3 ms·

I can't say anything about this particular method, but as far as I know generally dating methods are tested against each other. For instance, when you dig some

I can't say anything about this particular method, but as far as I know generally dating methods are tested against each other. For instance, when you dig something out if the ground, you can get a rough idea of how old it is just by looking at the layers of rock and material above and below it. We know something about how fast these layers can be deposited, and usually stuff further down is older (not always, but if the layering is disturbed there's often evidence of it). So if you find that your dating method makes no sense for objects with an obvious date range (based on where you find them) then your dating method is probably broken. Obviously then if you take a leap over to objects that you find that you can only date in one way, you are taking a leap of faith. But in a few years, dating methods will come along that might let you test it in a different way entirely and either corroborate your first date or contradict it.

mygo 9y ago
layering, if the ground is undisturbed, can only tell us how old something at least is. The object itself could be older than the soil it was found in. Take for example how every ancient artifact in a museum is older than the soil it sits upon. So it has its limits. Who is to say that some dead guy’s finger wasn’t handed down for millennia before getting picked up during a raid and tossed on the ground on the journey back as worthless junk? We can’t fathom.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
There is the risk of cascading errors. You can take many examples of beliefs that persisted for many decades, or even centuries in times past, that were simply wrong. But these wrong beliefs were often supported by layer after layer of corroborating evidence. The issue of course is that a derivative measurement takes the original measurement as a given, and then creates new formulae based on the result of the first - so you end up with two things corroborating the same view, even though its wrong. So I guess the question is what measurements are completely and absolutely independent? I don't recall in strata aging if the formation rate was alone used to determine age - so far as I recall the ages were dated by cross referencing known 'benchmarks', but then you've just created this very effect by assuming the age and then using that calibrate your method. And for what it's worth, I am not suggesting that the dating or other methods are incorrect here. Just pointing out some possible issues in this logic.

mygo 9y ago

layering, if the ground is undisturbed, can only tell us how old something at least is. The object itself could be older than the soil it was found in. Take for example how every ancient artifact in a museum is older than the soil it sits upon. So it has its limits. Who is to say that some dead guy’s finger wasn’t handed down for millennia before getting picked up during a raid and tossed on the ground on the journey back as worthless junk? We can’t fathom.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

There is the risk of cascading errors. You can take many examples of beliefs that persisted for many decades, or even centuries in times past, that were simply wrong. But these wrong beliefs were often supported by layer after layer of corroborating evidence. The issue of course is that a derivative measurement takes the original measurement as a given, and then creates new formulae based on the result of the first - so you end up with two things corroborating the same view, even though its wrong. So I guess the question is what measurements are completely and absolutely independent? I don't recall in strata aging if the formation rate was alone used to determine age - so far as I recall the ages were dated by cross referencing known 'benchmarks', but then you've just created this very effect by assuming the age and then using that calibrate your method. And for what it's worth, I am not suggesting that the dating or other methods are incorrect here. Just pointing out some possible issues in this logic.