>"Evidence of something" means "I can prove something with this data and I'm 100% sure about that this happened". I see. A lot of people are comfortable with t

>"Evidence of something" means "I can prove something with this data and I'm 100% sure about that this happened". I see. A lot of people are comfortable with the idea that knowledge is always incomplete, and satisfied when they can get reasonably narrow error bars. I am not criticizing your way of looking at things directly, but I think it is a fact that normal science is done under a paradigm of less than absolute certainty. When there was an uncertainty of hundreds of years, and someone has an analysis that produces a very high probability of one specific year, then I think that is considered a meaningful accomplishment, and about as precise as can be expected. >I'm not saying that vikings weren't in America in 2021. I'm saying that when you scratch a little the article does not prove that. It sounds like you are saying that Vikings might not have been in America before Columbus. This does sound like you are going beyond rejecting this article, and rejects a major premise of the research in it. I don't believe this article was intended to establish that Europeans were there, only to narrow down the timeframe. If this article was completely wrong in their analysis, I don't think it would indicate to other scientists that there were no Europeans in the area before Columbus. Just that the uncertainty about when it was remains relatively large.