Jesus, then we would have...nothing in particular, so Christians shouldn't feel threatened.

I suppose that if you assume that this particular ossuary did in fact belong to that particular "James the brother of Jesus", then you could take it as confirmation of the historical nature of the Gospel accounts, but what you would have then is confirmation that there really was a Jesus who had a brother named James.

Most people assume that the Gospels are, in fact, "based on a true story". In other words, there probably was a Jewish preacher named Jesus who had a following, was killed by the Romans, and a cult sprung up around him afterwards. If you could confirm all of that with 100% accuracy, you couldn't confirm all that walking on water stuff, or the rising from the dead part. So, again, who cares about an ossuary?

Which leads me to the real thrust of the question. The authors of the linked study say, more or less, "This think could very well be real and it looks like the people who studied it did a lousy job analysing it, presumably because they really wanted it to be a forgery." I think he is entirely correct, but I can't figure out why it would be important to anyone to prove this particular thing was a forgery. It just isn't that significant of a find.

As an object of religious veneration I guess it could be cool, though. Kind of like the fingerbones of Saint Winnifred, or whatever goofy stuff people used to get excieted about in the middle ages.

 

[stamenflicker]

Meadmaker,

Which leads me to the real thrust of the question. The authors of the linked study say, more or less, "This think could very well be real and it looks like the people who studied it did a lousy job analysing it, presumably because they really wanted it to be a forgery." I think he is entirely correct, but I can't figure out why it would be important to anyone to prove this particular thing was a forgery. It just isn't that significant of a find.

A good point... why would anyone brush through research with an agenda on something with little real implication for either side? It's not like, as you say, this find is going to make Christianity any less suspect than it already is. It isn't so much the lack of historical evidence (although the historical record is pourous), that promote skepticism and radical doubt: it is the claims themselves.

I find the James Ossuary controversy to be indicative of many of our ideological struggles as rational beings. This author is clearly trying to be reasonable at least to me. But it also seems to me that extremists can't help but put their stamps on most things when given the opportunity. I am absolutely certain that if the "decision" had rested in the hands of a radical conservative, he would have labeled the thing authentic. Where is reason? Where is the triumph of the scientific method? Where is true objectivity to be found, if anywhere?

As I've said in several posts before, I find this ideological interpretation of observable events disturbing. So what happens if and when there is a "big find?" Will it so quickly be deemed a forgery without proper scientific investigation? Will the decision on the item be a plastic response stemming more from a person or group's ideology than good science? If we fail in the small stuff (like the ossuary), aren't we poised for a big nasty fall down the road?

And as I wonder outloud here a second, how many "falls" have we already taken? How many other scientific papers or declarations have been issued using bad or incomplete data? How many Sokal's (if you are familiar with the controversy) are out there pumping our journals with crap? Who has the ability (much less the time or the desire) to analyze the material and ask the right questions? And isn't the problem going to get worse, not better?

Who watches the watchers?

Flick

 

[pgwenthold]

I find the James Ossuary controversy to be indicative of many of our ideological struggles as rational beings. This author is clearly trying to be reasonable at least to me. But it also seems to me that extremists can't help but put their stamps on most things when given the opportunity. I am absolutely certain that if the "decision" had rested in the hands of a radical conservative, he would have labeled the thing authentic.

What do you mean "if"? That's where this whole thing started! Someone put this thing forward and said, "This is the real deal!"

The detractors came back and said, "Not so fast."

Where is reason? Where is the triumph of the scientific method? Where is true objectivity to be found, if anywhere?

Where were those whining about the objectivity of the process when the thing was first proposed to be authentic?

I read the second link. The guy sounds like a crybaby to me. Wahhh. People didn't accept the assertion that the thing was real. We should form an objective committee (yeah, right; next, let's let George Bush chose the members) to serve as a jury. Maybe then this claim won't get dismissed as "technicians" certify that it does not possess the properties that it should if it were what the "scientists" claim it is.

I don't care if you call them technicians or scientists. Experts in analyzing writing in stone are still experts, and their comments about whether the writing is consistent or not is more informed than anything a non-expert can give.

 

[Z]

Well, what bothers me about the contraversy is everyone's behavior. Sure, the guy who tried to pass this off has been guilty in the past of trying to pass forged antiquities; but isn't the behaviour of the government a little suspect, as well? Interrogating him for three hours in his home? Arresting him - then releasing him - and the Media seems to have missed the 'release' part?

