nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 08:41, November 24, 2007
, 08:41, November 24, 2007Removal of calibration section points
The whole bit about the candles and what not seems a bit pedestrian. I say remove it entirely. Readers understand how to measure time, they don't need to be spoon fed a quasi-example such as this one --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]
The whole bit about the candles and what not seems a bit pedestrian. I say remove it entirely. Readers understand how to measure time, they don't need to be spoon fed a quasi-example such as this one --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]
:On the contrary, most people don't understand the basic principles of how radiometric dating works; this explains it with objects that are quite familiar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:On the contrary, most people don't understand the basic principles of how radiometric dating works; this explains it with objects that are quite familiar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Removal of calibration section points ==
I've just removed the bits about methods by which radiometric methods can be "cross-verified". The first example, which seemed a bit convenient anyway, seems at the very least to be disputed and at worst to be simply wrong. See [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html here]. The second is not a method of calibration with independently-''known'' dates, but with other dates that have also not been calibrated. And this is mentioned further down in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 24 November 2007 (EST)