R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> > > I consider reliable dates to be worth more.
> > You
> > > have an objection?
> > >
> > > M.
> >
> > You can consider whatever you like.
> > I consider all tabulated dates equally
> reliable.
> > All of equal worth.
>
> Then you do not comprehend basic statistical
> analysis. Given 100 samples, 99 say date X, 1 says
> date Y, and you have the audacity to think the 1
> date of Y defines the whole set.

No No No No
Incorrect AGAIN.
I say 99 samples say date X
One sample says date Y.
No "audacity", a simple statement of fact based upon the dating of individual samples.
You may care to disregard the date Y, FOR WHATEVER REASON. I do not.
The test lab obviously found the test of date Y to be correct and therefore tabulated and published it.
In fact The test lab probably repeated the tests an any anomalous readings. Standard lab practice.

it is
> more likely the 1 sample is an anomalous result
> that can be removed. The importance here is that
> all dates were reported, not thrown out
> before publication. They included data no matter
> how odd it seemed, and that's honest science.

It is indeed anomalous.
Begging the question as to why would one single test and measurement be anomalous when 99 are not..
Which is why all data is published leaving the individual free to analyse the data, choosing to consider or disregard each individual measurement.
Disregarding any anomalous reading without fully understanding the reason for that reading is a dangerous practice.
Thank Christ you don't work in aviation.

Edit. It has been claimed that not all samples were tested and/or published. If this is the case would this be dishonest science?

>
> But then, you don't even care to ask the question
> of why these dates are what they are, you just run
> with them. So how are you going to explain mortar
> made from local mud deposits with centuries old
> flora in them?

From the information you have given. I would accept that the deposits are centuries old, or they have been contaminated with centuries old flora. The arrow of time can only fly in one direction.

You then appear to have edited your statement, preserved for prosperity by Corpuscules quote.

Bye Bye... again.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jun-16 23:56 by Jon Ellison.