Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome! Arrowheadology.com is the #1 arrowhead and Indian artifact community on the web. Join us now!

Likes Likes:  24
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    You can find is account of this (Jan., 2015) @ the asaa site. http://asaa-persimmonpress.com/doc/n...cumberland.pdf

    The agreement of the archaeological Village Soviet is not required. Nor is "extraordinary evidence." An allegation or finding can only be "extraordinary" in light of exiting beliefs. Actual science ignores these and deals directly with data.

  2. Likes joshuaream liked this post
  3. #22
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    8,020
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by uniface View Post
    You can find is account of this (Jan., 2015) @ the asaa site. http://asaa-persimmonpress.com/doc/n...cumberland.pdf

    The agreement of the archaeological Village Soviet is not required. Nor is "extraordinary evidence." An allegation or finding can only be "extraordinary" in light of exiting beliefs. Actual science ignores these and deals directly with data.
    It seems like this has been hashed out before... and like before you usually trot out the “Village Soviet” reasoning conspiracy theory of everything.

    Look at the tables in the back of the article. C-14 dating has some very respectable standard deviations of 70-80 years. Really tight and consistent. The laser produces nearly equally tight ranges of up to 4000+ years. Those standard deviations are an absolute joke.

    Peer review is part of modern academia. Having a bunch of nice guys who paid to dig a site review a paper you printed in your own press isn’t really putting it out there for science. In fact no attempt is made to have this magic method verified because the only audience for it are collectors who pay for authenticity certificates, who see these articles as validation of the methodology. It’s quack medicine (the snake oil salesman providing you with proof that his elixir cures cancer and ED.)

    Heck Uní, why would the manufacturer of the laser they use not include this method on their website? Raman Spec has been around for decades, is currently a valuable tool for identifying chemical compositions, and is widely used in authenticity, yet non of them see any validity in this use?

    Art & Archaeology

  4. Likes SmokyHill, FIRSTVIEW, pointblank1 liked this post
  5. #23
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    I keep calling "peer review" the Village Soviet because that's exactly what it is, Josh -- a human filter established to catch deviations from groupthink before they can reach the public.

    It is the materialist copy of the Romanist system in which no book could be published without being vetted for congruence with orthodox belief by ranking clerics who were putting their own necks on the line by approving the nihil obstat & imprimatur. Previous to computer programs with built-in back doors, both were surveilance/censorship mechanisms.

    Seriously, Josh. Thought experiment : take your "peer review" nonsense back in time and run Copernicus, Gallileo, Lister, Mendel, Darwin and anyone else who ever moved things forward by more than one square at a time through it. Did it work well enough with previous, known advances to warrant imposing it on future ones ?

    There is a mentality that never tires of portraying science as a collectivist endeavor but it is the exact opposite of one, while claiming to represent it in modern form.

    Belief (orthodoxy, group cohesion) is maintained by consensus. That's peer review in a nutshell.

    But in science, 1,000,000 (concurring opinions) X 0 (the extent to which their agreement determines validity) = 0. One observation that a wooden ball and lead ball dropped from the same height at the same time both hit the ground at the same time rubbishes not only all the expert consensus to the contrary, but a thousand years of it.

    Recalling when the tangible evidence left by the Clovis Comet (and its significance) was similarly "de-bunked" (by . . . wait for it . . .) a committee of True Believers in the orthodox scenario, prompting an analytical examination of their work which left them methodological laughingstocks, I don't personally doubt that a similar counter-study could vindicate what is claimed (NOT the straw man claims Mohave was so fond of back in the day) for laser work in dating by those doing it. But that's belief.

    Since we're on it:

    1) The journal something is published in has no objective bearing on its validity. Gauss could have sent his work out into the world using Ace Comics and it would still be Gauss's work.

    2) For all intents and purposes, academic publishing IS "self-publishing." Check out who pays for printing it.

    3) Attempting to cast darkness on an allegation by recourse to numbers 1 & 2 (above) is manipulating people's (unexamined) beliefs.

    I sometimes wonder (and this is not intended in any spirit but one of respect) if being where you are in the corporate world (which can resemble a game of "Survivor" at times with its premium on exemplifying group solidarity) hasn't predisposed you to being averse to sticking out and rocking the boat. I might well be completely off-base with that, but it would account for the tendency to conservatism and valuing consensus in some of your opinions.

  6. #24
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Osl

    1.4 Luminescence dating in archaeology | ScARF
    Information from other sources.

  7. Likes uniface liked this post
  8. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    8,020
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Pastmeetspresent View Post
    1.4 Luminescence dating in archaeology | ScARF
    Information from other sources.
    Yes, OSL is a well researched method for dating quartz sediments. It involves some pretty intense science, very rigorous sample collection to prevent contamination, and has little to do equipment-wise with the handheld laser method a couple of Authenticators use to date artifacts. People who routinely use this in an archaeological setting do not use it like you all describe.

    It’s kind of like me claiming my microwave oven is a nuclear reactor. I can post legitimate articles about nuclear reactors AND I can boil water in 2 minutes at full power, but the two actions have little to do with the claim that a microwave oven is the same reactor that powers an aircraft carrier or a city.