At the same time, the methodologies were terrible. Cleaning the inscription, thereby destroying the patina on the inscription? Very suspicious.

And then we get back to the issue of Jewish names, considering that Jews - like some other cultures - prefer to bury their family, if they can, in Holy Land, there may have been many thousands of families from which to draw a sampling of 'James brother of Jesus' examples - even around the estimated time of James' death.

So, really, this artifact is, itself, inconsclusive; but the contraversy that surrounds the artifact is a sad indicator of how poorly people act when confronted by an issue of faith.

 

[Meadmaker]

Where is reason? Where is the triumph of the scientific method? Where is true objectivity to be found, if anywhere?

In reality, I don't think anywhere, although it comes closest in the collective mind of all the people who study the thing, and comment, and review all those who did. Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have biases. We can hope that eventually enough people will put their heads together and come up with a consistent answer we all can believe.

And asking for "objectivity", in studying a very old box that may or may not have some significance to the truth of miracle workers, is asking a great deal.

 

[Robin]

And as I wonder outloud here a second, how many "falls" have we already taken? How many other scientific papers or declarations have been issued using bad or incomplete data? How many Sokal's (if you are familiar with the controversy) are out there pumping our journals with crap?

This is misleading, Sokal did not publish his fraud in a scientific journal.

Certainly crap does get published in scientific journals, it generally does not matter in fact it is a good thing since it means that every idea is considered, no idea is ever censored because it does not fit with existing theories.

Eventually the wheat gets sorted from the chaff, it does not require a watchdog, if poor methodology is used it will eventually show when someone tries to replicate.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I find the James Ossuary controversy to be indicative of many of our ideological struggles as rational beings. This author is clearly trying to be reasonable at least to me. But it also seems to me that extremists can't help but put their stamps on most things when given the opportunity.

That would almost be a definition of an extremist.

Where is reason? Where is the triumph of the scientific method? Where is true objectivity to be found, if anywhere?

Modesty alone forbids me to answer that question.

So what happens if and when there is a "big find?" Will it so quickly be deemed a forgery without proper scientific investigation? Will the decision on the item be a plastic response stemming more from a person or group's ideology than good science? If we fail in the small stuff (like the ossuary), aren't we poised for a big nasty fall down the road?

But you are premature in your judgement. Scientific questions are not settled overnight. Have "we" failed --- yet? While the argy-bargy is still going on?

And as I wonder outloud here a second, how many "falls" have we already taken? How many other scientific papers or declarations have been issued using bad or incomplete data?

Lots.

How many Sokal's (if you are familiar with the controversy) are out there pumping our journals with crap?

This is not a good example. What this hoax showed was that non-scientists aren't competent to tell the difference between science and crap. Or, no, that's too harsh --- it showed that one particular bunch of non-scientists were publishing stuff about science without bothering to check whether it was science or crap, which is simply being to lazy to do their jobs.

Who has the ability (much less the time or the desire) to analyze the material and ask the right questions? And isn't the problem going to get worse, not better?

"Who has the time and the desire?" you ask. Well, as I said, lots of rubbish gets into scientific papers, and occasionally into textbooks. If the supposed "fact" is important, people will act on it, and so find out that it's wrong. If it isn't, they won't, and it may remain enshrined it some back issue of some scientific journal which no-one bothers to read. We couldn't be seriously wrong about gravity, or our bridges and satelites would fall down, and our spacecraft would miss Mars. On the other hand, the established wisdom could easily be wrong about whether or not the duck-billed platypus is monogamous, 'cos who cares?

Who watches the watchers?

They watch each other. The ossuary is claimed genuine, another bunch of people say it's fake, a third guy objects to that. And so it goes.

The correct answer might be "Given the evidence, we just don't know" --- but you might say that about any open question. That is how the argument might end up, but to begin with it is better if people do fight their corners, search for evidence, search for arguments. It may indeed end in stalemate, but that should be the end of the game and not the beginning.

