1) there were too many egos in the kitchen;
3) even scientists tend to be significantly biased and hard-headed.
I'm ignoring the rest of the post because I don't think it's relevant, but I take serious exception to the two quotes I left above, for many reasons, but I'll only talk about the main reason I take exception to them.
Jabba, from the posts that you have made in this thread it is glaringly obvious that you don't understand science, you don't understand how it works, you don't understand experimental design, you don't understand statistics, and most of all you don't understand how scientists think.
So let me walk you through a few things.
Scientists have egos. Yes, of course they do, everyone does, and just like in every walk of life some of the biggest egos are found in people who rise to the top of their particular field or organisation. However, scientists' egos are funny things, because generally speaking a scientist makes a name for themselves by rigorous and well conducted research that produces peer reviewed publications time after time. The scientists with the biggest egos are usually the ones who are most imaginative (because good science needs an imagination), most self-critical (because good science needs to come from a rigorous study of possible problems), and most receptive to the criticism of others (because good science needs open and frank exchanges of ideas).
Let me tell you a little story to illustrate this point. Just before I started my PhD there was a week long meeting for all the new Astronomy PhD students about to start their courses. It was a chance to meet our peers and get to know a few of the bigger names in UK Astronomy. We had talks from several big names, many of whom had big egos. The one I remember most was a planetary scientist who went on at some length, in a booming baritone voice, about his latest theory on the formation of Mars. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say it was a pretty whacky idea, and he seemed, while he was talking about it, that he had absolutely no doubt of its veracity. After about 20 minutes he concluded his talk by turning to face us, pausing for a few seconds and then booming, "Of course, I could be completely wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly won't be the last, but that's what makes science fun!"
This man, with an ego the size of Rigel, was perfectly happy to be wrong.
And therein lies the biggest difference between most scientists with big egos and the rest of the world's big egos. For a scientist having a big ego means that you take huge pride in your ability to test theories and follow the results, regardless of whether it proves you wrong or right.
Of course, there are a few scientists whose egos are based on their view that they are always right, but these types are few and far between and quickly lose the respect of their peers. The most striking thing about a roomful of scientists who work on the same discipline is that the vast majority are eager to hear each others ideas and opinions and any given conference will produce new collaborative projects.
Scientists love bouncing ideas off each other and arguing the minutiae of the latest theory. They also love to challenge others in their field and have their own ideas challenged. I haven't been to a single conference in my career that didn't include a talk where someone in the audience called out, "I tried that last year and it didn't work" (or something similar). The result is that the speaker and the heckler will invariably be seen later that day huddled in a corner talking over why it didn't work and how it might be made to work.
There's no resentment about having your theory questioned. After all, that's the whole point of doing science.
So that's the ego crap taken care of, but what about the bias and hard-headedness? Well, I guess the hard-headed thing is also covered above, so let's just focus on the bias thing.
First I feel that I must point out that bias has a very specific meaning in science, and it isn't what you mean when you use the term. No, you use the word bias to mean that people expect a particular outcome before any testing is done. In this case, yes, every single scientist in the world is biased. However, to a scientist the word bias has a very different meaning - it is something that systematically changes the results of an experiment in one, and only one, direction. For instance, in Astronomy there's a well known bias called the Lutz-Kelker bias, which affects distance measurements. The Lutz-Kelker bias is simply that the distance to an object measured by parallax will tend to be underestimated rather than overestimated. The cause is well understood and can be corrected for (sort of) by application of statistical error bars on the measured data.
In the case of the Shroud the measurements are done by 14C radiometric dating, and while there may be biases on the measurements (Dinwar would know far better than me what they might be) by applying rigorous testing techniques any personal biases are rendered irrelevant.
Similarly, when I measure the distance to a star the numbers are what they are, regardless of what I think they ought to be. If they seem too large to me I might remeasure them to be sure, but I won't alter them. My personal bias is irrelevant, because in the end I don't actually
care. I have no vested interest in a particular distance for a particular star. If I fiddle the data in order to make a star appear more intriguing or interesting then it's almost an ironclad guarantee that someone else will come along and take other measurements and find that I was wrong.
It's possible that someone in one of the labs fiddled the results in order to produce a 14th century date, but the likelihood of it happening in all three independent labs, and having them produce three consistent results, is infinitesimal. This is because personal biases are not systematic. No two people will fiddle the results by the same amount, so getting three to do so independently is patently absurd, particularly when you consider that the measured date is so far from the expected date were the shroud really a 1st century artifact. Plus, we're not talking about individuals, plenty of people at all three labs would have seen the raw data, and would know if the results had been altered. So that theory just doesn't fly. The only way it would work was if everyone who had access to the raw data was in on a conspiracy to alter the results and had agreed to give consistent (but slightly different) dates. Again, the likelihood is practically zero.
So, in a nutshell, your contention that the egos or personal biases of the scientists involved somehow affected the outcome of the carbon dating at all three labs by the same amount has about as much validity as the theory that I'm an octopus that can fly a helicopter and play the harmonica while farting the national anthem of Botswana. I.e. none.
.
