Archive
Argumentum ad populum of the day
Do you hold any really odd beliefs—in ghosts, UFOs, tooth fairies, the sanctity of the Turin Shroud? While science often acts as a bullshit filter, the internet rarely does.
Science journalist Robyn Williams unloads this “hey, everybody knows better” fallacy, an appeal to ridicule by ludicrous association, on Australian Radio National’s Ockham’s Razor show while introducing Tory Shepherd, senior writer for The Advertiser newspaper in Adelaide who explains, on the broadcast, why science and the internet are now in mortal combat. (an idea I don’t agree with).
As a science journalist and host of Radio National’s The Science Show and Ockham’s Razor, he should know better. As a Fellow Member of the Australian Academy of Science, he should know better. Moreover, why did he forget the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot?
Room for doubt? About as much room as there is on a crowded microdot
John Klotz put me onto this article, although I guess I knew about it and had forgotten about it, and maybe I imagined I had read it. But it is too memorable to forget. So I guess I just read it for the first time last night.
John sent me a PDF from some library microfilm reader and tried to convince me it was readable. I had to find a better copy. I did. Read on.
“The Shroud of Turin: Who is this man and why does he have no navel?” by Michael Thomas in the December 28, 1978, issue of Rolling Stone may be the best piece of Shroud of Turin journalism ever published in the mainstream media. To emphasize, however, it was written in 1978, the year of STURP. Carbon dating was being talked about by some, but it would not happen until a decade later.
Rolling Stone’s Table of Contents, something that is usually hobbled together by an editor just before press time, is unfair to the gist of the story. IT REALLY IS A MUST READ.
You have few choices if you want to read the article. You can go to a public library and possibly read it on some microfilm reader. Or you can find an issue on eBay, maybe. Or you pony up 99 cents and read it online – forget about trying to print it or save it, though. I’ll tell you how to read it online, but first some wonderful clips:
1) “Until it [=carbon dating] is done, there is still room for doubt as to the shroud’s authenticity—about as much room as there is on a crowded microdot. . . . “ (The pages are really Financial Times pink):
2) “As a physicist he [=Harry Gove] agrees he can’t understand any other way the image on the shroud was formed except by some kind of thermal radiation. . . .”
Okay, so how do you read it. Sign up for a 4-week trial subscription. It will cost 99 cents. If you are happy with the magazine you can let them automatically charge your credit card $19.95 for 26 more issues. If not, you can cancel. As soon as you sign up, you can access the archives; choose the 1970s, then choose 1978 and then December 28.
I just discovered on the Rolling Stone website that you can buy a back issue (no price quoted, online) by calling 1-800-283-1549. Right now it is 5:00 am on a Saturday. I’ll try that on Monday.
I also just discovered that backissues.com sells the December 28 issue for $24.95 plus $6.00 for shipping.
Real Clear argumentum ad ignorantiam
John Klotz writes:
I had kidded Barrie about his extended tour in April being like a missionary journey of St. Paul. Not so fumy. Today after perusing the RealClearPolitics and History pages on the webs, I though I would drop in to the RealClearReligion page.
http://www.realclearreligion.org/
Sure enough there was a linked story, ‘Science Can’t Explain the Shroud,’ and the link took you a Catholic News Service page with an article concerning guess who? We have all seen it before but the RealClearReligion page spreads the word even further. The linked article is
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301829.htm
The message of that article title, ‘Science Can’t Explain the Shroud,’ though something of an argumentum ad ignorantiam, is perhaps overtaking all the faked image hypotheses and burying the 1988 carbon dating deeper in the ash bin of science done badly. Seeing it on the front page of RCR is important, as John notes, in spreading the word.
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC
From the Daily Sketch more than fifty years ago (March 7, 1955) as posted at Hold the Front Page blog a couple of days ago:
This is very much a personal view by Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC and
offers no scientific evidence for or against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. In 1954 Cheshire, having been inspired by a photo of the Shroud face while recuperating from tuberculosis, toured Britain with an exhibition of Shroud photographs.
Extensive scientific tests were carried out on the Shroud in October 1979 and in 1988 radiocarbon dating was done on some samples of the cloth, the results of which indicated that the shroud was no older than the 13th Century. Some authorities claimed that the samples were from a medieval repair rather than the original Shroud material, so the controversy continues but one mystery remains, apart from whether it is the image of Jesus or not, how was it made?
I have posted On the Beliefs of Group Captain Cheshire back in 2011.