We should note that here we have a scientific question about one singular thing (for the ossuary, I take it, is admitted by everyone to be genuine). The one question is whether the inscription is genuine. We see if this hypothesis fits the facts: and a sufficiently expert forger could make it fit the facts. Now this is different from the status of what we would usually call an "scientific theory" --- that is, a generalisation about nature, such as the theory of gravity, which can be tested any time, anywhere, by anyone (who knows it and can calculate its consequences). There is just one ossuary. Genuine or fake? We may never know.

 

[stamenflicker]

pgwenthold,

Where were those whining about the objectivity of the process when the thing was first proposed to be authentic?

I don't know of anyone proposing it to be authentic from the start except for the guy trying to make some money off of it. There were a great many false assumptions about what it might mean if authentic, but I don't recall anyone rushing out to say we've proved Jesus-- except maybe some forum nuts. I admit when I first heard about it, I found it interesting. What I didn't expect was that the inscription would hardly have a "snowball's chance" of getting an objective review.

The first official declaration about the inscription is "forgery" to my knowledge. Not a "we don't know" or a "we suspect this based on these unbiased evidences" as Dr. Adequate suggested below, which I think is pretty reasonable.


Zaarydragon,

So, really, this artifact is, itself, inconsclusive; but the contraversy that surrounds the artifact is a sad indicator of how poorly people act when confronted by an issue of faith.

That's how I see it... on both sides of the debate.


Robin,

no idea is ever censored because it does not fit with existing theories.

I wish I shared your optimism on this... even if the idea wasn't censored and I think sometimes it is, certainly the funding to conduct the research at all is controlled based largely on existing theories, or sometimes the ability to turn a profit for the investor in sort of a captitalist self-censor scientific method.

As for Sokal you are correct-- I think it was some kind of post-modern journal or something. It's been a while since I read about it. He was demonstrating how easy it is to pass off bad science to a layman. I don't find that any more comforting however, could science become the next wave of propoganda? Who would be the wiser if they all teamed up?

Dr. A,

Have "we" failed --- yet? While the argy-bargy is still going on?

Well a formal declaration of forgery was made and there are no indications that the item will be re-tested for authenticity. Now dialogue is continuing so I suppose the door isn't shut all the way, but there was certainly a concerted effort to close it, and close it quick, in my opinion. Again for an item of little consequence in the scheme of things, this says more about the way science may choose to approach a "faith" issue than about the ossuary itself.

Or, no, that's too harsh --- it showed that one particular bunch of non-scientists were publishing stuff about science without bothering to check whether it was science or crap, which is simply being to lazy to do their jobs.

I guess it goes back to that time and effort thing. I wonder if there is a rating system for periodicals and journals and pop science magazines as to the reliability scale into which fall?

On the other hand, the established wisdom could easily be wrong about whether or not the duck-billed platypus is monogamous, 'cos who cares?

I don't know in that situation if anyone cares, but what if they did? Particularly disturbing to me was to read a recent poll that suggested people of faith were chosing the helping professions (and accompanying college degrees) at a rate of like 5 to 1. I wish I could find that... something like only 15% of people of faith were chosing the sciences in even undergraduate work. That is uber scary to me and many levels... scary for people of faith, and scary for science.

Flick

 

[Robin]

I wish I shared your optimism on this... even if the idea wasn't censored and I think sometimes it is, certainly the funding to conduct the research at all is controlled based largely on existing theories, or sometimes the ability to turn a profit for the investor in sort of a captitalist self-censor scientific method.

You only quoted the last clause of my sentence and the rest of the sentence make it clear that I am talking in the context of scientific publishing:

Certainly crap does get published in scientific journals, it generally does not matter in fact it is a good thing since it means that every idea is considered, no idea is ever censored because it does not fit with existing theories.

In other words to insist that every single thing that is published in a scientific journal is beyond any reproach would halt science in its tracks. The fact that crap sometimes, even often gets published gives me optimism that unusual ideas will also get published. And the genuine crap probably never lasts the course.

As for Sokal you are correct-- I think it was some kind of post-modern journal or something. It's been a while since I read about it. He was demonstrating how easy it is to pass off bad science to a layman. I don't find that any more comforting however, could science become the next wave of propoganda? Who would be the wiser if they all teamed up?

I think that the Sokal was trying to make a point about post modernism rather than science. In fact his article did not make even basic sense irrespective of the science it was just meaningless sentences strung together.

