Paulette writes:
I still say, as I said before, sciencebod, the author of science buzz, is out of his league. The explanations given for the results of his experiments are naïve. But that is for another time. Now, I wish to address a tasteless remark he made in his latest posting. Recall that when we criticized him he would throw a hissy fit and accuse us of insulting him. Well look at what he wrote in his blog:
Paolo di Lazzaro and ENEA colleagues please note. Put your uv excimer lasers away – or at any rate use them for the originally-intended project. Some might think you are doing for Italian science what your countryman Captain Schettino did for Mediterarranean cruises, going way off course, and ending up grounded on rocks.
The arrogant fool.
Three or four days ago, Paolo Di Lazzaro wrote to me:
Please convey my congratulation to the blogger nicknamed sciencebod, (I understood he/she is a sort of "scientist in the kitchen") because according with his/her many posts in your blog it seems he/she understood how the BI was formed. The only person in the world. Quite a noticeable result.
I didn’t post Paolo’s comment then because it didn’t seem necessary. It still isn’t but it does seem somewhat fitting.
And another reader writes:
While I may disagree that the image was formed by some form of light, Dr. DiLazzaro has nonetheless made a significant scientific contribution that will hopefully help us someday understand the image on the cloth. Sciencebod, on the other hand, is doing nothing more than making sandcastles and pretending they are real palaces. [He*] then kicks sand in Dr. DiLazzaro’s face by comparing him to the cruise ship captain who floundered on the rocks. (*edited)
Pope Benedict in his recent visit to the UK, made the point that “Faith without reason is fanaticism; Reason without faith is fascism!” I recall that Albert Einstein made a somewhat similar observation. Sciencebod is clearly a fanatic! He puts his faith in kitchen puddling; makes a “leap in the dark”, throws in a few gratuitous insults and ad hominem arguments, and announces his predictable judgment of skepticism. His is a sad case. We can only pray for him! Perhaps reason may prevail with him one day, but I shouldn’t hold my breath!
I am curious to know why Paulette should consider me to be “out of my league” or “naive” in the interpretation of my own findings. What does this lady know about me or my cv to be so dismissive?
I have to say her own recent performance on this site has been less than impressive. First she takes me to task for allegedly misaligning two pictures of the Shroud, ventral and dorsal, when in fact the result gave exactly the same outcome as can be seen over and over again in Google image files (search # turin shroud #).
Example: ventral v dorsal size disparity
She then tells me to consult what she considers a real authoritative paper on the subject, but which turns out to be a pdf submission to a Shroud conference in Richmond, Virginia 1999 which as far as I can establish has never been published in any refereed scientific journal (and I can’t say as I am surprised).
For her information, I am a PhD biochemist who has trained and examined other PhDs. I have a sizeable number of published papers, one of which – single author- is still frequently cited (a “citation classic” in fact, several times over) in what was a new and exciting research area, and arguably still is. I have also been called upon to referee numerous papers submitted to Biochemical Journal and to other reputable publications.
Maybe Paulette and others feel I should hang up my experimentalist’s hat, and content myself with evaluating other’s data only. They are of course entitled to their opinion, but I will not be prevented from ‘doing my own thing’ by the putdown comments they post here or elsewhere. If they don’t like my blog, then there’s a simple remedy: don’t read it…
Dear Sciencebod,
Everyone who has studied The Shroud has been introduced to humility or humiliation – I hope you make the joyful choice. The great part of the human race has no degree but can still discover logic & wisdom (for which there are no degrees).
Paulette was pointing out that you should have aligned the back and front images by the shoulder line – quite easy – because when the cloth was pulled over the front of the body it didn’t quite cover the feet.
I’m new to this blog, so I may be saying nothing original. Tell me!
Very nice comment Brendan! …and yes sciencebod has had that explained to him several times, (about aligning the image properly) I mean, but it never hurts to say it again ;-)