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?
He left out that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin , and that the moon orbits the earth.
Of the three items mentioned, I actually don’t belive in one of them. Guess which one.
The one about Lee Wilkes Lincoln orbiting the earth…
The same Robin Williams has also claimed global warming
would cause sea level rises of 100 metres by the end of this
century. My money is on the shroud. Williams is a bantam who thinks
he’s an eagle.
…or the one about John Lincoln Oswald assassinating the moon orbiting the earth…
Seriously, guys and gals, there is a serious problem here. The issue is “marginalization.” How the proponents of established “truth” use their establishment position to push dissent to the margins and unacceptability. More than once in history, proponents of seemingly fanciful scientific ideas are marginalized by established authority scientific, or otherwise. Remember, Galileo came with an inch of the stake – until he recanted the truth.
Einstein’s relativity was mocked until it was proven. But some ideas simply evade traditional standards of proof. By the skeptics standard the Resurrection will always be wrong because it can’t be repeated – at least by scientific methods.
When it comes to the Shroud, by dismissively pushing adherents of its authenticity to the margins, the issue of the Resurrection is avoided. It was something that was noted about the Shroud in the initial debate after the Pia’s photographs unlocked its mysteries. Were it the Shroud of Caesar or Aristotle it would have been universally hailed. But it was the Shroud of that annoying man, Jesus Christ and an authentic Shroud of JC, just isn’t de rigueur.
And by the way, Lee Harvey Oswald, all around goof-off (who just happened to speak and write) fluent Russian wasnt a lone gunman. But thats another debate. See http://www.johnklotz.com/new-jfk.htm
Seriously, guys and gals, there is a serious problem here. The issue is “marginalization.” How the proponents of established “truth” use their establishment position to push dissent to the margins and unacceptability. More than once in history, proponents of seemingly fanciful scientific ideas are marginalized by established authority scientific, or otherwise. Remember, Galileo came with an inch of the stake – until he recanted the truth.
Einstein’s relativity was mocked until it was proven. But some ideas simply evade traditional standards of proof. By the skeptics standard the Resurrection will always be wrong because it can’t be repeated – at least by scientific methods.
When it comes to the Shroud, by dismissively pushing adherents of its authenticity to the margins, the issue of the Resurrection is avoided. It was something that was noted about the Shroud in the initial debate after the Pia’s photographs unlocked its mysteries. Were it the Shroud of Caesar or Aristotle it would have been universally hailed. But it was the Shroud of that annoying man, Jesus Christ and an authentic Shroud of JC, just isn’t de rigueur.
And by the way, Lee Harvey Oswald, all around goof-off (who just happened to speak and write) fluent Russian wasn’t a lone gunman. But that’s another debate. See http://www.johnklotz.com/new-jfk.htm
John you wrote: “More than once in history, proponents of seemingly fanciful scientific ideas are marginalized by established authority scientific, or otherwise. Remember, Galileo came with an inch of the stake – until he recanted the truth.
Einstein’s relativity was mocked until it was proven. But some ideas simply evade traditional standards of proof.”
…and the non-supernatural ritualistic theory/approach by French Galileo’ of Shroud Science & Archae(crypto)logy & Philology to finally explain the Shroud image formation process enigma and fill the historical gap was mostly overlooked, underrated, ignored and even contemptuously mocked (see Mr Belz) on this very blog and by most alleged ‘Shroud scholars’ ;-).
As a science journalist he should know that the internet can also filter science, including science by press release.
For internet to filter science (and archaeology) including science (and archaeology) by press release, the RIGHT experts are STILL most needed though. E.g. I really doubt a technical photograph, a linguist, a lawyer, a church historian or a business executive are the right experts to CORRECTLY filter the BOTANY, PALEOGRAPHY and NUMISMATIC and discriminate between falsely positive perception, falsely negative perception and misreading as far as the TS image is concerned.
That is implicit in #9 for the filter to be taken seriously
Were science & archaeology by consensus and/or Shroud world croynistic intersubjectivity also implied in #9?
Typo: pseudo-Shroud science & archaeology croynistic intersubjectivity
I regret that Mr Hamon considers that I have ‘mocked(sic)’ some of his ideas concerning the image formation. I have certainly disagreed with these at various times but have generally given the reaaons for that, seldom by just curt dismissal. I consider him to be remarkably well-informed concerning several obscure matters, but it is principally some of his interpretations of these and the inferences he makes which I find contentious. I considered that the contributions he made under the June 7 discussion under the heading of the Tilma of Guadalupe and the Veil of Manopello particularly worthwhile and made a point of saying so. But this did not satisfy him and he continued to harbour his resentments against me. Despite his extensive knowledge and particular specialist field, Mr Hamon needs to learn that the real world is not governed by specialists, irrespective of their particular expertise. It is governed by generalists, who if they are wise, will take due consideration of what experts may have to say, but without necessarily accepting it as gospel. Court histories are littered with any number of cases where alleged experts have been in violent disagreement on opposing sides and it is over to juries of ordinary persons with no specialist knowledge of their own to weigh the value of their evidence. This is the way that conclusions are reached in the real world, whether the decisions they reach are correct or not, and irrespective of whether we like it or not.
