3 ms·
This is literally something a basic Wikipedia page covers in excruciating detail with multiple sources. Like... really basic research would get you further alo
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWhy 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]