I’ve decided that I no longer mind it when one scientist calls another scientist a “Mickey Mouse Scientist,” as Colin Berry does this morning in his blog. I may be wrong, but I realize now that it is a cheap shot in lieu of being able to criticize effectively. My personal vision of a good scientist doesn’t embrace derision of colleagues. To so insult a fellow scientist defines the source.
Colin, in his blog, reminded me this morning (afternoon for him) of a posting from February of 2012. He writes, “Here’s a link to a Mickey Mouse scientist.” He is referring to Paolo Di Lazzaro. At Colin’s urging, go have a look.
Paolo never came back to this blog after the insult. Maybe I should have kicked Colin out then but I stood on principle. I wanted all voices represented. Too many people have been driven away by Colin’s insults.
I do happen to think the shroud is real. That is different from knowing it is real. Colin accuses me of pushing a pro-authenticity agenda. In another blog Stephen Jones accuses me of being anti-authenticity. Take your pick. Would I rather know the truth about the shroud no matter what it is? Of course, I would. Does Colin believe that? I doubt it. Should I wonder if Colin is completely objective? Would I believe him if he said he was? I would like to think so. I wonder, though.
I am a skeptic at heart. I am skeptical of many things claimed about the shroud. I don’t think there are coins on eyes or images of flowers on the cloth. I’m not convinced by the evidence that there is no image content under the bloodstains. When it comes to possible material intrusion in the area from which the radiocarbon dating samples were taken, I’m not convinced that the blue quad mosaics tell us anything useful. I don’t buy some of the interpretations by John Jackson or Don Lynn concerning the 3D data inherent (not encoded) in the images. There are many things I doubt.
You must read Colin’s latest posting in which he covers so many, many things. A thousand words is worth a picture, right? His newest posting, today, is more than 5,000 words. Read what he says about Paolo.
I agree with much of what he says and I disagree with other things he says. For now, there is too much to discuss. But have a look at the ImageJ work he is doing. Is that cityscape-like image partly the result of banding? Click on the image to see it enlarged in Colin’s blog space.
I’m disappointed to see how he generalizes and characterizes people who think the shroud is real (Fair Use):
It’s got to be a photograph of the crucified Jesus, miraculously preserved , right, albeit as a non-photogenic negative, intended as a present to 20th century man, right? Right? Do I hear any voices of dissension? No? [ . . . ]
I am a voice of dissention. Colin should know it. I have repeatedly said that I have never found a single theory or hypothesis for the images that I can accept. Nothing yet appeals to me and it is not because of my world view or my religion or any assumptions. I have never seen enough evidence to convince me that the image is or is not God-made, naturally made or manmade. Who knows, maybe Colin will be proven right in the end. Maybe it is a contact scorch. Maybe it is a picture of Jacques de Molay. I doubt it but let’s see. Colin seems to think it is our job to prove that he is wrong.
Time will tell.