A kind of witness?
Great article by Tom Tracy appeared earlier this week on the Archdiocese of Miami website. Tom writes:
“The one thing that convinces me most that it is authentic has nothing to do with science or history, it has to do with theology,” [Russ] Breault told The Florida Catholic. “Every miracle of Jesus had eyewitnesses and yet the greatest of all miracles had no eye witnesses — but yet there was a kind of witness and that is the linen shroud itself. It becomes a witness for all generations.”
The Silent Witness? We hear this in various ways from many people. I think it is an idea that needs more discussion.
Paper Chase: Nobody Goes to the Trouble. Oh, Yes They Might.
Colin Berry, by way of a comment, writes:
Nobody goes to the trouble of invisible, highly painstaking mending of an inconspicuous corner of the Shroud when there is major fire damage elsewhere that has been crudely patched. Rogers’ attempted demolition job on the C-14 dating offended common sense more than anything else…
No, it offends common sense to think that countless people in the world of shroud studies, those who agree with Rogers’ conclusions and those who do not, have simply ignored the reality that nobody goes to that much trouble to invisibly repair an “inconspicuous” corner of the cloth when there were all those crude patches elsewhere.
Unfortunately, there have been a few misleading newspaper accounts that confuse the repairs made following the Chambéry fire of 1532 with the repair Rogers identifies. But that doesn’t mean Rogers or any of us who study the shroud are/were confused.
We (all of us) reason that if before 1532, had a significant corner of the shroud been cut away for any reason whatsoever, including the taking of a part of a holy relic for its healing or talisman properties or so another church might have part of a relic (none of this was uncommon – in fact it goes on today even on eBay) and had the methods and skills been available to mend the not inconspicuous corner, it might well have happened. That is all that is needed to permit a scientific finding:
The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is
significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud (Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, 2005: 193).
But there is more in the fascinating story of Margaret of Austria. Read about her in New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch” in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino.
. . . The purpose of this paper is to: 1) characterize the state of the weaving art during the time period of the hypothesized C-14 sample-area patch; 2) describe the crucial role and passions for tapestries of the House of Savoy’s Margaret of Austria and her nephew/ward Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, which would have mandated an expert restoration to the Shroud following the removal of the large corner pieces; 3) to posit a plausible scenario illustrating how and why the invisible mending on the Shroud took place around A.D. 1531, including new evidence as to why the undocumented repair took place, who was the overseer of the work, and what became of the missing corner pieces.
Only after 1532, was the damage was so severe, that it is unlikely that an invisible repair would have been made. All bets would have been off, so to speak.
The shroud, in part thanks to the debates surrounding its authenticity
In The Mystery of the Shroud, Kerry Weber summarizes the status of the shroud in the current issue of America, the distinguished national weekly Catholic magazine published by the Jesuits in America. She starts out:
Today’s technology can do amazing things: phones take photos; cars park themselves. Yet, researchers still have not developed a device that can definitively pin down the origins of a famous image on a piece of cloth. The Shroud of Turin continues to puzzle many believers and scientists alike, and even major investigations have failed to provide a conclusion that satisfies everyone.
and concludes:
The shroud, in part thanks to the debates surrounding its authenticity, is a reminder of the mysteries that remain within our faith, and the image upon it reminds viewers of the suffering that many have endured because of their faith. Schwortz sought the truth through science by putting aside his biases. In a similar spirit, we must be willing to let go of our own desires and beliefs as we seek the great truths of our faith through Christ. We must always be ready to put aside the assumptions we carry—our prejudices and personal biases—and to be open to the God of surprises and to greater truths, miraculous or not.
Best News Article on Fanti’s Methods
An article, Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age by Shaffer Parker, Jr. is perhaps the best article so far on Fanti’s methods and findings. It appears May 6th in The National Catholic Register.
The article explains Fanti’s methods with easy-to-understand terminology. For instance, here is a short explanation of how Fanti identified shroud fibers from other fibers on a vacuum filter.
It was on fibers from “filter H” that Fanti did most of his work. “I discovered a relatively simple technique to detect which linen fibers were from the shroud,” he said, “based on cross-polarized light used in a petrographic microscope. The shroud fibers show a coloration like a coral snake, probably because in the original preparation of the fibers they were beaten with rods.” More recent fibers, Fanti said, were prepared differently and therefore appear differently under a microscope.
