I found this interesting and thought I'd post it here since the group is geographically diverse and known to offer varying insights. If anybody has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them:
Figures don't lie????
In my finance days, they'd ask us what the answer was, we'd ask them what they want/need it to be. And we used to same set of figures to get to any of the above answers.
Figures *only* lie
Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
jc
Figures don't lie???
what about a figure involving one or more of: a corset a girdle a push-up bra a bustier a Merry Widow
"Joe" wrote in news:_T0uj.42982$ snipped-for-privacy@newsreading01.news.tds.net:
*snip*
FYI, I often see that quote attributed to Mark Twain. (Sometimes I forget the exact quote and who said it so I can't look it up.)
Puckdropper
See:
The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old, and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of bones, it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000 years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the planet, in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it - that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/ Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the available data.
charlie b
or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting ones desires drive what they think the data is.
I think it was Winston Churchill.
It's widely credited to Benjamin Disraeli, before Churhill was born. Mark Twain popularized the phrase in the US, but was not the originator. It may have been around before Disraeli, but the accreditations aren't verifiable.
Your argument itself confuses data with conclusions. The data is that carbon-14 is X percent of the object's carbon content. An age range isn't data, it's a conclusion drawn from that data. The conclusion is based on certain assumptions. If those assumptions are faulty, so is the conclusion. (I'm not arguing for any particular conclusion, just pointing out the fallacy of the argument you are making to support your point.)
The conclusion is based on certain other experiments which reveal the half-life of carbon-14. The only assumption is that that rate has remained constant.
C-14 dating relies on an isotope whose half-life is only a couple thousand years. In order to date anything older - such as dinosaur bones - the fossil is dated in context. If the strata in which the fossil is located dates to 65 million years, then rational people conclude the fossil dates to that epoch. Radiometric dating methods rely on isotopes whose half-lives are significantly longer. Because of the slow decay of these isotopes, we can date rocks as old as the earth - 4.5 billion years old to the surprise of some - if we had any rocks as old as the earth.
Jeff
;!) I understand the theory of carbon dating but you cannot prove that it is accurate. Somewhere along the line there could be a tiny mistake in a calculation that will not show up for another 4.5 billion years. Until then IMHO it is a wild guess that could be wildly inaccurate. If it were accurate why is it that the fossil does not age. It was discovered 50 years ago and is the same age today as it was then. Should it not be
4,500,000,050 years old now? If there was confidence in the accuracy it would be given a creation date and the age could be determined on any given day. 4.5 billion years is extremely vague and is probably inaccurate. Perhaps the fossil is only 4.3 billion years old, that would throw carbon dating off by 100,000,000 years. That does not sound accurate. And while I am on this soap box, every so many years the time is changed because the earth is slowing down. Years are measured by the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. 4.5 billion years ago, did the earth revolve around the sun at the same speed? ;~) What if the earth only took 364 days to complete a revolution 4.5 billion years ago. How far off would that throw the dating calculations off? The other day my wife and I were looking through a telescope and we both spied a younger woman, my wife quickly pointed out that the other woman was 1.5 billion Light Years Away."Leon" wrote
ROTFL ... then again, there are something's that can be calculated precisely ... like the force of that hand slapping you upside the head.
F=MA
;)
The math is in this wikipedia entry:
that everyone else's stinks.
IMHO the principle object of the recent much ballyhooed 'reform' of personal bankruptcy law was designed to steer people into the arms of predatory mortgage lenders by way of the mandatory 'credit counseling'. Thus person who might have declared bankruptcy and kept their homes, instead declared bankruptcy a year or so later and lost their homes.
It is particularly ironic that corporate bankruptcy was NOT 'reformed' thus allowing the management of Untied Airlines bankrupt the company and then use that bankruptcy as an excuse to break their contract and welch on their obligation to their pensioners,. Now, as a reward for that mismanagement, they have a big economic advantage over the better managed airlines.
Had UA been dissolved, the other, better managed airlines would have picked up their business, (we call this 'capitalism') and would have likely hired on most of UA's displaced employees. You and I would still be paying off their pensioners, but UA would not have been rewarded for bad business practices, and the better airlines not disadvantaged for good business practices.
If you find a fossilized bone that carbon dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old, you've made some serious mistakes as:
1) Carbon dating isn't useful for objects that old. 2) 100 to 150 My old fossil bones generally do not contain carbon. (There have been exceptions)
Or, using your example, if one observes that the method fails due to confounding factors (typically contamination) in some cases and from that reach the conclusion that the method is, in general, invalid then one is letting one's desires drive their conclusions.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.