[Vision2020] Driven nuts . . . by Ted

[Joan Opyr]

Ted writes:

"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."

No kidding.  And where, exactly, did I state that all scientific research should have direct practical application?  That, Ted, has never been my position.  And good thing, too, or I'd have long ago shot myself in the foot.  To quote Florence King, apart from being able to complete the crossword puzzle in ink, my own academic training has qualified me to do little more than argue with people on Vision 2020 about a wide and esoteric range of subjects that have little or no practical application.  Apart from perhaps being able to make a damned good living as a forger, what would I know about the practical applications of knowing exactly how to re-create the Shroud of Turin?  Bupkes.  And I like it that way.  I find the Shroud fascinating, but not for its potential scientific interest -- I'm interested in the history of the medieval holy relics creation and trade, as I believe I pointed out in my first post on this subject.  (God, when was that?  1496?)

BTW, I watched a program the other night on that fellow in Israel who forged both the "James the brother of Jesus" ossuary and the so-called "Tablet of Solomon."  And I was envious.  I would love to be a great forger of antiquities.  It would allow me A) to blow holes in countless religious, academic, and historical pretensions; B) make oodles of money; and C) appear on "In Search Of," then "The Discovery Channel," and finally "Cops."  That, as far as I'm concerned, is the ultimate Trifecta of fame.   

Ted continues:
"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."

Quite true.  Most importantly the "glue" that holds Post-It notes.  Where would we be without that?  And Silly Putty, which was discovered via research originally intended to provide a substitute for the rubber used to make tires.  (Yes, Ted, I'm being facetious.  I'm also subtly altering the terms of the argument.  This is what's known as "fun," an accidental side effect of arguments about the Shroud of Turin -- and the Shroud of Moscow.)   

What -- you have more to say on this?  Very well:

"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."   

I do not now nor have I ever maintained that scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin is without merit.  Far from it.  I maintain that 1) Nate Wilson's investigation of the Shroud was not scientific and thus was not worthy of the credulous and lazy media coverage it received, and 2) that scientists are, on the whole, a meticulous bunch who approach their investigations with a mix of knowledge, training, and sound methodology necessary for drawing valid, peer-reviewed conclusions that are worthy of media attention.  Too bad they don't typically get the kind of press coverage that Nate Wilson has conjured.    

Ted, Ted, Ted:
"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."

Okay, Ted; I will concede this point.  I believe that you are the only one in living memory to whom I have ever conceded a point in argument, and so my mother is dying to meet you.  She doesn't believe you exist.  Still, I must continue to take issue with your "driven nuts" assessment.  Scientists are not "driven nuts" by the Shroud of Turin!  It would seem from his message to this list that Dr. Frank Cheng of the University of Idaho is quite sane.  (I agree, BTW, with everything he had to say on this subject; what's more, I found it quite interesting.  Thank you, Dr. Cheng.  Welcome to the list.)   

But Ted, I challenge you and Kai to name a single scientist -- and, for the purposes of this argument, English teachers at NSA, participants in the Moscow School District's Elementary Science Fair, and that fellow with the walrus mustache on "Mythbusters" do not count as scientists -- who has been obliged to check in at St. Joe's or to take even so much as a generic valium because he has been "driven nuts" by the Shroud of Turin.  You know who's been driven nuts?  Me, that's who -- I have been driven nuts by the sloppy media coverage and by amateur Shroudies like Nate Wilson who put forward theories without bothering to learn that the sort of glass necessary for creation via the "Shadow Shroud" method wasn't available until at least 400 years after the Shroud of Turin was manufactured.  Messy, messy, messy.   

Oh, for Pete's sake, Ted -- are you still there?

"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 . . . [p]erhaps 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."

At last!  I now call bullshit!  You are splitting hairs, Ted, and that is a grotesque logical fallacy.  No, I did not mean to say that the majority of scientists are not driven nuts by the shroud -- I meant to say exactly what I said: that the manufacture of the Shroud of Turin is not a "mystery," it is not a "riddle," and it has not driven scientists nuts.  Period.  We do not need to conduct a global survey; we need only read the available peer-reviewed scientific literature.  Study of the Shroud is of interest to many.  The carbon-dating of 1988 (which may or may not have been discredited -- there is still considerable argument over whether the material tested was a medieval repair patch or not) was/is exciting to scientists and religious scholars alike.  The discovery of the dorsal image was/is similarly exciting.  But I object to the words riddle, mystery, and nuts -- they put the Shroud in Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster territory where it most certainly does not belong.         

Now, if you're still looking for a riddle, or a mystery, or nuts, then how you got from the above to the below would certainly qualify:

"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.'"   

Cough!  Gasp!  Falling backward, backward into the inky blackness, my vision slowly fading . . . .  Ted, I think your ability to connect the oil industry, the military weaponry industry, global warming, the misappropriation of research dollars to my brief and thankless observations regarding science, pseudo-science, and the Shroud of Turin has had one of those unintended consequences you mentioned far (oh, so very far) above in the opening paragraphs of this email.  You have found a way to kill via the Internet.  I am dying, Ted.  I just checked my watch and I have . . . let's see, I'm 38, and the average non-smoking Caucasian woman's lifespan in the United States is 77. . . yes, I have only 39 more years to live, give or take the hour I've just spent answering you.  I blame you, Ted.  You have killed me, sixty minutes before my time.

Now, listen to me, all of you: go out right this minute and buy yourself a nice chocolate Easter Bunny at the Safeway.  They're 50% off.  Then, come back home, sit yourself down in a nice, comfy chair, unwrap Mr. Bunny, and bite his little head off.  You'll feel so much better, I promise.   

And no, I won't be pretending that my chocolate bunny is anyone I know.   

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.auntie-establishment.com
     Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorermsn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050327/88e1fee6/attachment-0001.htm