4 ms·

> Maybe I am just remembering it wrong or didn't look hard enough... From what you wrote, it's both.

by abritinthebay 9y ago

IncRnd 9y ago
To someone less knowledgeable in that field, why do you say that?
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Because they not only showed a poor recollection of what he did read (misremembering) but they showed less understanding of the topics involved than a 10 minute Wikipedia binge would provide (looking hard enough)?
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    I was hoping for some specificity.
nonbel 9y ago
Another thing is I remember is a problem with people citing their sources. It was one of those topics with tons of BS making it hard to get to the actual data. Since you seem to know a lot about it, can you pick one artifact (I don't think it should matter much which one) and outline all the data available for it?
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  This is literally something a basic Wikipedia page covers in excruciating detail with multiple sources. Like... really basic research would get you further along in your studies. I see what you mean by “didn’t look hard enough”. Please start there, I think you’ll see see more detail than I could hope to provide in one HN comment.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    The wikipedia page didnt, and isnt expected to, answer my questions, which were about the methodology. For a given date given based on dendrochronology I wanted to know who collected the samples, how many were collected, which were included in the final dataset (why and why not), the software used to align the rings with other dendrochronologies, get to see those samples that were rejected, etc.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Why on earth are you talking about dendrochronology? We're dealing with a finger bone. The scientists in the featured article used a number of dating methods and the article specifically mentions Uranium–thorium Dating. Either way - the whole point of most of the quotes from the team is that they are verifying the data (and collection, and results, and so on) and aren't sure yet. What you're describing is called "peer review" and any results will certainly include most - if not all - of the information you ask for.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

> Maybe I am just remembering it wrong or didn't look hard enough... From what you wrote, it's both.

IncRnd 9y ago

To someone less knowledgeable in that field, why do you say that?

abritinthebay 9y ago
Because they not only showed a poor recollection of what he did read (misremembering) but they showed less understanding of the topics involved than a 10 minute Wikipedia binge would provide (looking hard enough)?
- IncRnd 9y ago
  I was hoping for some specificity.

nonbel 9y ago

Another thing is I remember is a problem with people citing their sources. It was one of those topics with tons of BS making it hard to get to the actual data. Since you seem to know a lot about it, can you pick one artifact (I don't think it should matter much which one) and outline all the data available for it?

abritinthebay 9y ago
This is literally something a basic Wikipedia page covers in excruciating detail with multiple sources. Like... really basic research would get you further along in your studies. I see what you mean by “didn’t look hard enough”. Please start there, I think you’ll see see more detail than I could hope to provide in one HN comment.
- nonbel 9y ago
  The wikipedia page didnt, and isnt expected to, answer my questions, which were about the methodology. For a given date given based on dendrochronology I wanted to know who collected the samples, how many were collected, which were included in the final dataset (why and why not), the software used to align the rings with other dendrochronologies, get to see those samples that were rejected, etc.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Why on earth are you talking about dendrochronology? We're dealing with a finger bone. The scientists in the featured article used a number of dating methods and the article specifically mentions Uranium–thorium Dating. Either way - the whole point of most of the quotes from the team is that they are verifying the data (and collection, and results, and so on) and aren't sure yet. What you're describing is called "peer review" and any results will certainly include most - if not all - of the information you ask for.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]