You were not always careful with your words, Mike. And as such you made blanket statements about my reading.
I have never questioned your ( unevidenced but stated ) credentials as a scientist. You questioned mine.
I have never questioned your ability with stats. You questioned mine which is utterly laughable considering I am as I said a math modeller. From noise processes in semiconductors ,to semiconductor construction, to tracking , observability and detection, detectability , to modelling signal processes and so on, lossy and lossless data reduction. It’s core expertise. I just don’t feel the need to make a lot of sound about it, as empty vessels seem to do.
Look in a mirror
@Opdrey.
You make far too many Ill founded assumptions, both on people and science. My views on Harry Gove and Michael tite in respect of the shroud, are based on what they said and what they did, as released in communications. No more and no less. It was shameful.
Your views are based on a sanitized assumption about how scientists are supposed to behave. They didn’t. Halls was even worse.
What I said was perfectly true:
you know little about the shroud, or Eucharistic miracles . You refuse to study either, but then you assume that ill founded opinions , based on such lack of study , have merit. They don’t.
When you study either we can discuss. Till then all you have is apriori opinions.
So can we have a discussion on the science please?
I am clearly a bookworm, indeed I am ridiculed for it here. So where you get your assumption about who reads more ( you were the one who claimed it so not me) Reflects a disdain for those you discuss. Is it even relevant? What matters on a discussion of the shroud, is reading about it!
I’ll stick to books. I would rather study then comment in that order. It’s what scientists are supposed to do.