[Vision2020] Driven nuts . . . by Ted

Mon Mar 28 07:28:52 PST 2005

Ted Moffett writes that many discoveries in science are accidental.  True.  
A few years ago, quite by accident, I answered definitively the vexing 
age-old question: "What do women want?"  Unfortunately, I did not write the 
formula down, and have since forgotten the elegant and simple answer.  Darn 
it.                                                                          

                                                        Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
>To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Driven nuts . . . by Ted
>Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:01:10 -0800
>
>Ted writes:
>
>"I think the implications of your statements on this topic actually show 
>that you, not Kai, misunderstand the nature of scientific research.  Much 
>scientific research appears to have no direct practical application."
>
>No kidding.  And where, exactly, did I state that all scientific research 
>should have direct practical application?  That, Ted, has never been my 
>position.  And good thing, too, or I'd have long ago shot myself in the 
>foot.  To quote Florence King, apart from being able to complete the 
>crossword puzzle in ink, my own academic training has qualified me to do 
>little more than argue with people on Vision 2020 about a wide and esoteric 
>range of subjects that have little or no practical application.  Apart from 
>perhaps being able to make a damned good living as a forger, what would I 
>know about the practical applications of knowing exactly how to re-create 
>the Shroud of Turin?  Bupkes.  And I like it that way.  I find the Shroud 
>fascinating, but not for its potential scientific interest -- I'm 
>interested in the history of the medieval holy relics creation and trade, 
>as I believe I pointed out in my first post on this subject.  (God, when 
>was that?  1496?)
>
>BTW, I watched a program the other night on that fellow in Israel who 
>forged both the "James the brother of Jesus" ossuary and the so-called 
>"Tablet of Solomon."  And I was envious.  I would love to be a great forger 
>of antiquities.  It would allow me A) to blow holes in countless religious, 
>academic, and historical pretensions; B) make oodles of money; and C) 
>appear on "In Search Of," then "The Discovery Channel," and finally "Cops." 
>  That, as far as I'm concerned, is the ultimate Trifecta of fame.
>
>Ted continues:
>"And many discoveries in science are accidental, stumbled on in the 
>investigation of a problem or phenomena quite different from the intentions 
>of the scientist."
>
>Quite true.  Most importantly the "glue" that holds Post-It notes.  Where 
>would we be without that?  And Silly Putty, which was discovered via 
>research originally intended to provide a substitute for the rubber used to 
>make tires.  (Yes, Ted, I'm being facetious.  I'm also subtly altering the 
>terms of the argument.  This is what's known as "fun," an accidental side 
>effect of arguments about the Shroud of Turin -- and the Shroud of Moscow.)
>
>What -- you have more to say on this?  Very well:
>
>"The investigation of the Shroud of Turin as a 'scientific' problem 
>determining how and when it was created has as much value as hundreds of 
>other scientific problems that might appear unimportant to many.  I think 
>the funding of 'pure' scientific research has tremendous value, even if for 
>no other reason than to expand knowledge, a good in and of itself, my 
>idealistic heart and intellect believes, though of course there are areas 
>of scientific research that are more critical than others when viewed from 
>a given ethical viewpoint."
>
>I do not now nor have I ever maintained that scientific investigation of 
>the Shroud of Turin is without merit.  Far from it.  I maintain that 1) 
>Nate Wilson's investigation of the Shroud was not scientific and thus was 
>not worthy of the credulous and lazy media coverage it received, and 2) 
>that scientists are, on the whole, a meticulous bunch who approach their 
>investigations with a mix of knowledge, training, and sound methodology 
>necessary for drawing valid, peer-reviewed conclusions that are worthy of 
>media attention.  Too bad they don't typically get the kind of press 
>coverage that Nate Wilson has conjured.
>
>Ted, Ted, Ted:
>"Furthermore, the more obscure and less sweeping problems that most 
>scientists work on can drive them "nuts" just as well as Quantum mechanics, 
>Hawking's views, or String Theory, aspects of physics that have been 
>popularized in the media in part because of their strange implications."
>
>Okay, Ted; I will concede this point.  I believe that you are the only one 
>in living memory to whom I have ever conceded a point in argument, and so 
>my mother is dying to meet you.  She doesn't believe you exist.  Still, I 
>must continue to take issue with your "driven nuts" assessment.  Scientists 
>are not "driven nuts" by the Shroud of Turin!  It would seem from his 
