Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
10th October 2011, 01:18 PM
P Prentice Wrote:except that you have to take into consideration the sigmaC13 relative to VPDB .
and use the correct calibration curve.
P Prentice Wrote:and the fact that you might not be within the same 95% - given there is another 5% not reflected in the range
................
No that doesn't follow. Statistically there is a 95% chance that the 'true' date falls within the range in both cases.
NB (hint)....I'm not saying that the 'true' dates are the same......I'm saying the two results are the same. But that's the rub with measuring something scientifically..........its all in the errors and levels of confidence
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
10th October 2011, 01:24 PM
its always a mistake to confuse archaeology with science
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
10th October 2011, 06:55 PM
Seems unfair that we still have to read all the science books though - anyone know what an 'esker' is or will I have to actually read that section.... :face-crying:
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
10th October 2011, 07:00 PM
Science is just as powerful a basis for Archaeology as Public Interest - don't knock it! ("An
esker is a long winding ridge of stratified sand and gravel")
but just to keep on :face-topic:
@Kel -
" ice and that"
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
10th October 2011, 07:14 PM
Cheers, the Swale-Ure Washlands book isn't such a gripping read that I really want to read the whole thing, would rather skip to the archaeologically relevent bits, already know more about gravel than I'd ever really wanted.... :face-approve:
Actually, having got into archaeology from the scientific end of things, I'd rather have rather more science/more scientific approach, but of course most of what we do on site isn't repeatable (and when it is there isn't any budget...) and it's a right pain having to wait decades to get another dead viking or chariot burial or whatever to play with...and where there is the possibility to test theories/results there's never any funding for it (see my last post on the 'Millet' thread)
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
10th October 2011, 07:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 10th October 2011, 07:25 PM by GnomeKing.)
Fret not Fret not about Repeatability .... (did i say that?)
This represents only one (mainstream/contemporary) brand of Science.
All Natural Sciences derive from observation, documentation, 'synthesis'.
(Testability is so, like, anally Newtonian! pah!!)
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
10th October 2011, 07:31 PM
But always good to be able to show the doubters - there wouldn't have been all the fuss over the Roman helmet if the guy had been able to go out and find another one, to take a recent example, or he'd found two the first time so that people could have watched the second one being shined up like the first (and handy for spares!)
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
10th October 2011, 07:42 PM
Never the same,
Two Stones,
From the Great River.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
11th October 2011, 08:20 AM
Right on Gnomey
Anyone who thinks archaeology isn't a science doesn't understand what science is.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
11th October 2011, 09:05 AM
Jack Wrote:Right on Gnomey
Anyone who thinks archaeology isn't a science doesn't understand what science is.
I think they're a bit of a typo in that one; surely you meant to leave the 'n't' off the end of 'is'!
If archaeoloogy is a science then we can all get used to being laughed at by proper scientists!
