3 ms·

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.

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!”

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!”