Earlier this week executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici announced that they believe they have discovered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. The tomb was originally discovered 25 years ago in Talpiot Jerusalem. Ten ossuaries, or bone boxes, were discovered in the tomb. The ossuaries contain the following names: “Jesus son of Joseph,” “Maria,” “Mariamene e Mara,” “Matthew,” “Yose” and “Judah son of Jesus.” Cameron claims that he and his researchers have “done their homework,” and now they will present their compelling evidence.

I don’t want to go over the details of the archaeological claims on this blog. For a discussion of the details listen to the next episode of the Skeptics Guide where we discuss it with archeologist Kenny Feder. I do want to discuss Cameron’s decision to present the evidence in the manner he did – as a film documentary.

Traditionally new scientific evidence is presented to the scientific community either as a meeting presentation (which can be a poster or a talk) or as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a reason for this tradition – it provides an opportunity for a large number of experts, with a variety of opinions, knowledge, and ideas, to pick over the claims and look for flaws, alternative hypotheses that have not been adequately considered, contradictory evidence that has not been accounted for, or other weakness in the data. This process is messy, and often has to go through many rounds of research before all data and all points of view are accounted for reasonably. Eventually a relative consensus is achieved, at least on some points, but research is a never-ending process and so new evidence or ideas might cause the consensus to be modified or reconsidered.

When scientific ideas survive open attack by skeptics or scientists who are trying to disprove the claim or promote an alternate claim, then such ideas gain credibility and support. There is a Darwinian survival of the fittest among competing ideas, and when the scientific process works as it is supposed to, those ideas that are closer to the truth tend to survive.

What Cameron has done, however, is to short-circuit this review process. Rather, he has crafted a documentary marshalling (cherry picking?) the arguments and evidence for one very dramatic claim and is presenting it directly to the public. This is likely to be successful as a publicity/money-making strategy, but it makes for poor science. Given the movie-making skills of Cameron it is also likely to create a lasting impression in the collective conscious of the public – one that will be hard to shake later with dry news reports of new evidence or analysis.

I charge Cameron for being irresponsible in this endeavor. He has responsibility as a famous, influential, and wealthy film-maker not to exploit bad science and mislead the public. He should have more humility toward his own lack of scientific expertise, and more respect for the institutions of science. The episode, in the end, is likely to be a small embarrassing footnote on Cameron’s career.

Cameron has apparently not learned from the mistakes of those who have failed before him. The most notorious example is Oliver Stone’s JFK in which he endorsed one of the more kooky JFK assassination conspiracy theories. In Stone’s case he could argue that the movie was fiction based on speculation – in which case he is guilty of blurring the lines between fantasy and documentary. In Cameron’s case the film is being presented as a straight documentary (I’m not sure which one is worse).

I am also reminded of the many made-for-TV specials that purport to present startling evidence for UFO’s, angels, the alien autopsy, Atlantis, and countless other questionable notions without scientific support.

I am not arguing for censorship, and I am not naïve enough to think that in this age of movies, TV, and now the internet that such information is not going to get out to the public. The public will be increasingly exposed to every unscientific idea out there. What I am advocating is that individuals with power and influence respect their positions and act responsibly.

I am also advocating for a more skeptical public, for that is ultimately the best defense. The public cannot be (and one can reasonably argue should not be) protected from exposure to nonsense, so they increasingly will have to learn how to distinguish such fake science from the real thing. That, I think, is the primary role of the skeptical community – a role that should be mainstreamed more into the scientific community at large.

Til then you’ll just have to keep reading this blog.

---

Addendum added 3/15/07A newly published article examines the inscription on the “Mary Magdalene” ossuary, which was initially translated to “Mariamne,” apparently another name used to refer to Mary Magdalene. However, this new examination gives compelling evidence that the inscription actually reads “Mariame and Mara;” two separate names, neither of whom is Mary Magdalene. Further, the two names were likely inscribed by different hands at different times.

If true, and the evidence seems compelling, this analysis would blow out of the water any notion that the tomb has any relationship to an historical Jesus. So it looks as if even though Cameron was trying to stay ahead of the evidence with his documentary, the process of scientific review caught up with him more rapidly than we would have guessed. It seems his documentary is obsolete before it even airs.