It is pretty hard to imagine scientists banding together to present false evidence. Why do you think scientists get involved in the field in the first place - power and prestige? Very, very few get that. Scientists generally are motivated by curiosity, so why would they conspire to ensure that they could never satisfy that curiosity?

And how would they manage this conspiracy? There is no giant sinister secret society of scientists where they can all meet and plot without anybody getting to hear about it. Everything they do is in the open.

And what would they conspire to propagandise? I don't think there is any major political aim that scientists have in common.

And if scientists started to conspire together to fake results, stuff would eventually stop working - I think that someone would notice that!

Particularly disturbing to me was to read a recent poll that suggested people of faith were chosing the helping professions (and accompanying college degrees) at a rate of like 5 to 1. I wish I could find that... something like only 15% of people of faith were chosing the sciences in even undergraduate work. That is uber scary to me and many levels... scary for people of faith, and scary for science.

Can you point me to this poll? It doesn't gel with my experience. But if it was true then the culprit would not be science but this dumb campaign in the USA to denigrate science.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well a formal declaration of forgery was made and there are no indications that the item will be re-tested for authenticity.

And at the time that this thing was first shown to the world, you might equally have said "A formal declaration of authenticity was made and there are no indications that the item will be re-tested for forgery".

Now dialogue is continuing so I suppose the door isn't shut all the way, but there was certainly a concerted effort to close it, and close it quick, in my opinion.

But as your own post shows, the door has not been closed. Any more than it was closed when the ossuary was declared authentic. The door is in fact still swinging backwards and forwards, like the argument.

Again for an item of little consequence in the scheme of things, this says more about the way science may choose to approach a "faith" issue than about the ossuary itself.

I'm not sure that I agree. You suppose that the conflicting opinions of archaeologists on this subject are caused by "faith". But why? Can you actually show anyone on either side who is actually twisting and lying and distorting? Or are both sides presenting facts and arguments?

Also, I don't want to be mean, but I might unleash the mighty power of the tu quoque. Why is a pastor niggling over this particular question in archaeology rather than any other? You can find archaeologists in dispute about any number of things --- it is amongst the most difficult of sciences.

I guess it goes back to that time and effort thing. I wonder if there is a rating system for periodicals and journals and pop science magazines as to the reliability scale into which fall?

Well, the pop science magazines are worse. But worst of all are the pop science books. Arrgh!

I don't know in that situation if anyone cares, but what if they did?

You've missed my point by inches. No-one cares whether the duck-billed platypus is monogamous, because --- well, what if it is, or what if it isn't? If someone cared for some reason --- if, say, some industry or technology was built up on the theory that the platypus is monogamous, and it isn't --- then someone would care --- and they would also know.

Mt point could be summarised like this: science can't be wildly wrong about any important idea, because an important idea is one which we keep on using, and so we'd notice if we were widly wrong.

Our ideas about gravity are important, and cannot be wildly wrong. Our ideas about the sex life of the duck-blled platypus are not very important, and are much more likely to be wrong.

Particularly disturbing to me was to read a recent poll that suggested people of faith were chosing the helping professions (and accompanying college degrees) at a rate of like 5 to 1. I wish I could find that... something like only 15% of people of faith were chosing the sciences in even undergraduate work. That is uber scary to me and many levels... scary for people of faith, and scary for science.

Oh, thanks, you helped me mount one of my hobby-horses. Let me ride it. Now I have to write an essay. Thanks a lot.

First, since I know you can take a bit of a ribbing, could I just say ARRRRRRRGH!

Thank you so much. I will.

ARRRRRRRGH!

YOU ARE QUOTING THE WRONG STATISTICS.

15% of people of faith choose the sciences. As opposed to what percentage of agnostics and atheists? You don't say. Perhaps 15% is the national average. In which case, you might worry about the national situation, but you'd have no particular reason to worry about what people of faith are doing.

Consider --- if you could show that only 10% of agnostics/atheists took the same course, then you could conclude that belief in God leads people closer to the search for the truth about Nature. Where are your statistics?

[Also --- consider this. I gather that only about 10% of Americans (I take it you are American) are without faith. Now if every single one of these agnostics/atheists did undergraduate work in science, which they don't --- then they would still be outnumbered by the 15% science students who do undergraduate work in science of the 90% who are believers.

If your figures and mine are anywhere near correct, and if we both agree that it is silly to assume that all atheists become scientists, then I don't see why the "15%" figure which you quote should be "scary to people of faith".]

