I commend to you a thoughtful posting by Colin Berry. I have no issue with considering Colin an expert on scorching, even an expert in the scorching of linen, even an expert on a proposed scorching model for the shroud’s image. For it is after a few paragraphs that I read this:
Firstly, no one knows the precise chemical nature of the Shroud image, despite decades of research (actually, little research has been done directly on the image, for reasons we’ll address on another occasion). So there are no experts on the Shroud image – just some who are well informed about how little we actually do and do not know.
That’s where someone like myself fits into the picture. I too know next to nothing about the Shroud image. Since I have no access to the Shroud itself – and probably would not be able to wave any magic wands if I did – I have to fall back on the time- honoured approach of the scientist who is under no great time pressure to deliver a solution. That is to propose a model, to study that model, and then patiently attempt to spot points of similarity or difference between model and unknown subject. In my case the model is thermal imprinting aka scorching. I cannot be described as a Shroud expert – but with time there might be one or two charitable souls prepared to regard me as an expert on scorching… C’est la vie.
What about the other aspects of the Shroud? Are there experts in those areas? History? There’s been a lot of attention on the question as to where the Shroud was prior to 1355 when it was first put on display. Prior to that it was in private hands and well-concealed, but for how long? (The Vatican claimed recently that it had been in the care of those mysterious Templars).
The problem is that I am not expert enough in such matters to know if Colin is an expert.
BTW: Did the Vatican really make that claim? Or was it Barbara Frale, a so-called expert?
Then Colin writes:
To summarise: experts have their uses in certain situations, as I have suggested and they may acquire guru status if they have a track record for sound judgement, i.e their previous positions having proved correct in the fullness of time. But they may not be able to bring unique insights into an ongoing problem if the latter has defied solution, and may indeed hinder progress if they are too quick to criticize or dismiss current lines of research. That is especially the case if they are not actually researching it themselves, and not immersed in that indefinable quality I would describe as the ‘culture of research’, especially that which attempts to discover not just the known unknowns, but those entities once famously described as ‘unknown unknowns’.
Yes, a reference right at the end to ‘culture’ might look somewhat grandiose, but let me disabuse you of any such desire or intention of self-aggrandisement immediately. I recently came across a definition of culture that clicked immediately – it’s those things that people do without thinking, or feeling they have to think.
There are different approaches to the Shroud – some that require thinking, some which do not. It’s part of the human condition for the thinkers and non-thinkers to eye each other suspiciously. But all of us are occasionally thinkers or non-thinkers, depending on context, and if some or all of that ‘non-thinking’ is cultural, then there’s little point in taking cudgels to each other.
Too many paragraphs to reach an obvious, years old and well established conclusion: we dont know yet how the image was formed. Far from his initial posts when he was completely sure that the image was a scorch. Welcome!
Good point Gabriel! I thought the same thing. It takes some folks longer than others depending on the “non-thinking” prejudices one holds, ahem!
The thought of an old quote I’ve seen also came to my mind when I read this: the Titanic was built by experts while the ark was built by an amateur.
Lets hope that the “Missus” (little woman, old lady, wifey) doesn’t scorch the breakfast.
But yes, Gabriel and Chris, I too see progress.
This looks like a welcome peace offering from Colin. I think it is thoughtful and well-written. However, let us not forget that Colin’s web-site seems to be agenda driven, with its heading “The Turin Shroud: but for the pseudo-science it might have been dismissed long ago as a medieval fake” Contrast this with the more circumspect heading on Dan’s site intro – “Is the Shroud real? Probably.” Colin would win more friends if he was less provocative as to his intentions, and could demonstrate a modicum of open-mindedness about even the possibility of authenticity. However I particularly like the point he makes about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” – for I suspect there are many such. In the meantime “Peace!” and let us hope that it is more than just a “Cease-fire!”
I have been attempting to give some thought about the question of “pareidolia” as to their real presence or not, and what objective ways there might be of ascertaining this, or at least a better indication than mere subjectivity. There has already been extensive comment following the posting of the recent paper on this topic. One of the shortcomings of that paper, and indeed a considerable volume of most other material on the web concerning image analysis and identification, is that they all seem to seek to make comparisons with known pre-existing imagery, such as for example the attempt to make comparisons with an alleged back-of-cloth facial image with the known front-of-cloth image. This approach clearly has limitations, and does not allow for the discovery of anything new not yet known, or at least possibly admissible.
A passing thought is the simple human ability to recognise ordinary alphabetic lettering despite a variety of fonts. By objective measures only, there would seem little to connect say Lucida Black with Times Roman, serif fonts with non-serif, Gothic and Arial, etc. Yet the human eye and brain readily succeed in achieving this recognition. I think it doubtful that any objective measure could succeed in confirming this identification in the same degree. OCR succeeds to some extent, but perhaps it needs to identify the font character set beforehand. I suspect that similar comments may apply to pareidolia, that there are inherent difficulties with objective measurements.
The frequency distribution of any variate is completely defined by its statistical moments, although it is rare to go higher than the fourth – 1st moment = central tendency (mean); 2nd moment = variability (standard deviation); 3rd moment = skewness; 4th moment = flatness or peakedness (kurtosis). Higher moments tend to be unstable. The situation becomes somewhat more complex for multi-variate distributions, and the grey-scale pixels on the Shroud cloth comprise degrees of greyness on a 2-dimensional matrix (surface of the cloth). There is also the backgound inherent banding from the weave of the cloth.
It occurs to me that it should be possible to divide the cloth into a grid of squares wherein the various normalised moments can be ascertained. There is a further complication with areas which may be blood-stained or not blood-stained, and whether the cell is an image area or non-image area. Ideally it should be possible to ascertain grid moment outliers as areas of interest for further inquiry into pareidolia phenomena. Yet a further complication is that pareidolia imply a geometrical shape, which again implies some kind of inter-connectedness between neighbouring pixels. The computing requirements for such an investigation would be phenomenal, and perhaps it is no wonder that subjectivity has to date been the mainstay of attempts at identifying pareidolia – however such subjectivity has proved to be controversial and lacking agreement. I think perhaps I have now exhausted my present thoughts on the topic, but possibly it may continue to tease my regrettably now senescent brain. Perhaps a younger investigator may see something worthwhile in pursuing a few of these ideas.
Well thought post, Dave.
Re unknown, it does seem CB ignore most of the research work done before him on the TS as far as scorching is concerned.
Reminder (as long as B. Colin’s web-site heading stands): “CB scorchography thesis: but for the pseudo-Knight-Templar-history-and-archaeology and the pseudo- (archaeological) bloodstained-pattern-analysis that back it up, it might have been dismissed long ago as a medieval fake”. Forensically speaking CB is FAR from being as smart and reliable as Prs. Bucklin, Baima-Bollone and Zugibe when it comes to detect and identify bloody wounds from the TS whether from photographs or directly from the piece of cloth.
Typo: “it might have been dismissed long ago as a MICHEY MOUSE THEORY”.
Were CB a true scientist as he keeps claiming he is, he would not only explore the effects of scorching but also e.g. fumigation and corpse hyperthermia to assess a range of simple and complex thermal imprint types that could be left on linen cloth.
That would Be MICKEY, not MICHEY, Max.
Andy, my Typo Subscription (again & again)
Good to see Colin is willing to be nearly reasonable. That’s an excellent start. As to his expertise, I have no idea what his specialty is, though his statements reveal he believes he is more expert in a wider variety of subjects. That only means he has lots of opinions. Don’t we all.