[Vision2020] The Hype of the Shroud:Driven "Nuts"

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Joan et. al.

First, let's refresh our memories regarding what Kai said that you objected 
to in reference to problems regarding the Shroud of Turin that have "driven 
scientists nuts."

Kai wrote:

>Date:  3/23/2005 8:15:08 AM Pacific Standard Time  
    
>Even after all of their experiments and with all of their knowledge, they
>still haven't figured out how it was made. Recreated with some accuracy?
>Maybe, but not *exactly*, Joan. That is where the riddle is. And why it's
>driven scientists nuts for years

It is clear Kai was referring to the problems a number of scientists have 
encountered in trying to explain how and when the Shroud of Turin was created, 
not ONLY Nate Wilson's theory.  

Therefore when you wrote the following, you were changing the terms of the 
discussion, distorting Kai's meaning:

>My point was simply that Nate Wilson's "shadow shroud" theory is not among 
the many, many topics that excite >scientists, or, as Kai put it, "drives them 
nuts."  

In fact, in your first response to Kai's statement that the Shroud of Turin 
has been driving "scientists nuts," you did NOT mention that you were only 
referencing Nate Wilson's theory:

Joan wrote:

>If The Daily News and The Spokesman Review have enough time to interview and 
photograph Nate Wilson and his >work of art, then they surely ought to take 
the time to do a bit of reading about the current state of shroud research.  >
Speaking of which . . . 

Here you assert that the discussion should be about "the current state of 
shroud research."  There is no attempt to limit the discussion to ONLY Nate 
Wilson's theory!

And from the same post where you refer to the Daily News and Spokesman 
Review, you write:

>No, Kai.  You are misstating (and misunderstanding) the nature of scientific 
research.  The Shroud of Turin has *not* >driven scientists nuts for years.

No statement that follows in the post where you made the above statement 
declares that you are only talking about Nate Wilson's theory on the Shroud of 
Turin.

It is clear, unless I missed something, that Kai's statement about the Shroud 
of Turin driving scientists "nuts" was not just a reference to Nate Wilson's 
theory, nor in your original response did you restrict your argument against 
his statement to only Nate Wilson's theory on the Shroud of Turin.

OK.  Now that we have that slippery debate tactic (Joan, how could you?) out 
of the way, we can move on...

I think the implications of your statements on this topic actually show that 
you, not Kai, misunderstand the nature of scientific research.

Much scientific research appears to have no direct practical application.  
And many discoveries in science are accidental, stumbled on in the investigation 
of a problem or phenomena quite different from the intentions of the 
scientist.  The investigation of the Shroud of Turin as a "scientific" problem 
determining how and when it was created has as much value as hundreds of other 
scientific problems that might appear unimportant to many.  I think the funding of 
"pure" scientific research has tremendous value, even if for no other reason 
than to expand knowledge, a good in and of itself, my idealistic heart and 
intellect believes, though of course there are areas of scientific research that 
are more critical than others when viewed from a given ethical viewpoint.

As a "scientific" problem the Shroud of Turin poses scientific questions that 
are of just as much interest as numerous other problems, seemingly 
insignificant to some, that scientists attempt to solve.

Joan wrote:

>I think, Ted, that in reading my post, you have missed the gist.  

I was stating a fact.  The bulk of scientific research does not have the 
grand sweeping implications for the structure of our universe that you implied 
were the real problems driving scientists "nuts" when you wrote:

'>What drives scientists nuts is string theory, or quantum mechanics, 
or Stephen Hawking's admission that he made a >mistake in his original work on black 
holes and the origins of the universe.'"

Furthermore, the more obscure and less sweeping problems that most scientists 
work on can drive them "nuts" just as well as Quantum mechanics, Hawking's 
views, or String Theory, aspects of physics that have been popularized in the 
media in part because of their strange implications.  These "big idea" 
scientific theories are like something from the scientific "X-Files."  I do not mean 
they are equally as lacking in mathematical and empirical foundations as the 
conspiracies on the "X-Files," but the media loves to sell "weird" ideas.  Thus 
the success of radio tycoon Art Bell, who has interviewed Michio Kaku, one of 
the world's foremost theoretical physicists, several times, of course dazzling 
everyone with the implications of String Theory, etc.

http://www.mkaku.org

I understand your statements on the whole Shroud of Turin issue viewed as a 
cultural event, as religious propaganda, or as a tail wagging the dog media 
effort to boost ratings and readership exploiting Easter, and so forth.