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

Also --- consider this. I gather that only about 10% of Americans (I take it you are American) are without faith. Now if every single one of these agnostics/atheists did undergraduate work in science, which they don't --- then they would still be outnumbered by the 15% science students who do undergraduate work in science of the 90% who are believers.

This is your best point in your thread. You're right of course, I never thought of it that way. As to the rest of your response on theists in science, we'll have to save that for a later time.

And at the time that this thing was first shown to the world, you might equally have said "A formal declaration of authenticity was made and there are no indications that the item will be re-tested for forgery".

I don't know of any formal declaration of authenticity. Maybe when the media suggests that "They found this burial box over in the Middle East that contains the inscription..." it was projecting a false sense of authenticity? When this first was being discussed I remember a whole lot of, "Well if it proves genuine then...," but again I know of no declaration of authenticity from any particular group.

But as your own post shows, the door has not been closed. Any more than it was closed when the ossuary was declared authentic. The door is in fact still swinging backwards and forwards, like the argument.

I'm not sure it was ever declared authentic. The image of the door swinging back and forth works for me, if the reality pans out.

Can you actually show anyone on either side who is actually twisting and lying and distorting? Or are both sides presenting facts and arguments?

Read the first link above and let me know what you think. You can jump to the summary if you want. Four objections to the original research as I recall... one of which is an accusation of possibly intentionally changing the name of a published article cited in their research in order to debunk the authors.

Why is a pastor niggling over this particular question in archaeology rather than any other? You can find archaeologists in dispute about any number of things --- it is amongst the most difficult of sciences.

Because I find it interesting. It is particularly interesting if bad or sloppy science is involved, as is the accusation, and to what degree bad or sloppy science receives official declarations of any kind. Surely I would feel the same way if the Church "collective" in America officially endorsed or declared Intelligent Design to be authentic.

Consider --- if you could show that only 10% of agnostics/atheists took the same course, then you could conclude that belief in God leads people closer to the search for the truth about Nature. Where are your statistics?

I didn't think I was concluding anything, except maybe that a diversity of perspectives is beneficial to any endeavor, even science. In which case, I suppose we need more atheists, not theists. You guys need to learn the science of an alter call.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

The fact that crap sometimes, even often gets published gives me optimism that unusual ideas will also get published. And the genuine crap probably never lasts the course.

I see what you meant now... by the way the science propaganda was sort of tongue in cheek, but it opens the door for a good conversation anyway.

And if scientists started to conspire together to fake results, stuff would eventually stop working - I think that someone would notice that!

I agree with Dr. A, if it is "important" it will be noticed, and yes, if things start breaking, it will be noticed. But that only covers a portion of the sciences. Archeology, being one of the sciences that could easily go a long while without anyone noticing whether something was dated accurately, or placed in the right spot on an ancient map. Psychology has always been a suspect science and the cheif liar of our time, at least in my mind. And there are a few of the ther soft sciences. So I suppose it is possible for bad science to float around a bit unchallenged, at least to borrow from above, when its not of uber "importance."

If what the author in the first link of the OT says in true, and the archeological community endorsed the report anyway, I'm just saying that is a scary thought and I'm just wondering out loud how often that occurs.

Flick

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I find it ironic that people of faith are in such a twit over a piece of real ( or not ) evidence..




" We don't need no stinkin' evidence ! Oh, wait ! What's this ? A piece of evidence? Oh my ! "

 

[Ladewig]

A webpage noting the inconsistencies in the two halves of the inscription.

 

[pgwenthold]

A webpage noting the inconsistencies in the two halves of the inscription.

Hmm, all I see is an ad hawking a book.

 

[Ladewig]

Hmm, all I see is an ad hawking a book.

Sorry wrong link. That one is useful because it has a close-up of the inscription.

Here is one that describes that the second half is different from the first.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Read the first link above and let me know what you think.

I can't --- it's in pdf format, and my computer doesn't know what to do with it.

To provide a link which everyone can read you can google on some phrase in the article: google will give a link to an automatically html'ed version of the text, and you can link to that.

 

[hgc]

I can't --- it's in pdf format, and my computer doesn't know what to do with it.

...

You are, like, soooo '97.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Don't mock my operating system!

One day, you too will be old, slow, and useless.