A reader writes:
There is no consensus on the image substrate. To say otherwise in the Richard Dawkins Challenge is foolish, irresponsible or naïve. One option is to ignore the matter altogether. Say nothing about it. That is worse. Richard Dawkins will see it for what it is, bluffing. The only option is to be open and honest. There is no consensus on the image substrate.
But there nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong, with this lacking of a ‘consensus’. If people want to debate the shroud, they should do so as rational individuals, with each individual thinker pondering the evidence and developing careful reasoning. That’s all that there is to a scientific discussion. Thinking that the position of a protagonist moves somehow closer to the truth, or becomes more trustworthy or reliable, when it is backed by a ‘consensus’, is completely absurd. ‘Consensus’ is for those who believe, not in the power of truth and reason, but in the power of number and amount. This whole consensus thing should be dropped.
Ask Dawkins about consensus on the the selfish gene. He is going to have fun with this. The challenge mocks shroud science. What a shame.
– I’m missing something. I would have thought that the “substrate” for the image on the Shroud was linen, and that everyone agreed…