To opine, without proof, that someone is intellectually dishonest is itself intellectual dishonesty at its worst. . . .
I agree. I am troubled by the all the charges of intellectual dishonesty against a certain historian and several scientists who are members of the Shroud Science Group (SSG). I have carefully read through the charges in a guest posting and in comments with the idea of perhaps editing them. I may do so. I will certainly act on specific complaints.
To be clear, I don’t agree with any of the accusations of intellectual dishonesty. In my opinion they are unjustified and insulting. I know many of the people being accused.
From time to time, in the world of shroud studies, I find myself disagreeing with someone’s methods, someone’s interpretation of facts, someone’s derived conclusions. At times, I am frustrated to find someone championing a particular hypothesis that I think can’t be right. Sometimes I am disappointed by someone’s apparent bias; but I have to remember that believing something is not the same as acting from bias. None of this is intellectual dishonesty. None of it!
Honesty is as we saw it in Ray Rogers when he changed his mind about the possibility of invisible mending. From what I know personally and from papers and correspondence I can’t imagine any of the SSG scientists or any of the well-known shroud historians acting any other way; that is with complete honesty.
From now on, unless someone has proof that I see first, accusations of intellectual dishonesty will not be permitted on this blog.