The article addresses doubts about Fanti’s findings, as well. Then, as though there was nothing more to say about the Padua professor’s wrok, Parkers gives over several column inches to Joe Nickell’s general skepticism and a rebuttal by Barrie Schwortz.
While he rejects the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, Nickell insists that a shroud might be found that he could accept did come from the tomb of Jesus Christ, but its history from the grave to the present day would have to be completely documented. “And it could not have an image on it,” he added. “That implies a miracle, and as such takes it out of the realm of science.”
Or not. Is Nickell stuck in the 1990s?
Take the time to read Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age
A Month of concerts, celebrations and reflections on the Holy Shroud
A Google translation of an article in Vatican Insider, Concerts, celebrations and reflections in memory of the Holy Shroud by Domenico Agasso Jr.:
A Concert and a s. Mass presided over by the papal custodian Msgr. Nosiglia the presence of the leading specialists of the Shroud are scheduled for the Feast of the Holy Cloth, which is celebrated on May 4, the date established in 1506 by Pope Julius II [pictured, portrait by Raphael, ca. 1511]. And two days later will begin a series of lectures as part of "The meetings at Holy Shroud", entitled "A body hast given me – The human story of the Shroud."
Tonight at 21 in the Cathedral of Turin begins with a concert by the Association Concertante – Art and Music Project, "which will perform in the ‘Petite Messe Solennelle’ by Gioacchino Rossini," say the organizers, which include the Museum of the Shroud and the International Centre for Sindonologia. Tomorrow instead, at 18, still in the Cathedral, there will be a Mass celebrated by Archbishop of Turin. Nosiglia. "But at the side of the liturgical celebrations – inform – the date also marks the annual event for a comparison between the members of the International Centre for Sindonologia, whose meeting will be held at the Museum of the Shroud right in the afternoon of May 4, gathering in Turin the leading experts on the Shroud. " Scholars and scientists from all over the Planet "will take stock of the situation on the various subjects’ open ‘connected to the Holy Shroud: an opportunity that presents itself important in light of the recent debate – riaccesosi worldwide in the wake of last month’ television Exposition of Holy Saturday and the concomitant launch the app ‘Shroud 2.0′ – which, in particular, dealt with the issue of the alleged samples of fabric in hands of private parties. "
Monday then the Brotherhood of the Holy Shroud and the Center for Sindonologia will initiate a series of meetings on "A body hast given me – The human story of the Shroud", which will run for five consecutive Mondays (always beginning at 21 at the church of Turin SS. Sudario). conferences – they will all be moderated by Msgr. Giuseppe Ghiberti, president of the Diocesan Commission for the Shroud – "will proceed along a theme centered on the concept of the Son of God who became man taking a body. Through its body Jesus ennobles the human condition and it shares all the events, to the more painful, on the cross.’s body becomes so crucial component of Christian consciousness, the object of faith concerning the Incarnation of the Word and the human condition. "Here are the appointments.
On May 6, Don Roberto Gottardo, Episcopal Vicar of Turin, reflect on "The Shroud shows a body – The body today." On May 13, Ernesto Olivero, founder of SERMIG, will speak about "The body of the Shroud destroyed by suffering. The daily dialogue with suffering. " On May 20, Don Roberto Repole, President of the Italian Theological Association, will speak on "The groom (the King) sleeps. The mystery of the tomb, the body is no longer a man. " May 27: "The awakening of the King", with Don Carlo Neck, professor of dogmatic theology. On June 3: "A body – flesh for our life. The Eucharist, his body in my body ", with Mgr. Giuseppe Anfossi, Bishop Emeritus of Aosta.
Good Question: What would ‘proving’ Shroud do?
Author and journalist James Rygelski has a prominent article, What would ‘proving’ Shroud do? in the Lifestyles section of the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
So I hope the pope grants the request for another test. Equipment exists that would quickly measure a section of the shroud for nuclear particle transfers. I know Mark Antonacci well enough to say that he’s doing this as a devout believer and not some glory-seeker. To view his foundation’s website, visit www.testtheshroud.com
However, I have cautioned Mark that while many of us will always believe in the authenticity of the shroud, the more important thing is that we believe in the authenticity of Christ – whether or not the shroud they wrapped Him in after the crucifixion still exists.
Jesus showed a doubting Thomas the wounds that Thomas said would be the only proof he would accept of Jesus’ resurrection. But Christ also told him, “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20:29).
Yes, I would like to see more tests. But I’m not convinced that those tests have been properly defined. Mark Antonacci has a petition on his site. I’m not ready to sign it. As for Rygelski’s caution to Antonacci: Amen.
