Replies

There's a difference between...."this data supports or is consistent with Hypotheis A" and ..."this data proves Hypothesis A". The former makes no claims of proof while the latter rules out all other possible hypotheses. Since the article uses the phrase "may support...", it's making the first of the above statements, not the second. I don't see a problem.

I just discovered that my uncle likes to eat corn. The ancient Aztecs also ate corn. I make no claim of proof, mind you, but: This supports my hypothesis that my uncle is, in fact, an ancient Aztec.

You see, the new data I have uncovered (about my uncle) is not inconsistent with the established fact (that the Aztecs ate corn).

Of course, in this example, it's obvious that the assertion is ludicrous. But that's only because we are very familiar with the ancient Aztecs and living relatives. But substitute something more mysterious-sounding for the corn, like "stochastic alpha waves" or "enlarged cranial foramen," and (for laypersons) it starts getting more difficult to disbelieve in it (especially if they're predisposed to believe it anyway).

Regards,

I just discovered that my uncle likes to eat corn. The ancient Aztecs also ate corn. I make no claim of proof, mind you, but: This supports my hypothesis that my uncle is, in fact, an ancient Aztec. You see, the new data I have uncovered (about my uncle) is not inconsistent with the established fact (that the Aztecs ate corn).

Uh, huh.... and if one draws the parameters even wider, one can make this look even more ridiculous; e.g. all cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore this is consistent with the hypothesis that all dogs are cats.

But electromagnetic radiation emission from slabs of rock is not something as ubiquitous as corn or legs on mammals. Neither is it "mysterious-sounding". It's a specific, measurable parameter.

The critical issue here, is the location of the radiation. If it is centered on the stone on which Christ's body is purported to have rested and it is not detected two feet to either side of this stone, or if it diminishes with distance from this stone, that is important and significant information. On the other hand, if the entire tomb or a wider area around it is emitting radiation and there is nothing specific to the burial stone, that would diminish interest in this phenomenon.

Therefore, the current situation can be summarized as follows; scientists have previously postulated that the image on the Shroud of Turin may have been made by emission of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic disturbances are indeed detected on the burial stone (but not on other stones in the vicinty.....).

This, therefore, supports but does not prove the hypothesis regarding the Shroud's origin.