Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.


Okay, thanks for your timely reply.

I have a couple of points and questions for you:

So, about your first comment above: with which particular equipment do you have experience?

Secondly, regarding your claim that no peer review occurred. So far in the paper, I've found this reference to "© 2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. RADIOCARBON, Vol 43, Nr 3, 2001, p 1297–1320 Proceedings of the 17th International 14C Conference, edited by Hendrik J Bruins, I Carmi, and E Boaretto" .

Is this not a peer-reviewed journal? I need some help understanding here.

Thirdly, I asked you about your experience for the same reason that I asked Lee in this thread: curiosity. I hope that's enough of a reason. :)

Fourthly, why don't you expect me to accept the errors you've identified?

Thank you.