<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Joan et. al.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
Kai wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Date: 3/23/2005 8:15:08 AM Pacific Standard Time <BR>
<BR>
>Even after all of their experiments and with all of their knowledge, they<BR>
>still haven't figured out how it was made. Recreated with some accuracy?<BR>
>Maybe, but not *exactly*, Joan. That is where the riddle is. And why it's<BR>
>driven scientists nuts for years<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
Therefore when you wrote the following, you were changing the terms of the discussion, distorting Kai's meaning:<BR>
<BR>
>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." <BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
Joan wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>If <B>The Daily News</B> and <B>The Spokesman Review</B> 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 . . . <BR>
<BR>
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!<BR>
<BR>
And from the same post where you refer to the Daily News and Spokesman Review, you write:<BR>
<BR>
>No, Kai. You are misstating (and misunderstanding) the nature of scientific research. The Shroud of Turin has *not* >driven scientists nuts for years.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
OK. Now that we have that slippery debate tactic (Joan, how could you?) out of the way, we can move on...<BR>
<BR>
I think the implications of your statements on this topic actually show that you, not Kai, misunderstand the nature of scientific research.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Joan wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>I think, Ted, that in reading my post, you have missed the gist. <BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
'>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.'"<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.mkaku.org">http://www.mkaku.org</A><BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
You can call this "driving them nuts" or not. <BR>
<BR>
But if we are going to back up and define what being driven "nuts" is, I will offer a definition: <BR>
<BR>
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...<BR>
<BR>
May you never experience this form of being driven "nuts."<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>