Barrie Schwortz: Isn’t it funny how God always picks a Jew to be the messenger
Here is a story from the National Catholic Reporter that dovetails with the video in the previous posting: Science still can’t explain Shroud of Turin, researcher says:
![clip_image001[5]](http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/clip_image0015.gif?w=481&h=71 "clip_image001[5]")
Barrie Schwortz . . .
Raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, "it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that I’m a Jew and involved with probably the most important relic of Christianity," Schwortz told Catholic News Service.
"Isn’t it funny how God always picks a Jew to be the messenger," he said.
Schwortz said he, along with the other members of the research team who came from various faith backgrounds, had to set aside personal beliefs and focus on the shroud itself rather than any religious implication it might carry.
So which hypothesis, of all those ever proposed, do I prefer?
Mark Antonacci, author of The Resurrection of the Shroud, writes:
Thanks for posting the full press release of April 18th about molecular and sub-atomic testing of the Shroud on your blog.
In reply to some of the brief comments about it, could you post the following:
The current issue of Time magazine (that I received on 4/20) states in an article about Pope Francis by Cardinal Dolan that "the Pontiff earned a master’s degree in chemistry." I have seen similar statements previously, but did not notice whether lower or upper case was used in describing the degree. I assume Master was the name of the degree that he received (I believe before he began his religious studies in earnest), and that either upper or lower case is appropriate, whether this degree exactly matches a two year post-graduate degree or not.
Also, all naturalistic and artistic methods that have been proposed since Vignon and Delage’s initial scientific study in 1900-02 have failed to duplicate the many body image features (or blood marks) found throughout the Shroud’s full-length images.
I don’t think anyone is faulting you for saying that Pope Francis has a masters or Masters degree in chemistry. Look at this list:
- Forbes: Pope Francis, Scientist: “Or at least, he was. When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a young man, he graduated from technical school as a Chemical Technician. He then earned his Masters Degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aries. It was only after that that he decided to become a priest.”
- USA Today: A scientist pope and high-tech Catholicism: “Many of us are still trying to learn about the new pontiff. We know a few things already. He is not only a man of faith, but also science — a chemist, by training.”
- NBC: Meet the new pope: Francis is humble leader who takes the bus to work: “Francis earned a degree in chemistry and was ordained a priest in December 1969. He was named archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998.” and “He has a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.”
- Parade: 10 Things to Know About Pope Francis: “He’s a scientist. On top of his philosophy degree from the Catholic University of Buenos Aires, he also has a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.”
Live Science, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Biography, Catholic News, Christian Post, Chronicles of Higher Education . . . The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Reuters, and The Associated Press all just say he studied as or was trained as a chemist without any specifics.
It is probably wise to look to his official Vatican biography published at www.vatican.va. It reads, in part:
He was born in Buenos Aires on 17 December 1936, the son of Italian immigrants. His father Mario was an accountant employed by the railways and his mother Regina Sivori was a committed wife dedicated to raising their five children. He graduated as a chemical technician and then chose the path of the priesthood, entering the Diocesan Seminary of Villa Devoto. On 11 March 1958 he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus. He completed his studies of the humanities in Chile and returned to Argentina in 1963 to graduate with a degree in philosophy from the Colegio de San José in San Miguel. From 1964 to 1965 he taught literature and psychology at Immaculate Conception College in Santa Fé and in 1966 he taught the same subject at the Colegio del Salvatore in Buenos Aires. From 1967-70 he studied theology and obtained a degree from the Colegio of San José.
It should be noted that in all likelihood the title “chemical technician” was a high school diploma as recently reported in o the Argentine paper, La Nacion in a the article, Jorge Bergoglio, un sacerdote jesuita de carrera. It should also be noted that his biography says he then choose the path of the priesthood. That was at age 21, a young age for completing a university masters degree program.
The biography does not suggest the word masters, uppercase or otherwise. It is probably best to conform.
As for the statement . . .
Also, all naturalistic and artistic methods that have been proposed since Vignon and Delage’s initial scientific study in 1900-02 have failed to duplicate the many body image features (or blood marks) found throughout the Shroud’s full-length images.
. . . I agree. I still agree if you strike the words naturalistic and artistic and just say all methods.
By the way: I have to add the words, “so far” in order to fully agree.
