109
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 03:48, January 16, 2009
, 03:48, January 16, 2009→Estimates and disagreements: new section
The reference to the beryllium experiment is misleading, in that the experiment referred to changes in rate in different conditions while it is used as a source for changes in rate over time. In other words, the experiment demonstrated changes from ''external'' (i.e. chemical) factors while this article claims heretofore unidentified ''internal'' factors over much longer periods of time- or at least it should identify what external factors may have caused this. Furthermore, the difference in decay rates was only 1.5%, which may be quite a lot from the perspective of a nuclear physicist, but dates are rarely if ever determined with that degree of accuracy due to such variation in external conditions. The citation is used to imply, for those who expect absolute precision certainty from dating techniques (which you won't get in ''any'' sort of measurement) and do not inspect it more closely, that the difference found was so massive as to render the entire methodology invalid. Is the reported 1.5% really significant in this context, then? Let's see- the oldest radiometric estimates for the age of the Earth are roughly 6 billion years, and if the Earth is only 6000 years old, that means that radiometric dating must have a margin of error of at ''least'' 6x10<sup>9</sup> / 6x10<sup>3</sup> = 1x10<sup>6</sup>, or 1,000,000. If radiometric dating is really off by a factor of one million (or 100,000,000%), the variation in rate of decay as presented in the experiment accounts for only 0.015 / 1,000,000 = 0.000000015 = 0.0000015% of the error. By contrast, a 1.5% error on a date of six billion years gives the range of 5.91-6.09 billion years- not nearly the massive variation that is implied. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
The reference to the beryllium experiment is misleading, in that the experiment referred to changes in rate in different conditions while it is used as a source for changes in rate over time. In other words, the experiment demonstrated changes from ''external'' (i.e. chemical) factors while this article claims heretofore unidentified ''internal'' factors over much longer periods of time- or at least it should identify what external factors may have caused this. Furthermore, the difference in decay rates was only 1.5%, which may be quite a lot from the perspective of a nuclear physicist, but dates are rarely if ever determined with that degree of accuracy due to such variation in external conditions. The citation is used to imply, for those who expect absolute precision certainty from dating techniques (which you won't get in ''any'' sort of measurement) and do not inspect it more closely, that the difference found was so massive as to render the entire methodology invalid. Is the reported 1.5% really significant in this context, then? Let's see- the oldest radiometric estimates for the age of the Earth are roughly 6 billion years, and if the Earth is only 6000 years old, that means that radiometric dating must have a margin of error of at ''least'' 6x10<sup>9</sup> / 6x10<sup>3</sup> = 1x10<sup>6</sup>, or 1,000,000. If radiometric dating is really off by a factor of one million (or 100,000,000%), the variation in rate of decay as presented in the experiment accounts for only 0.015 / 1,000,000 = 0.000000015 = 0.0000015% of the error. By contrast, a 1.5% error on a date of six billion years gives the range of 5.91-6.09 billion years- not nearly the massive variation that is implied. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
== Estimates and disagreements ==
As I explained briefly in the edit summary before it was reverted, the statement that "laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item" does not follow from the document that was cited to support it. The form had an area to "estimate date", which was preceded by detailed descriptions and records of where the sample was found. This is basic, scientifically responsible bookkeeping, with the estimate then based upon the context of where the sample was found as described. Note that the estimate box also has a space for explaining the basis of that estimate. This would be the hypothesis, if you like to think of it that way. Thus the estimate is the expected date where expected = anticipated/hypothesized. It is ''not'' the expected date where expected = desired/required. They aren't ''asking'' to get a result that matches the estimate. Same with the range- "age limits" is actually a commonly used term much like "confidence limits" in statistics. They are not the limits imposed by the submitter- again, they are ''estimates'' not, as the article says, the "maximum and minimum ''acceptable'' ages".
<u>I removed those sentences because the second grossly misrepresents the cited document on a ''factual level'', and without it the first is unsupported assertion.</u> (There are other instances like that elsewhere in the article, I might add.) Think: if scientists were that dishonest, why would they bother going through all the time and ''money'' to package samples, fill out paperwork, ship them off, process them, and pay people to run them through machines that require regular maintenance, just to throw out masses of expensive but "unacceptable" data in the end? Why not just make it all up?
I don't know why my other edit regarding scientific disagreements was reverted; it is misleading to suggest that the whole method is flawed because not everyone (or in the example, two people) agrees on a detail. There have been ''huge'' arguments in all areas of science, when seemingly contradictory results have been found by different people. Some historical examples include how brain cells connect (neuronists vs. reticularists), the identity of the genetic material (nucleic acids vs. proteins), and the phenomenon of plate tectonics, but this doesn't mean that their histology, biochemistry, or geological measurements (respectively), were poorly performed or fundamentally wrong- likewise with this subject. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:48, 15 January 2009 (EST)