Terence Hines - Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

Closely related to the polygraph is the voice stress analyzer, which had a period of popularity in the 1970s. It was claimed that, by detecting certain frequencies in the human voice, it was possible to determine whether or not people were telling the truth. The beauty of such a system was that the person didn’t even have to be present for the method to be used. It could be used on a voice coming in by phone or even on a tape recording of a voice. Highly exaggerated claims for the validity of voice stress analysis were made, largely by representatives of firms selling voice stress analyzers at up to $4,400 each. Lykken’s (1981) review of the research shows that voice stress analysis is useless. Biddle’s (1986) comment that the polygraph is “an unreliable, pseudo-scientific thingamabob” applies with even greater force to the voice stress analyzer (p. 25).

Making polygraph use illegal in private employment has not eliminated the use of this piece of pseudoscientific gadget in other circumstances. It seems that in almost every high profile case (i.e., O. J. Simpson, Chandra Levy, etc.) one or more of the participants asks to take a lie detector test. The results are then used to “prove” the individual’s lack of involvement. Of course, if the test turned out negative, we would never hear of the results. In either case, the results are worthless as an indication of the truth.

The use of polygraphs is still, unfortunately, legally permitted by U.S. government agencies. In several important cases, the most recent ones being the case of Robert Hansen, the FBI agent who sold U.S. secrets to the Russians, and CIA agent Aldrich Ames, who did the same, these truly guilty individuals passed lie detector tests. These sorts of disasters have not reduced the zeal of some agencies of the federal government for using lie detectors to ferret out alleged evil-doing. Polygraphs were widely used to intimidate innocent U.S. government scientists in the investigation of supposed release of nuclear secrets from government laboratories in 1999 (Zeicoff 2001). In all these cases, the reliance on polygraphs has endangered American national security. In the Ames case, especially, the consequences of relying on lie detectors was disasterous. In October 2002 the U.S. National Academy of Science’s National Research Council published a report highly critical of the use of lie detectors in national security matters. The report concluded that lie detectors were unable to detect spies and other breaches of national security (Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph 2002). It also contains a lengthy review of the evidence on the usefulness of the polygraph in general. It is not yet clear how the report’s recommendations will be implemented.

Employers eager for a quick-fix to the problem of dishonest workers have replaced the mechanical lie detector with equally dubious paper-and-pencil tests for honesty. As Lilienfeld (1993–94) notes, these tests “suffer from the same shortcomings” as their mechanical cousins (p. 32).

The Shroud of Turin is said to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and to have on it a miraculous image of Christ that could not have been produced by any nonsupernatural method. A Shroud of Turin Research Project claims that scientific analysis of the shroud substantiates its miraculous nature. But the claims made for the shroud do not stand up to close inspection. The most reasonable conclusion is that the shroud is a fake that originated in France sometime in the 1300s. The following discussion is based on Nickell’s (1999) book-length evaluation of the evidence for the shroud’s authenticity. McCrane’s (1999) is another excellent source.

Where did the shroud come from? If it is genuine, it should be possible to trace its history back to the time of Christ. But this is not possible. The shroud first appeared in France during the 1300s. It was displayed and the claim was made that it was the burial cloth of Christ. As might be expected, it attracted considerable attention—so much attention, in fact, that Henri de Poitiers, the bishop of Troyes, ordered an investigation of the shroud. A report of this investigation was sent to the pope in 1389. Parts of that report are quoted by Nickell (1999):

The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might be cunningly wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord. (p. 12)

Thus the Shroud of Turin came into existence.

Even if this report were not available, one fact would cast strong doubt on the authenticity of the shroud: It’s not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does mention that Christ’s body was wrapped for burial, but the type of burial cloth used at the time in Jewish burials was very different from the shroud. The shroud is a single fourteen-foot-long piece that would have had to cover the body over the head, according to the position of the images. Jewish burial custom dictated that a separate cloth was used to cover the face of the dead. Further, the Bible does not mention any finding of an image on Christ’s burial garments after the Resurrection. Presumably the existence of such a miraculous image would not have escaped the notice of those who entered the tomb following Christ’s rising. One aspect of the image itself also poses serious problems for claims that the shroud is authentic. The image shows the hair on the head in fairly well defined curls. But Christ had bled from the application of the crown of thorns to his scalp. The scalp bleeds profusely, and the application of liquid of any kind to the hair causes it to mat down. Thus, the curls in the hair would not be visible, either because of the blood matting the hair or because any fluid used to clean the body for burial would have had the same matting effect.

Red bloodstains are said to be present on the shroud. In fact, there are red markings on the shroud, but they are not blood. For one thing, as blood ages and dries it rapidly (within days) turns black. Precise analysis of the material that makes up the “bloodstains” on the shroud reveals that it is made up of vermilion and a red iron earth, the “two most popular red pigments” used by artists in the 1300s (Nickell 1999, p. 130). Shroud of Turin Research Project scientists Pellicori (1980) and Heller and Adler (1980) have claimed to find actual blood on the shroud. This finding, even if true, would not prove the shroud authentic, as the artist could easily have added blood, even human blood, to the other pigments used to create the image. However, the tests used that were claimed to indicate the presence of blood are not specific to blood. That is, the tests will react positively in the presence of other organic materials—and organic materials that cause the tests to react positively were widely used by artists of the 1300s. For example, pigments were often put in a solution of egg tempera and then painted on whatever surface was to have an image applied. Egg tempera produces test results similar to those produced by blood in the tests used by Pellicori (1980) and Heller and Adler (1980), as noted by Fischer (1983).