>The distance between that which we consider fact and that which we consider >opinion - that which we believe true and that which are inclined to believe >- there's significant difference there.
Certainly. Not saying there isn't. >When somebody is willing to admit not being sure, that's important, I think. Of course. And all I'm saying is that my experience and opinion does not agree with yours. >How much of his work have you read? Do you have ANY experience with him >beyond the Shroud? Yes...I've seen his work on forged documents/writing and also have read much of what he has written on other religious artifacts, most recently the ossuary of James. And for the record, I've not seen anything to discredit him on these. >His work covers several decades and no serious challenge to his credibility >has ever been raised to my knowledge. Not at all true, there have been quite a few in the scientific community that have questioned his credentials to perform "scientific testing". You have to keep in mind as well that much of what he is doing by making false claims about the shroud being faked is to completely discredit the scientists who work has shown otherwise. You can bet that when he says that peer-reviewed scientific studies were not done properly, those that did them are going to stand up and show how wrong he is! There's a fair amount of this debate (which centers around the most recent C-14 findings) here: http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/ >In this case I haven't seen any instances where he's ignored evidence. Whoa, you've got to be kidding! The majority of his claim that it is fake is based on McCrone's finding that suggested paint which has long since been discredited many, many times over in many ways. McCrone never studied any part of the shroud directly, only samples of dust taken with tape, and there are many questions about his own credibility as well (if you follow the links to the very articles in the above link, you'll find a bit of discussion on this as well.) McCrone is certainly a talented, highly respected microscopist...but not a research scientist and known to be disdainful of other disciplines and results that did not match his. He was the only one of over 30 scientists on the STURP project that claimed that he could tell how the image was made...even though he never directly looked at any part of the shroud. To then place his conclusions above every other scientist then and since is simply not reasonable. >Rather you've stated instances where he's addressed evidence but failed to >do so to your satisfaction, or accepted evidence that you (and clearly not >he) feel has been properly refuted. Uh, not just me. Find me an example of any accredited scientist *other than McCrone* that agrees with the shroud being fake. They simply aren't out there because any scientist that knows his stuff cannot make this conclusion, there is far too much data so far to refute it. There are certainly many that have attempted to duplicate the image and some success in at least getting the appearance of the shroud image. But no scientist would agree that a viable fake that meets all the criteria needed has been made. Nickell could certainly argue instead that there's no proof it is authentic...this is a logical and very reasonable conclusion. Heck, he could even go with the argument that some have thrown about that someone might have took a body, brutalized and crucified it and then used it to create the shroud (pretty unlikely but theoretically possible.) He could even make the argument that there is *some* data that supports it being a forgery. This is certainly true as well, although it pales in the face of evidence to the contrary. But he takes the additional step of saying it has been proven a forgery...which is patently false and scientifically flawed. >Again, what's the "fake" here? That's it's simply not as old as we think? >Could it simply have been a forgery from the 1st century rather than the >14th? Or is "fake" related only to the connection with Jesus as the son of >God? I believe I already answered this. I've not read Nickell's latest book so not sure what that says, but he has certainly claimed up until now that it is a forgery (he calls it the "Fraud of Turin")...that someone created it. This is what is simply not a viable conclusion. As I mentioned earlier, the scientists still cannot even explain how the image was created....a necessary step to determine if it was created by some natural means or was man-made. >Extraordinary claims require extraordinary >evidence - it's a cliché, but it's true. Absolutely. But keep in mind that the scientists that study the shroud and that Nickell just tosses aside as "pro-authenticity" are not looking for supernatural explanations...as any good scientists they are seeking to find natural explanations for how the image came about. It's a mystery...and nothing drives a good scientist more than wanting to find the truth behind something. There are many that participate in shroud research that have no Christian affiliation or religious agenda...they are intrigued by this image that has so many unique, inexplicable qualities and look to explain how they may have come about. >But other than that there's not much difference, no amount ignorance about >anything is evidence for any claim, supernatural or otherwise. Skeptics (at >least organized skeptics) just don't consider things in that way. Of course, I totally agree. But a *good* skeptic cannot just pick and chose those pieces of evidence he wants to consider. To do so, as Nickell clearly has done here, is to lose credibility. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250287 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
