Not so.
Academia uses peer reviewed journals to add to the model of science. It is only one route.
But Endless criminals are convicted even on death row by forensic reports never published in such journals . The labs have a far higher standard of process than wacky professors generally do.
The test results are there to see and inexplicable in the opinion of leading pathologists. You won’t even look.
The précis is out there, the detail available.
Are you worried about what you might find?
I have pointed out that the peer review system demonstrably hinders ideas that counter establishment narrative. The paper that destroyed the useless unscientific process of the shroud carbon dating didn’t get accepted by peer review for the main journal RC dating. Why? Because the peers were the very labs whose credibility was wrecked by the paper. They were determined to stop it.
Nature magazine broke the rules to accept the work in the first place which was hopelessly shoddy because it “liked “ the answer it gave.
Ultimately truth will out, and such as Rogers final book , Adlers presentations, meachams and Marino’s books , later Fanti, bury the dating once and for all.
The shroud really is that of a crucified man and ancient. The daters tested a mediaeval addition ignoring all the protocols.
The truth came out in the end, but not in nature magazine or peer reviewed journals. It came out in books.
Rogers stated he had a serious problem with many normally credible scientists, determined to declare the shroud fake, with no interest in evidence that totally disproves them. They became pseudoscientists dealing with the shroud.
But here’s what happens when establishment science does get involved.
Take Sokolka.
Tested by two pathology professors with massive resumes, impeccable credentials at byalystok university who did all the tests to prove human blood AB, human cardiac tissue. Leucocytes etc. No nuclear dna profile. impossible to explain or fake. They produced a report. The slides are out there on the web.
The two were threatened, and silenced, put on trumped up disciplinary, a dean of the university who had never even seen the samples declared the ludicrous idea it was “red bread mould” . He’d never even looked! The university shut it down. It didn’t like scientific conclusion.
Universities who do discover the origin of such samples before testing refuse to test it why?
It would be easy to prove as fraud were it true.
Academia doesn’t want the truth. It is scared of what it might find.
like the shroud , the truth will come out in books so the likes of Dawkins don’t get to hide it. The forensics say it all without him.
lit shouldn’t surprise you.
It is so bad now you can lose your job as an academic for saying only women have periods or a vagina! It says it all.
Like China or Russia , Conclusions have to be “ acceptable “ to be given air time.
academia **sucks**
The simple point is that if you wish to say that these claims have scientific support or scientific evidence, then you need to supply citations, i.e. references to papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, or at least published on a publically accessible preprint service, e.g.
arXiv, so that the quality of the material and methodology can be assessed.
As I said before, if you can't show provenance beyond reasonable doubt, then it's just another exotic claim. I suspect this is why such one-off events make up the bulk of supernatural claims - no supernatural claims of repeatable, verifiable events have withstood scrutiny.
My resistance isn't to books per-se - I've got too many books to read as it is - it's for spending time & money on books that make unverifiable, unfalsifiable, supernatural claims, particularly claims specific to the beliefs of one particular religious sect. Life's too short.