By the way number two: I consider any image caused by radiation, of any kind, naturalistic. The only question is where the very natural radiation came from. I remain totally unconvinced from any evidence or by any argument so far presented that miracles produce energetic byproducts.
So which hypothesis, of all those ever proposed, do I prefer? None!
Antonacci Proposing Molecular and Sub-Atomic Testing To Resolve Disputes Regarding the Shroud
This is a rather extraordinary press release that was issued, it seems jointly by Monograph Publishing and Mark Antonacci (pictured), for release today. I’m a bit concerned about factual accuracy when I read:
More than a century of scientific and medical analysis has eliminated all proposed naturalistic and artistic attempts to duplicate the Shroud’s unique, full-length images. Only two hypotheses to explain these unique images have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals:
1) The Corona Discharge hypothesis, by Dr. Giulio Fanti, who led scientists at the University of Padua in Italy to challenge previous C-14 or radiocarbon dating. Using three different methods to test fibers from various locations throughout the cloth, these scientists obtained an average date of 33 B.C. +/- 250 years.
2) The Historically-Consistent hypothesis by Mark Antonacci that not only accounts for all of the Shroud’s unique body image features, but also its radiocarbon dating and its numerous non-body image features, which other hypotheses do not even attempt to explain (http://www.testtheshroud.com).
Anyway, here is the press release:
Monograph Publishing: One of the world’s leading experts on the Shroud of Turin, author and attorney Mark Antonacci, is petitioning Pope Francis to allow 21st century technology to be applied at the molecular and sub-atomic levels to Jesus’ purported burial cloth. Results of these tests would prove or disprove its authenticity and resolve the current dispute regarding samples that recently dated the shroud to 33 B.C. +/- 250 years.
St. Louis, Missouri (PRWEB) April 18, 2013
This unique cloth has only been scientifically examined in a comprehensive manner once, 35 years ago. While this examination revealed extensive, startling information, a new generation of promising research has since developed that could acquire far more information. Molecular and sub-atomic technology, applied to the Shroud could reveal its age, the cause of its unique images, the identity of the man buried within it, if it is a forgery and whether a miraculous event occurred to the dead body wrapped within it.
Antonacci proposes that multi-spectral imaging be applied to the entire Shroud. This innovative technology could scan the Shroud in only six hours and scientists could then spend years analyzing its data. It could map the cloth and identify not just every fiber of every thread, but what is on every fiber. It could identify tissue at the molecular level, as well as individual chemical compounds. Further information at the molecular level could be acquired using similar technology, such as Molecular Spectroscopy.
More than a century of scientific and medical analysis has eliminated all proposed naturalistic and artistic attempts to duplicate the Shroud’s unique, full-length images. Only two hypotheses to explain these unique images have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals:
1) The Corona Discharge hypothesis, by Dr. Giulio Fanti, who led scientists at the University of Padua in Italy to challenge previous C-14 or radiocarbon dating. Using three different methods to test fibers from various locations throughout the cloth, these scientists obtained an average date of 33 B.C. +/- 250 years.
2) The Historically-Consistent hypothesis by Mark Antonacci that not only accounts for all of the Shroud’s unique body image features, but also its radiocarbon dating and its numerous non-body image features, which other hypotheses do not even attempt to explain (http://www.testtheshroud.com).
Both of these scientific hypotheses involve radiation and an extremely unusual or miraculous cause of these images. Many Shroud scientists conclude that radiation was the most likely cause of the Shroud’s images. If the radiation explained in Antonacci’s hypothesis occurred, its source was the body wrapped within the cloth. Multi-spectral imaging could demonstrate or refute this scientific hypothesis, along with all other proposed hypotheses to explain the Shroud’s images or its radiocarbon dating.
Scientists recognize that one form of radiation, neutron or particle, would create new C-14 atoms or isotopes within the molecular structure of the linen, blood, limestone and other material that was on the Shroud or present at the time of the radiation. Scientific tests sponsored by The Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation (RSF) demonstrate these C-14 atoms survive heat, age and all pretreatment cleaning methods and would still be present today. If the Shroud was irradiated with neutrons, this event would necessarily refute the cloth’s radiocarbon dating because it would add C-14 atoms within the cloth’s molecular structure, making it appear much younger than its actual age.
New technology could demonstrate or refute that this event occurred! Neutron radiation not only creates new C-14 atoms, but also creates Cl-36 and Ca-41 atoms which virtually do not exist in nature. If such an event occurred, these rarest of atoms would still be present within the molecular structures of the linen, blood, or other irradiated material. The presence of these atoms, well above their infinitesimal natural levels, could only result from neutron radiation, which could not be generated by humans until the 20th century.
