 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
The Shroud of Turin for Journalists
Where Have All the Skeptics Gone?
By Daniel R. Porter,
(Updated October 18, 2005)
One might think the Papal custodians of the Shroud of Turin would be pleased. The primary skeptical
argument, carbon 14 dating, had been eliminated. The shroud might be 2000 years old, after all. But like
Hydra, the Greek mythological beast, controversy grew a weird new head.
ith the Winter Olympics coming to Turin in February, 2006, bringing a million
spectators and thousands of journalists, articles that describe this magnificent
Italian city are becoming commonplace. Many journalists rightly feel that they
should mention the city’s most famous artifact, the Shroud of Turin. And indeed they
should. But what to write? Because the shroud is a religious object, believed by many to
be the burial cloth of Jesus, and because scientists and historians have yet to prove or
disprove its authenticity, it is controversial and interesting.
Until recently, skeptics had the upper hand in the ongoing debate
about its authenticity. Carbon 14 dating in 1988 seemed to show
that it was medieval. Researchers, who were not experts in
radiocarbon dating, but nonetheless convinced the shroud was
authentic, tried to explain why the scientific dating was incorrect.
Often cited in the news media in an attempt at balanced reporting,
these explanations – one was that a fire in 1532 changed the age of
the cloth, another was that a bioplastic-polymer growing on the
cloth contaminated the sample – lacked scientific credibility.
Scientists, who were experts in radiocarbon dating, pooh-poohed
these explanations.
It was not until 2005 that things changed. An article appeared in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which
proved that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample
was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-
published chemist, and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, explained why the cloth was much older. It was at least
twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.
Peer-reviewed scientific journals are important. It is the way
scientists normally report scientific findings and theories. Articles
submitted to such journals are carefully reviewed for adherence to
scientific methods and the absence of speculation and polemics. Reviews are often
anonymous. Facts are checked and formulas are examined. The review procedure
sometimes takes months to complete, as it did for Rogers.
It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal, that in 1989, reported that
carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax. Rogers found no fault with the article
in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it.
W
Photomicrograph of fibers
from warp segment of
carbon 14 sample. It is
chemically unlike the rest
of the shroud. That is a
problem.
|
 |
|