Mr Belz wrote: “Mr Hamon (by the way I am a former University professor) needs to learn that the real world is not governed by specialists, irrespective of their particular expertise. It is governed by generalists, who if they are wise, will take due consideration of what experts may have to say, but without necessarily accepting it as gospel. Court histories are littered with any number of cases where alleged experts have been in violent disagreement on opposing sides and it is over to juries of ordinary persons with no specialist knowledge of their own to weigh the value of their evidence. This is the way that conclusions are reached in the real world, whether the decisions they reach are correct or not, and irrespective of whether we like it or not.”
“The real world”…how do you mean ‘real’? My luck I am not living in the time of Galileo (Mr Belz would have put me to the stake) or the time of the young Eistein (Mr Belz would have mocked my thesis as hot air telling me “(I do) not have the competence of a Technical Drawing High School student when it comes to 3-dimensional geometry (sic)” until my thesis would have been proven).
Reminder: Mr Belz cannot even correctly detect a 2D hidden cat in plain view within a rational time in a photograph but tell me/us he can ‘naturally’ think in 3D! This is not serious. BTW I studied 3D projective geometry (SPACE) for 3 years and can think in 4D (+ archaeological TIME), in 5D (+ archaeological state of MATTER) and in 6D (+ archaeological sources of ENERGY).
Typo: within a REASONABLE time
I might observe that Galileo was not handed over to his enemies in the aristotelian-dominican-dominated Inquisition because of his comprehensive astronomical evidence and rational argument so much, as for his gross ingratitude in lampooning a hitherto admirer, friend, supporter and generous patron, Maffeo Cardinal Barberini, Pope Urban VIII, an enlightened and scientifically sympathetic pontiff, by assigning him the role of Simplicio in his Dialogue. Nevertheless, Urban exercised his prerogative of clemency to Galileo in setting aside the Inquisition’s sentence. Dr Hamon (if that is how he prefers to be so titled) might discover a valuable lesson in Galileo’s failure in human relations.
Galileo’s own views on the relationship between scientific research and biblical interpretation have been endorsed by the Vatican since 1893. In 1979 Pope John Paul II reiterated this view and stated that Galileo had suffered injustice at the hands of the church. A statement by the pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 is interpreted by some as a rehabilitation of Galileo.
Nevertheless, Johannes Kepler was never able to pursuade Galileo that planets moved in elliptical orbits rather than circles, as it seems that Galileo himself still retained some vestige of a Platonic idealism, rather than committing himself to the more accurate mathematical model devised by Kepler.
As with Galileo, posterity may find that Dr Hamon is correct in his assertions (though lacking the same quality of evidence as Galileo’s), and then again it might just not.
BTW Pr Hamon (just for you, Mr Belz). Besides I can see you are still HEAVILY relying on your old ‘Pr’ Ency. Brit. to make your very weak point against me. That’s says ALL the difference between an alleged ‘Shroud scholar’ (who keeps compiling other’s work and rehashing other’s words) and a genuine Shroud researcher…
BTW, does Mr Belz imply he was hitherto ‘my’ admirer, friend, supporter and generous patron and an enlightened and scientifically sympathetic pontificating chap?
In case Mr Belz does, I must have missed something!
Max, Why don’t you give it a rest, and just concentrate on addressing issues, it’s getting just a little tiresome!
Dave, I won’t give it a rest:
1/as long as you will blow the fire yourself with ad hominem attacks
2/as long as you shall have to be taken down a peg or two for putting words in my mouth
3/as long as you’ll create a caricature of my thesis in order to criticize it more easily without even correctly getting it
4/as long as you will copy and paste the Encyc. Brit. to pass comments as if they were yours.
5/as long as you will think you are smarter and more knowledgeable in subject matters you are definitely not as smart and kwowledgeable as you think.
6/ as long as you will take a nasty hypocritical stand in your comments.
Well, I think it’s all in your perception only. I think I’m entitled to marshall whatever resources I have to hand as I please to make whatever point I feel needs making. You make it impossible to have any kind of rational discussion at all by unnecessarily taking it so personally. It seems that no-one can demur from your own particular conclusions without your taking offence and by being downright rude. I make no claim to infallibility, and regardless of any particular knowledge you may have, I don’t think you’re entitled to either. You resort to obscure jargon of your own making which renders any kind of sensible communication with you confusing, and assists any valid argument you may have not at all. I have my own particular experience, understanding, knowledge and insights, but you seem reluctant to acknowledge that anyone other than yourself can have any kind of helpful insight whatsoever. I have given you due credit when you have made remarkably valuable contributions to discussion. I cannot recall your ever reciprocating. Regardless of your obsession with cats, I’m no pussy, and I’m not going to roll over and play dead when others’ assertions contradict my own experience! That’s all I have to say!
I ought to have mentioned that this evening Sat 15 June, I just heard a news report that the All Blacks thrashed France at Christchurch 30 to 0!
Just keep your obsession with ‘all-black’ cats for you. You may keep being in denial, as far as perceptive, intellectual etc deaf & blind spots are concerned but please don’t you enjoy them at the expense of others.