Interestingly, all three atoms (C-14, Cl-36 and Ca-41) are created by neutron radiation at rates that are known to scientists. Thus the amount of neutron radiation received by the Shroud, and the date this miraculous event occurred, can be calculated by scientists with the same accuracy as C-14 or radiocarbon dating. These tests could even be conducted on the original limestone walls of Jesus’ reputed burial tomb(s).
Antonacci has recently begun a direct appeal to Pope Francis, who has a Masters Degree in Chemistry to approve the application of molecular and sub-atomic testing methods to the Shroud of Turin. These tests, in combination with many prior test results and studies, could prove or disprove with objective, independent evidence that:
1. Particle radiation irradiated the Shroud of Turin linen, its blood and other material;
2. Particle radiation emanated from the length, width, and depth of the dead body wrapped within the cloth;
3. The event occurred in the first century to a first century cloth;
4. The event happened inside Jesus’ burial tomb.Mark Antonacci, President
Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation
314-704-0537 – cell
636-938-3708 – office
markantonacci(at)testtheshroud(dot)comAbout The Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation (RSF):
The RSF designs, advocates and funds some of the most sophisticated scientific testing of the 21st century. For the last two decades it has supported a variety of scientific research and information relating to the age, origin and authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.About Monograph Publishing:
Monograph Publishing is a multi-dimensional company based in St. Louis, Missouri specializing in high quality publications, design, fine art prints and photography. http://www.monographpublishing.com
Oh, by the way, I think it is now well established that Pope Francis does not have a masters degree in Chemistry, not that it matters.
TED Comes to the Vatican with Gloria Estefan and Barrie Schwortz
TED Conferences are a big deal. To be a TED speaker is a significant honor (and guarantees YouTube fame forever and ever).
One of TED’s mottos is “Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world”
UPDATE: Be sure to read the comment by John Klotz.
Lizzy Davies in Rome for The Guardian reports that TED comes to the Vatican with Gloria Estefan as speaker:
The raison d’être of the glamorous and globally renowned TED conferences is the dissemination of "ideas worth spreading" – and, if there’s any organisation that thinks it has one of those, it’s the Vatican.
Next week, in a somewhat unusual pairing of the Catholic church and California trend-setting, the two will come together for a Vatican-sponsored day-long series of talks in Rome. Among the speakers are an Italian cardinal, a Serbian basketball star, a Muslim graffiti artist from Birmingham and the Cuban-born American singer Gloria Estefan.
"We wanted to listen to stories from every walk of life," said Giovanna Abbiati, who, along with a group of lay academics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, a pontifical university, came up with the idea of holding a TEDx event with the backing of the Vatican.
Rather than focusing on Catholicism, the day’s theme is religious freedom, and its promotion of inter-faith dialogue appears to chime with the thinking of the new pope.
which includes these two paragraphs . . .
The host of the TEDx event next Friday will be Gianfranco Ravasi (pictured, front-most), the Lombardy-born cardinal who heads the pontifical council for culture and was hailed by one Vatican observer as arguably "the most interesting man in the Catholic church" after he launched an initiative to forge links and prompt dialogue with non-believers known as the Courtyard of the Gentiles.
He is scheduled to be joined on stage by 17 other speakers, including Daniel Libeskind, the architect and designer among whose works is the Jewish Museum in Berlin; Brother Guy Consolmagno, a planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory; and Barrie Schwortz, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew and is an expert on the Turin Shroud. (emphasis mine)
BTW: it is called a TEDx event if it is independently organized as this one is. See TED’s website for more information. Just last month there were over 400 TEDx conferences in 76 different countries.
One of TED’s mottos is “Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world”
An important distinction in Catholic theology
Tough guy journalist, author and screenwriter, Michael A. Walsh wrote an interesting and objective piece for the New York Post. It carries the headline: Science & the Shroud: New support for the icon:
Something remarkable happened in Rome this week at the intersection of faith and science: Pope Francis’ televised Easter message to the world included footage of the Shroud of Turin — which many believe to the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, although its authenticity is disputed.
The pope didn’t take a position, calling the sacred object an “icon,” not a “relic” — an important distinction in Catholic theology. Rather, he simply observed, “This image, impressed upon the cloth, speaks to our heart. This disfigured face resembles all those faces of men and women marred by a life which does not respect their dignity, by war and violence which afflict the weakest.”