However, what drives scientists "nuts" is whatever problem a scientist or 
group of scientists is slicing and dicing.  This is not dependent on what you or 
I or even Hawking happens to think should be driving a scientist "nuts."  If 
the Shroud of Turin as a forgery, etc., is driving a number of scientists 
"nuts" trying to figure out how and when it was created, then your statement as a 
statement of fact is false, regardless of how you spin it. 

Perhaps we need a survey of all the scientists in the world and have them 
rank the problems they deal with in their research on the "nuts" scale, because 
perhaps what you meant to say is that the MAJORITY of scientists are not driven 
"nuts" by the Shroud of Turin "mystery."  But that is NOT what you said.  

I suspect we would find that the research problems that drive the most 
scientists "nuts" are the ones that are the most funded.  Think "military 
application" for a clue to many of the research efforts driving scientists "nuts."  And 
I mean "NUTS" in CAPS, as I hope you agree.

I suspect that without special funding for research, coming no doubt from 
those with a completely disinterested stake in the divinity of Christ (cough, 
cough), the Shroud of Turin might have never received the scientific or media 
attention it has.  

But many very profound and worthy problems that drive many scientists "nuts" 
are not the research problems that receive the most funding, so I do not think 
they would receive a majority vote from all the world's scientists on the 
"nuts" scale, sadly.  Consider how much research funding is spent on alternative 
energy compared with the amount spent on nuclear arms development, missile 
technology, military intelligence and satellites, and new high tech weapons 
systems of all sorts.  The "nuts" factor should be driving the development of 
alternative energy research, in MY opinion, but there is too much money to be made 
in the oil economy first to risk pushing that gold mine aside with alternative 
energy development.  

Hopefully, you do not want to define a scientific research area worthy of 
driving scientist's "nuts" solely on the power of money to fund research and buy 
lots and lots of "scientists"  who are driven "nuts."  You would then have to 
include the 100s of billions spent funding scientific research on all sorts of 
marvelous and wondrous ways of killing human beings as scientific research 
that is worthy of driving scientist's "nuts."

If you are stating that it is your opinion that the Shroud of Turin is not 
deserving of the research status that would drive scientists "nuts," I can 
understand and might agree with this assessment, though, as I stated, from the 
point of view of pure scientific research, nearly all scientific research might 
have value, regardless of how unimportant or harmful it might seem, even the 
military oriented research I slammed.  However, I believe we should siphon some 
military spending into a "Manhattan Project" for alternative energy, given the 
massive looming energy crisis when fossil fuels become either very expensive 
or very scarce or both.  I'm off topic again, but I could not resist the 
politics of science!  We know how Shrub is determined to plan ahead for the future 
energy needs of the USA with his commitment to alternative energy research, and 
how the wonders of our free marketplace are prompting corporations to plan 
the 50-100 years ahead demanded by the coming energy crisis, with significant 
funding for alternative energy research deserving of driving scientists "nuts" 
... never mind ... we are doomed.

I won't provide references, because it is easy to find them, and you know I 
am correct: there are scientists who have spend time and effort trying to 
explain conclusively when and how the Shroud of Turin was created who have not 
solved these issues to their complete satisfaction.

You can call this "driving them nuts" or not.  

But if we are going to back up and define what being driven "nuts" is, I will 
offer a definition: 

It is having to reformat your hard drive by reinstalling your old CD-ROM 
drive because the newer CD-R drive you installed, and now must remove temporarily, 
will not read the original reformat discs, then having to reload and 
reconfigure, including the drivers for added hardware, all the software wiped off the 
hard drive during the reformat, then reinstall the CD-R drive, with countless 
(it seemed!) little sinister computer ploys mucking up the works as you go 
along...

May you never experience this form of being driven "nuts."

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050327/57a75780/attachment-0001.htm