My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence. ***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence. When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall (mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion.
I agree with Jed. The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion, and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample credence to errors & inaccuracies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult. Jed accepts the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating. You, on the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept. And that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing. Hypocrisy, thy name is jojo. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last > time I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication. > > > You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from > a tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument > errors,. Now, you are saying you wouldn't know. If you don't know, how > can you say they were instrument errors. How do you know they were > imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not > understand how instruments work. What qualifies you to make an assertion > like that? Were you there? > > You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a > belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you > reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better > than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence. > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating > > 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 > >