>message to this list that Dr. Frank Cheng of the University of Idaho is 
>quite sane.  (I agree, BTW, with everything he had to say on this subject; 
>what's more, I found it quite interesting.  Thank you, Dr. Cheng.  Welcome 
>to the list.)
>
>But Ted, I challenge you and Kai to name a single scientist -- and, for the 
>purposes of this argument, English teachers at NSA, participants in the 
>Moscow School District's Elementary Science Fair, and that fellow with the 
>walrus mustache on "Mythbusters" do not count as scientists -- who has been 
>obliged to check in at St. Joe's or to take even so much as a generic 
>valium because he has been "driven nuts" by the Shroud of Turin.  You know 
>who's been driven nuts?  Me, that's who -- I have been driven nuts by the 
>sloppy media coverage and by amateur Shroudies like Nate Wilson who put 
>forward theories without bothering to learn that the sort of glass 
>necessary for creation via the "Shadow Shroud" method wasn't available 
>until at least 400 years after the Shroud of Turin was manufactured.  
>Messy, messy, messy.
>
>Oh, for Pete's sake, Ted -- are you still there?
>
>"However, what drives scientists "nuts" is whatever problem a scientist or 
>group of scientists is slicing and dicing.  This is not dependent on what 
>you or I or even Hawking happens to think should be driving a scientist 
>"nuts."  If the Shroud of Turin as a forgery, etc., is driving a number of 
>scientists "nuts" trying to figure out how and when it was created, then 
>your statement as a statement of fact is false, regardless of how you spin 
>it . . . [p]erhaps we need a survey of all the scientists in the world and 
>have them rank the problems they deal with in their research on the "nuts" 
>scale, because perhaps what you meant to say is that the MAJORITY of 
>scientists are not driven "nuts" by the Shroud of Turin "mystery."  But 
>that is NOT what you said."
>
>At last!  I now call bullshit!  You are splitting hairs, Ted, and that is a 
>grotesque logical fallacy.  No, I did not mean to say that the majority of 
>scientists are not driven nuts by the shroud -- I meant to say exactly what 
>I said: that the manufacture of the Shroud of Turin is not a "mystery," it 
>is not a "riddle," and it has not driven scientists nuts.  Period.  We do 
>not need to conduct a global survey; we need only read the available 
>peer-reviewed scientific literature.  Study of the Shroud is of interest to 
>many.  The carbon-dating of 1988 (which may or may not have been 
>discredited -- there is still considerable argument over whether the 
>material tested was a medieval repair patch or not) was/is exciting to 
>scientists and religious scholars alike.  The discovery of the dorsal image 
>was/is similarly exciting.  But I object to the words riddle, mystery, and 
>nuts -- they put the Shroud in Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster territory where it 
>most certainly does not belong.
>
>Now, if you're still looking for a riddle, or a mystery, or nuts, then how 
>you got from the above to the below would certainly qualify:
>
>"Hopefully, you do not want to define a scientific research area worthy of 
>driving scientist's 'nuts' solely on the power of money to fund research 
>and buy lots and lots of 'scientists'  who are driven 'nuts.'  You would 
>then have to include the 100s of billions spent funding scientific research 
>on all sorts of marvelous and wondrous ways of killing human beings as 
>scientific research that is worthy of driving scientist's 'nuts.'"
>
>Cough!  Gasp!  Falling backward, backward into the inky blackness, my 
>vision slowly fading . . . .  Ted, I think your ability to connect the oil 
>industry, the military weaponry industry, global warming, the 
>misappropriation of research dollars to my brief and thankless observations 
>regarding science, pseudo-science, and the Shroud of Turin has had one of 
>those unintended consequences you mentioned far (oh, so very far) above in 
>the opening paragraphs of this email.  You have found a way to kill via the 
>Internet.  I am dying, Ted.  I just checked my watch and I have . . . let's 
>see, I'm 38, and the average non-smoking Caucasian woman's lifespan in the 
>United States is 77. . . yes, I have only 39 more years to live, give or 
>take the hour I've just spent answering you.  I blame you, Ted.  You have 
>killed me, sixty minutes before my time.
>
>Now, listen to me, all of you: go out right this minute and buy yourself a 
>nice chocolate Easter Bunny at the Safeway.  They're 50% off.  Then, come 
>back home, sit yourself down in a nice, comfy chair, unwrap Mr. Bunny, and 
>bite his little head off.  You'll feel so much better, I promise.
>
>And no, I won't be pretending that my chocolate bunny is anyone I know.
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.auntie-establishment.com
>      Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : 
>http://explorermsn.com
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