A fact here and there may be, well, arguably not quite right but isn’t that the nature of the shroud, somewhat.
A Committee Far Removed from Padua
Forbes Magazine’s highly regarded science and technology writer John Farrell chimes in with A Nice App, But The Shroud Of Turin Needs A New Peer Review
That Fanti is submitting his results to a scientific committee sounds promising, although there are no details yet on who is on the committee.
Given the controversial nature of the Shroud, and his claims, I hope Fanti will also consider submitting his results to scientists far removed from Padua, like MIT and Oxford, for example.
Given Gian Marco Rinaldi’s critical review (in Italian and in English) of the third chapter of Fanti’s book, Fanti needs to step up to this implied commitment with something fully transparent. An anonymous peer review for a journal that lacks a high JCR rating won’t cut it. Fanti’s book made such a big public splash that the questions now surfacing about methods and samples must be addressed in the same public arena. Soon!
No More Shroud of Doubt?
Garth Kant lays it on pretty thick in WND with “New research removes ‘shroud’ of doubt – Experiments prove sacred Christian relic in Turin dates back to Christ.” Do you get the feeling this is a we-told-you-story? Do you get the feeling that Kant gets most of his information from the WND archives? Do you get they feeling that Kant doesn’t realize that Giulio Fanti and Paolo Di Lazzaro are different people?
A new book on a scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin confirms what WND reported more than a year ago – the relic is not a medieval forgery. The latest tests date the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD.
The results of the tests are documented in the book “Il Mistero della Sindone” or The Mystery of the Shroud, written by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Italy’s Padua University, and Saverio Gaeta, a journalist.
Scientists measured radiation intensity using infra-red light and spectroscopy to analyze the shroud, which is kept in a climate-controlled case in Turin, Italy.
Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation.”
That is essentially what WND reported in December 2011, that the imprint on the shroud was likely caused by a burst of ultraviolet light that was beyond the technical capabilities of medieval forgers.
That finding is also remarkably similar to the fictional explanation WND staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi provided in his 2010 novel on the Shroud of Turin, “The Shroud Codex.”
“WND” appears 11 times in the one page story. I wonder if they will continue to say this after they read more about Fanti’s book.
CBS This Morning Coverage with Barrie Schwortz
Here is a CBS This Morning segment for April 1, 2013, with a short interview with Barrie Schwortz. The exhibition, the new iPhone and iPad app and Giulio Fanti’s new research are mentioned. Overall it is balanced and correctly explains why the 1988 carbon dating is dubious. The clip runs about two and a half minutes:
Alan Boyles Cosmic Log on Fanti’s New Book
Alan Boyle, Science Editor for NBC News, has written an interesting article for Cosmic Log, NBC’s very popular science blog.
The age-old debate over the Shroud of Turin is being resurrected this Easter — thanks to the attention of a new pope, the creation of a "Shroud 2.0" app, and a new book that claims the cloth dates back to Jesus’ time.
The claim immediately faced a wave of criticism, including a harsh statement from Turin’s archbishop that some say has driven a stake into the book’s heart.
Believers say the centuries-old shroud bears the imprint of Jesus, chemically captured in the cloth at the time of his resurrection. Skeptics say it’s a cleverly done medieval fake, wrapped up in highly debatable scientific claims that just won’t die.
Boyle checked in with Joe Nickell and Vatican Insider:
"As is typical of a religious rather than scientific agenda, their news was shrewdly released just in time for Easter," Nickell said in a blog posting. "That alone casts doubt on the claims, but there is more."
Nickell pointed out that Fanti’s tests "involve three different procedures — each with its own problems — which are then averaged together to produce the result." He said that stands in contrast with 1988′s mass spectrometry tests, which yielded a date range between 1260 and 1390. Fanti says those earlier tests were not "statistically reliable," but Nickell and most scientists are sticking with the verdict rendered in 1988.
As a professional skeptic, Nickell can be expected to voice doubt about the book. But criticism also came from Archbishop Nosiglia.
Because there’s "no degree of security" as to the authenticity of the fiber samples, the shroud’s custodians "cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments," Nosiglia said in a statement quoted by La Stampa’s Vatican Insider. The archbishop’s comments "put stakes into Fanti’s work," Vatican Insider reported.
Somehow I suspect that shroud science is not truly dead, but what do you think? . . .
