SCEPCOP Forum

This is a perfect example of bad science and bad debunking.

It's based on a simple logical fallacy: A is like B, therefore, A is B. However, it simply doesn't follow.

In this example, a scientist, through a complex process, was able to give a reasonable duplicate of the Shroud. A (the new version) is like B (the original Shroud).

Then, like all pseudo-skeptics, they jump to the illogical conclusion that the original Shroud must have been made in the same way.

Sorry, guys. That illogical and bad science. You would still have to show that it actually was made the same way.

This bad science goes the other way, too. I remember reading about some bozos who claimed they could make a liquid that would solidify into large blocks that match those of the great pyramid of Cheops. Merely being able to do something does not prove that the original was made that way. I've been performing illusions of bending keys by "mind power" for decades. Are their people who can actually do it? I don't know. The fact that I can get the same result by faking it doesn't prove that others fake it, it only proves that it can be faked.

Disclaimer: Personally, from actual scientific evidence, I'm inclined to think that the original Shroud is a medieval forgery. I see no reason to believe it was necessarily forged in the complex was created by these debuker/bad scientists.

Sorry Don. Totally disagree with you. They do point out that their way is not necessarily the manner in which the forgery was reproduced. So your argument just matches their argument.

So your claim that they are pseudo-skeptics only suggests you did not bother reading their statement.

Hmmm. Sounds like your input may have been unfounded.

No bad science - reading counts.

And yet ALL of the news reports talk about this as a debunking but not one of the scientists have said that this doesn't disprove anything as you claim. A lie of omission is still a lie.