Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.
Sigh. PE is a light, fairly fluffy, publication aimed at secondary schools (ages 11 up). Peer review is light and carried out internally by the editorial board, all of who are secondary educators.
It's not somewhere you'd expect to see cutting edge science.
“The Turin Shroud”
By Jonathan Allday <snip>
Allday is not, as you're attempting to make out, a sceptic regarding the shroud. He's widely cited by shroudies as "pro-authenticity".
Neither is he an expert in the fields covered in his article.
There have been few opportunities for the
scientific investigation of the Shroud,
Very true. The believers are careful to avoid scrutiny of the cloth.
In 1988 the results
of radiocarbon dating of fibres from the Shroud
were announced, seemingly pinning the origin of
the cloth to between 1260 and 1390. Place this
information alongside other pieces of evidence,
such as a memorandum to the Pope from Bishop
d’Arcis of Troyes c. 1389 in which he claimed to
be aware of the artist who had faked the Shroud
and that it was ‘cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that
it was a work of human skill and not miraculously
wrought or bestowed’, and the argument for the
Shroud being a fake is quite convincingly made.
Yep. It's a pity believers deny the facts behind the shroud.
One might have thought that straightforward
physical analysis of the cloth would be sufficient
to distinguish between a painting and an image
produced in some manner by physical contact
with a body.
It can. It has. McCrone's work did that in 1978/9. Believers refuse to accept it.
Unfortunately, almost every single
point made by a scientist, with an established
reputation in a relevant field, concerning the image
on the Shroud has been contested by an equally
reputable scientist with a different point of view.
Not true. Very few scientists believe the shroud is genuine and even fewer of those who do can support their beliefs with evidence.
The fact that scientists disagree, and often disagree
vehemently, should be a matter brought to the
attention of students of all ages...
Why not expose the students to the evidence instead of attempting to argue from authority?
…There have been many attempts to simulate
the image on the Turin Shroud, including a
painting being impressed onto a cloth in a manner
similar to a brass rubbing. A judgment of success
can only be subjective, but to date no reproduction
has been able to produce the3Dnature of the image
with the level of detail in negative!
This is either an outright lie or else Allday has seriously neglected his research. You've already been told of the multiple recreations of the shroud using medieval technology.
With our 21st
century technological sophistication, we are so far
defeated.
Again this is simply untrue.
- Allday also refers to
-- a history of events and icons that appear to substantiate the Shroud’s existence, and itinerary, much prior to the 13th century;
No he doesn't. He neglects to provide supporting
evidence.
-- The image and ‘blood-stains’ do not show up in X-rays – and, while blood wouldn’t show up in X-rays, paint pigments should.
This is just nonsense. Plenty of pigments are transparent to x-radiation; I notice Allday doesn't cite any tests with the pigments discovered by McCrone in his tests.
-- The ‘bloody’ fibers showed matting whereas the image fibers did not.
Irrelevant. Matting does not imply blood.
- There are several more pro-authenticity findings to which the author refers, but I need to get moving.
If your responses to this post warrant me describing the rest, I’ll include them in one of my next posts.
- Whatever, it seems to me that what this article primarily points out is that there really are two RATIONAL sides to this story.
No it doesn't. It shows that believers refuse to accept contradictory evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs.
As you've been told, with supporting links to more details and evidence, the shroud is a medieval fake and no amount of denial is going to change this.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention though; as a member of the Institute for 25 years, and a former officer, I intend to write to PE to bring the sloppy level of science in this article to their attention. Though as it's six years old I don't think much will be done, perhaps I should write an article outlining the real science for them.
)
.