The entire article: Shroud of Turin returns to spotlight with new pope, new app, new debate – Cosmic Log
Terry Mattingly: Shroud Article in The Telegraph About as Straight and Dispassionate as One Can Get in MSM
Terry Mattingly, in his blog GetReligion doesn’t write about religion, per se. He writes about journalism when it is about religion. Journalists don’t get, as he sees it. They don’t get religion, that is. This is a recent posting about an article in The Telegraph about Giulio Fanti’s new book about the shroud:
Readers who have been following GetReligion for some time, or even reading my Scripps Howard News Service columns, may remember that I have been keeping up with the debates about the Shroud of Turin since the mid-1980s, when I worked at The Rocky Mountain News in Denver. That meant that I wasn’t that far from some of the key American players in this lively field, both in Colorado Springs, Colo., and in Los Alamos, N.M.
Thus, over the decades, I have ridden the news waves about this fascinating 14-foot piece of herringbone linen through clashing reports about carbon dating, tests on pollens, tests on alleged blood stains, etc., etc., etc.
My all-time favorite quote on this subject, from a trip down to Los Alamos, was from a skeptic involved in the research: ““We’ve tested every method we can think of and none of them work. … It seems like we have proven that the shroud doesn’t exist. The only problem is that it does. In the end, it’s still there — staring at us.”
Shroud news tends to get more coverage in Europe than in the United States and the latest comes from The Telegraph, under a majestic double-decker headline that reads:
Turin Shroud ‘is not a medieval forgery’
The Turin Shroud is not a medieval forgery, as has long been claimed, but could in fact date from the time of Christ’s death, a new book claims
[. . . ]
Please let me stress that my point in noting this story, yes on Good Friday in Western churches, is journalistic. My goal here is to create a kind of journalistic FAQ about key facts that need to be mentioned in basic Shroud of Turin coverage. The Telegraph story includes most of them, so let’s walk through it.
* First, it is essential to cover the 1988 carbon-dating tests that claimed medieval origins for the cloth. Thus, readers are told:
The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating. Those tests, conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, appeared to back up the theory that the shroud was a clever medieval fake, suggesting that it dated from 1260 to 1390.
* Second, reporters really need to mention the fact that there were always doubts about those results because the fibers appeared to have been taken from cloth in a section of the shroud that was repaired — with interwoven cloth — after a fire in the Middle Ages. The Telegraph gets that part, too.
* Third, I think it is necessary to mention the issue of the Middle Eastern pollen and spores found on the cloth, which have been tested several times with interesting results:
(Fanti) said his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.
* Finally, and this is tricky, it’s important to address the religious beliefs — pro or con — in the research team. Why ask the faith question? From the beginning, there have been religious believers of various kinds (Catholics, evangelicals, Jews) on both sides of these debates and there have been religious skeptics on both sides, as well.
In this case, the research has interesting, and strongly Catholic, roots:
Mr Fanti, a Catholic, said his results were the fruit of 15 years of research. … Mr Gaeta is also a committed Catholic — he worked for L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, and now works for Famiglia Cristiana, a Catholic weekly.
The Vatican has never said whether it believes the shroud to be authentic or not, although Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once said that the enigmatic image imprinted on the cloth “reminds us always” of Christ’s suffering.
His newly-elected successor, Pope Francis, will provide an introduction when images of the shroud appear on television on Saturday, the day before Easter Sunday, which commemorates the resurrection.
So what else is essential in this “just the facts” list for journalists? What other factual information can briefly be mentioned that has been address by believers and skeptics on both sides? In a key fact paragraph, this story mentions:
Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man’s body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle.
I think it’s essential to note that the image, the “imprint” — whatever it is — is so faint that, other than in areas that appear to be blood or water, it does not even penetrate individual fibers of the individual threads in the cloth. It appears to be a light scorch on the tops of the fibers. That would have required adding a few extra words.
Also, and here is the part that keeps stunning open-minded skeptics as well as the believers, the image has been shown — unlike ordinary paintings and photographs — to contain 3D information similar to photos taken from deep space. (See the History Channel video at the top of this post.)
Yes, the quality of that information has been debated, but I haven’t heard anyone totally dismiss it. Also, the shroud contains a photo-negative image, even through — whether of ancient or medieval origins — it long predates photography.
So I think this story misses maybe one or two absolutely necessary facts. Otherwise, this is about as straight and dispassionate a story as one can get in a mainstream news source, when dealing with this very emotional and divisive subject.
Four out of five stars, in other words.
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
Recent Comments