4 ms·

They just completed scanning more vases on UnchartedX's YouTube channel.

eesmith 3y ago
The issue isn't the scans but the method used to identify patterns in the scan. Have they described the method in such a way that others can replicate it? ... that others can apply the method to other objects? Have multiple independent people used the method to analyze the same objects? Do they get the same answers? Has the method been tested on hand-made, lathe-made, and CNC-made objects? What about on naturally made objects? We know the ancient Egyptians had hand-made stone vases. Does the method resolve which vases were hand-made vs (potentially) machine made? Where is any sort of archeological evidence? Why no broken machine parts? Why no foundries were the metals were processed? Why no depictions of any of the required processes when other parts of life were depicted, including making stone vases by hand?
- seanw444 3y ago
  All solid questions I'd like answers to as well. I was merely adding that it isn't a one-off, as some people have gotten used to immediately dismissing it with. > Have multiple independent people used the method to analyze the same objects? Do they get the same answers? Although this may be difficult. Getting permission to go hands-on with a very expensive ancient artifact isn't easy. So it may be a while before we get lots of third-party reproduction.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    There are many objects which are not expensive that could be used to test the analysis method. Stone and porcelain vases are pretty common. A handmade vase costs $36 at https://www.swdpotteryworks.com/MedLarge-Handmade-Vases_p_43.html https://www.swdpotteryworks.com/MedLarge-Handmade-Vases_p_43... . "Vintage Handmade & Painted Chinese Vase" for $75 at https://www.chairish.com/product/11985195/vintage-hand-painted-chinese-ceramic-vase https://www.chairish.com/product/11985195/vintage-hand-paint... .
    - seanw444 3y ago
      Yes, but you said "the same objects". The same objects are very expensive and require permission to test on.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        Ahh. What I meant was that two different groups, using the same analysis method, analyze the same object (whatever that might be) and compare the result. That is, how reproducible is the analysis? Is the method so broad that it finds patterns in things we know are hand-made? Is the method so vague that different groups come up with wildly different answers? The [2] paper look very much cherry picking - finding a pattern and saying the odds of finding that pattern are incredibly unlikely, while ignoring the odds of finding any pattern. As the old Feynman story goes, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

The issue isn't the scans but the method used to identify patterns in the scan. Have they described the method in such a way that others can replicate it? ... that others can apply the method to other objects? Have multiple independent people used the method to analyze the same objects? Do they get the same answers? Has the method been tested on hand-made, lathe-made, and CNC-made objects? What about on naturally made objects? We know the ancient Egyptians had hand-made stone vases. Does the method resolve which vases were hand-made vs (potentially) machine made? Where is any sort of archeological evidence? Why no broken machine parts? Why no foundries were the metals were processed? Why no depictions of any of the required processes when other parts of life were depicted, including making stone vases by hand?

seanw444 3y ago
All solid questions I'd like answers to as well. I was merely adding that it isn't a one-off, as some people have gotten used to immediately dismissing it with. > Have multiple independent people used the method to analyze the same objects? Do they get the same answers? Although this may be difficult. Getting permission to go hands-on with a very expensive ancient artifact isn't easy. So it may be a while before we get lots of third-party reproduction.
- eesmith 3y ago
  There are many objects which are not expensive that could be used to test the analysis method. Stone and porcelain vases are pretty common. A handmade vase costs $36 at https://www.swdpotteryworks.com/MedLarge-Handmade-Vases_p_43.html https://www.swdpotteryworks.com/MedLarge-Handmade-Vases_p_43... . "Vintage Handmade & Painted Chinese Vase" for $75 at https://www.chairish.com/product/11985195/vintage-hand-painted-chinese-ceramic-vase https://www.chairish.com/product/11985195/vintage-hand-paint... .
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Yes, but you said "the same objects". The same objects are very expensive and require permission to test on.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      Ahh. What I meant was that two different groups, using the same analysis method, analyze the same object (whatever that might be) and compare the result. That is, how reproducible is the analysis? Is the method so broad that it finds patterns in things we know are hand-made? Is the method so vague that different groups come up with wildly different answers? The [2] paper look very much cherry picking - finding a pattern and saying the odds of finding that pattern are incredibly unlikely, while ignoring the odds of finding any pattern. As the old Feynman story goes, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”