> -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:47 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no..... > > >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
But what "scientific testing" has he claimed to do? In my experience, as an investigator, he reports on the testing of others. He definitely has done experiments... but I'm not sure how "scientific" I'd call them. For example he showed that the Nazca lines could be drawn from the ground using basic tools and math. It was a good experiment, a fun experiment but not truly "scientific" - all he set out to do was show that it could be done and he did it. I can't really find any claims made by him of doing any "lab work" or the like. This is especially true in the case of the Shroud where he's never been allowed access. > 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: I still don't really see the problem here. There's definitely argument and debate but as far as I can tell nobody is doing anything "wrong" per se - each side is presenting and refuting evidence, calling each other names, questioning their credentials and so forth. In other words everyday science. ;^) > >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 >snip< > the shroud. To then place his conclusions above every other scientist > then and since is simply not reasonable. Possibly not. It may be a mistake, it may be ill-advised. But it simply doesn't impugn Nickell. This HAPPENS ALL THE TIME in science! Scientists are people and make the same mistakes that we do. A scientist who is wrong, even vehemently, grossly wrong isn't drummed out of the profession! Rather scientists who are consistently wrong, consistently sloppy (or plain dishonest) become more and more marginalized. I'm suggesting that discounting Nickell (especially discounting his entire body of work) because of this is wrong, not that he's definitely right. Nickell may very well be wrong in this, but his work (wrong tho' it may be) can still be of high quality. He's not an outlier (he's not fighting an overwhelming consensus on this topic) - the shroud is a controversial topic. I don't think we're arguing about that. So either Nickell (and McCrone) are so influential that they can generate such controversy or there are serious questions. Honestly it doesn't interest me enough to find out but I see nothing which would make me lean in either direction (if we're just talking about the age of the shroud). > >Again, what's the "fake" here? That's it's simply not as old as we > >Could it simply have been a forgery from the 1st century rather than > >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 I agree it may not be a viable conclusion, but it's a very logical hypothesis. Religious fraud was RAMPANT during the time. Artifacts were popping up all over the place - over a dozen churches in Italy claimed to have the head of John the Baptist. The lack of any history before then is also telling. All I'm saying is that it is a reasonable, logical hypothesis. There is clearly controversy about the Shroud, enough to make me skeptical of any definitive answers. To sum up my opinions: +) I see little evidence that convinces me of any timeline. The historic evidence is telling, but not damning. The scientific evidence is inconclusive and contentious. +) I see no definitive evidence for a purposeful forgery/creation or for a natural processes (latent image). (In fact these aren't mutually exclusive since any forger could have wrapped a corpse to create the forgery if a case is made that wrapping a corpse could generate the image). +) I see no evidence at all that supports any paranormal suggestions. +) I see no evidence at all that supports any direct connection with Jesus Christ. +) With the lack of access the testing needed to answer any of these questions won't be forthcoming. > >But other than that there's not much difference, no amount ignorance > >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. Perhaps... as I said my light reading on this has Nickell addressing all the evidence I've seen and choosing to consider it low quality. That's different. Still, anybody can be unreasonably stubborn, even a researcher as good as Nickell (yes, I said it). ;^) But a good skeptic simply can't use the "since we don't know how it was done it must be X" argument. I'm serious. That one's in the handbook. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:250293 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
