Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Either way, Jon, you need a reason to keep Y. I have a reason for disregarding it. Actually, two. One, because it is outside the norm, and two, because of contamination. What's your logic for keeping it?


> The test lab obviously found the test of date Y to
> be correct and therefore tabulated and published
> it.

They reported the result, not if it was correct or not. Know the difference?

> 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..

In science, it would say there is something wrong with the single sample tested.

> Which is why all data is published leaving the
> individual free to analyse the data, choosing to
> consider or disregard each individual
> measurement.

Well, thank you, Jon. I have chosen.


> Disregarding any anomalous reading without fully
> understanding the reason for that reading is a
> dangerous practice.
> Thank Christ you don't work in aviation.

That's why I gave a reason, ergo, no dangerous practice on my end. Thank Christ you don't work in English grammar courses.


> > 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.

Your level of comprehension is stunning. Shall I explain it again?

If the samples contained carbon input from material that is centuries older, the results of the tests being in the range of centuries older therefore makes sense. It explains why the dates are off. Are you daft?


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

No idea what you are referring to. I did not edit my post. Otherwise the Phorum software (which none of us has access to) would have placed one of these on the bottom of my post :"Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jun-16 23:26 by Jon Ellison.", like yours just did. Do you see one in mine? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?

Yes, bye, Jon. You seem determined to fragmentize context at an alarming pace, drilling down to micro-point after micro-point in order to try and substantiate this lunacy. Go on then, have your way. You are truly just boring me, anyway.

Cheers and good luck,
Avry