What I find amazing is the Asimov article which is a part of blog that started this discussion. It’s Medieval (maybe not so medieval). He adopted of the language and analysis of the Inquisition. Thus we have “orthodox” science defending us against the heretics who dare to publish without imprimatur.
It is a very elitist view and anti-democratic. It’s not that scientific issues should be decided by a majority vote. It’s that even crackpots have a right to free access to what Madison called “the market place of ideas.” The essence of the Asimov view is that only approved ideas can be shared.
Given the scientific investigations of the Shroud of Turin and the published results of those investigations anyone who still argues or tosses off the opinion that the Shroud is, or must be studied as, a painting, is either lazy or a fool, or both.
They are also what Marcello Truzzi called “pseudoskeptics.” They are not seeking to discover truth but to sustain their predetermined point of view. They are truly “true believers.” And yet in the posts to this blog the pseudoskeptics label those who take the scientific findings concerning the Shroud seriously “believers” as if that were a curse word. When it comes to “belief” those who maintain the Shroud is a painting and attack the credibility of those who deny that are the Taliban of science.
The journal that Marcello Truzzi started because he believed that skepticism was being replaced by pseudoskepticism You can see all the comments related to this particular comment by clicking here.