> Hey , Ori, what direct experience do you have with
> radiocarbon dating?
Hey, OCaptain, plenty. But not with the particular equipment used in that study to analyze the sample, and I openly acknowledged that in my review of that study. But "experience" is often irrelevant, in my opinion. Too many times, "experience" just makes someone good at what they do, including repeating mistakes, unless they are aware of their mistakes. But "expereince" per se does not correct mistakes. In fact, it often deeply engrains those mistakes to happen repeatedly and with increasing efficiency. Unfortunately, that '95 report did not receive proper peer review, so there was no objective scrutiny applied that would require the authors to openly address those weaknesses in their report. Rather, the authors were allowed to jump to their conclusions without being required to state any scientific rationale for doing so, e.g,. reporting C14 dates that were significantly older than the orthodox timeline and yet jumping to the conclusion that such dates must have been in error since the timeline is simply presumed to be correct.
I'm not sure what your point was in invoking "experience". It doesn't take "experience" to know that sampling must be random in such a study, and it was not random (e.g., only surface samples with large visible clumps of charcoal, inexplicable omission of half the samples). The sampling method must take care to minimize contamination, but it's as if steps were taken to maximize contamination in that study (e.g., again, samples were from the surface, possibility of activated charcoal). It doesn't require experience to understand the basic principles of sample contamination and the steps that can be taken to minimize it. Statistics must be performed to characterize the population (e.g., norrmal distribution? Mono-vs. multi-variate?) before determining what constitutes an outlier; the study assumed a homogeneous population and on the basis of that presumption proceeded to discard what it inappropriately determined to be outliers using an ad hoc mathematical formulate for which they provided no rationale. The list of problems goes on and on and anyone spending a few minutes on the basic principles of C14 dating can see many of those problems pretty clearly.
But please, I don't expect you to accept the errors I've identified in my earlier review of that '95 study; feel free to consult whatever you consider to be an independent authoritative source.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jul-16 15:35 by Origyptian.