    Here is a peer reviewed article about the science, the equipment, and the process for OSL dating.
    http://quaternary-science.publiss.ne...pdf?1284108220

  9. #26
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Josh - you are correct in that the equipment being used by myself is not being used in the exact same manner as described. But nor are the results that I am producing - I do not claim to be able to produce exact dates of materials, only relative dates [ old vs new] which is what a collector wants to know for authentication purposes and the method is sound. Several years ago people here on this site were poo pooing that the method worked @ all, but it does and new research is showing this. The methods that are mostly described are trying to come up with exact dates + - 10 or 20 years in order to date normally updatable materials and under very controlled circumstances they can in fact be dated using OSL. I do not possess the equipment or the patience to try and replicate these types of testing methods of single grains of sand collected in a controlled fashion nor do I need to do so in order to achieve accurate results for authentication purposes. I do have some very sophisticated software equipment such as Grams which allows me to do many things with the information gathered by the laser - in addition I still use the microscope to validate what I am being told by the laser readings, in short it's not like I point a laser at a rock and proclaim that it's good or bad in two minutes time. I try my best to be accurate with all of the methods that I employ because it's important to my clients and myself.

  10. Likes uniface liked this post
  11. #27
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    Josh : Your cited study's parameters make your argument a straw man demolition.
    Luminescence techniques enable [I]evaluation of the time that has elapsed since mineral grains crystallised, were last exposed to daylight or heated to a few hundred degrees Celsius. The method uses an optically and thermally sensitive light or signal in minerals such as quartz and feldspar.
    (If the last-exposure-to-daylight measurement's validity is "debunked," why do they keep doing it ?)

    Compare Gramly, Op.cit. --
    a freshly-flaked chert tool buried in the ground is ready to register decay particles of gaseous element Radon-222. Within a few thousand years a zone of radon damage is formed that is sufficiently thick for measurement by an infrared laser (Walley 2013; Gramly 2013b).
    Sounds like apples and oranges . . . (?)

  12. #28
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    PmP :
    Subtitled "Physical and Chemical Clocks in Quaternary Geology and Archaeology", Professor Wagner's book is a very revealing overview of archaeometric techniques. Gunther Wagner is head of the Research Group for Archaeometry, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen-schaften at the Max Planck institut fur Kernphysik, and professor of Geology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. He is working on development and application of various archaeometric techniques. In this volume he discusses the methodological basis, practical aspects, and application of over fifty analytical approaches to dating, including Optically Stimulated Thermo Luminescence. European schools and laboratories seem to be far ahead of the United States in the application of archaeometric technology in archaeological dating. In fact Professor Wagner's book covers dating everything from archaeological sediments to wine to eggshells. If you can name less than 20 methods of dating artifacts, you should definitely buy a copy!
    FWIW

  13. #29
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by uniface View Post
    I keep calling "peer review" the Village Soviet because that's exactly what it is, Josh -- a human filter established to catch deviations from groupthink before they can reach the public.

    It is the materialist copy of the Romanist system in which no book could be published without being vetted for congruence with orthodox belief by ranking clerics who were putting their own necks on the line by approving the nihil obstat & imprimatur. Previous to computer programs with built-in back doors, both were surveilance/censorship mechanisms.

    Seriously, Josh. Thought experiment : take your "peer review" nonsense back in time and run Copernicus, Gallileo, Lister, Mendel, Darwin and anyone else who ever moved things forward by more than one square at a time through it. Did it work well enough with previous, known advances to warrant imposing it on future ones ?

    There is a mentality that never tires of portraying science as a collectivist endeavor but it is the exact opposite of one, while claiming to represent it in modern form.

    Belief (orthodoxy, group cohesion) is maintained by consensus. That's peer review in a nutshell.

    But in science, 1,000,000 (concurring opinions) X 0 (the extent to which their agreement determines validity) = 0. One observation that a wooden ball and lead ball dropped from the same height at the same time both hit the ground at the same time rubbishes not only all the expert consensus to the contrary, but a thousand years of it.

    Recalling when the tangible evidence left by the Clovis Comet (and its significance) was similarly "de-bunked" (by . . . wait for it . . .) a committee of True Believers in the orthodox scenario, prompting an analytical examination of their work which left them methodological laughingstocks, I don't personally doubt that a similar counter-study could vindicate what is claimed (NOT the straw man claims Mohave was so fond of back in the day) for laser work in dating by those doing it. But that's belief.

    Since we're on it:

    1) The journal something is published in has no objective bearing on its validity. Gauss could have sent his work out into the world using Ace Comics and it would still be Gauss's work.

    2) For all intents and purposes, academic publishing IS "self-publishing." Check out who pays for printing it.

    3) Attempting to cast darkness on an allegation by recourse to numbers 1 & 2 (above) is manipulating people's (unexamined) beliefs.

    I sometimes wonder (and this is not intended in any spirit but one of respect) if being where you are in the corporate world (which can resemble a game of "Survivor" at times with its premium on exemplifying group solidarity) hasn't predisposed you to being averse to sticking out and rocking the boat. I might well be completely off-base with that, but it would account for the tendency to conservatism and valuing consensus in some of your opinions.
    No your evil response here- but it seems alot of generalizing in this commentary. Pigeon holing is not condusive to either effective communication or effective furtherance of a sound argument.

  14. Likes kliff liked this post
  15. #30
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    "2) For all intents and purposes, academic publishing IS "self-publishing." Check out who pays for printing it."

    This chart makes peer review in an academic journal seem a tad more rigorous then me self publishing a paper:

    age of artifacts....-img_8530-jpg

    Especially with double blind peer review. The author doesn't know who the reviewers are and the reviewers don't know who the author is...

    Chart is better seen here:

    What is peer review?

    Lol, well that image is just unreadable, but can be seen in the short article. Point being that for all the faults that can be found in the peer review process in academic journals, it ain't self publishing....
    Attached Images Attached Images age of artifacts....-9c324156-b395-4d4f-9a2e-c41cb7743b45-1092-0000007a926af37c-jpg 
    Last edited by CMD; 10-13-2017 at 05:59 PM.

  16. Likes FIRSTVIEW liked this post
 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •