Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote:
> The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of > wide circulation. > I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing. > Do you think these are all errors? > I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. > Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing > it? > If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err is human. > I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are > just a few I found. > You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge whether you have found it. - Jed
