sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
sandwiches asked: "Interesting. So, you're this guy... The Bible Believing Scientist (link deleted)
and you wrote this: Problems with Distant Horizons? (link deleted)
And this too, I'm guessing: (link to IEEE Transactions on Reliability deleted)"
Yes, I'm the guy... (Sorry I could not include the links. I'm just a greenhorn in this forum. If anyone is interested in the links, check the original post)
I can't speak for the IEEE article or a few others I found but couldn't read but I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with the article I was able to read, "Problems with Distant Horizons," you make several uncorroborated claims such as:
Who said that? When? Where's his data? Where's the sample he analyzed?One experimenter in a radiometric dating lab privately stated that 50% of the K/Ar results are discarded (and never reported) in order to preserve the apparent accuracy of the method.
And there are many other little comments that reek of conspiracy paranoia, personal bias, misunderstandings, hearsay, and exaggerations. Here's a few more examples:
Conspiracy and collusion among scientists-
Talking about the KBS Tuff...
Several different people (Curtis et al, White and Harris, Hurford et al, Brock and Isaac, Hillhouse et al, Gleadow, McDougall et al, et cetera) using several different dating methods (40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, fission-track, etc) converged into a relatively small window of time which was correlated with the H2 tuff dated at around 1.88~Myr.Neither set of data had uncertainty bounds that would incorporate the other. However, the more recent dating had the weight of the paradigm and that eventually was sufficient to decide the controversy, where mere science was insufficient.
Personal bias regarding uniformitarianism:
An implicit assumption in extrapolating past history to predict the future is the hypothesis of Uniformitarianism (i.e., that past and future processes proceed at current rates using current mechanisms). Catastrophes must be well behaved to fit within this hypothesis.
Personal bias regarding science and misunderstanding as to how it works
Indeed, over 60 theories have been proposed to explain the Ice Age, all with serious difficulties.[2J What is the uncertainty in a predictive model incorporating all 60 theories?
More conspiracy paranoia with misunderstandings of the scientific process.
When the paradigm is challenged by the scientific data, the date is readily dismissed. Yet, when the paradigm is not challenged by the scientific data, artificially tight uncertainty bounds are accepted, without question! The level of credibility is influenced strongly by the paradigm, which in essence, is a philosophical decision.
To be blunt, with so many underhanded and uncorroborated comments reeking of personal prejudices and confirmation bias, I'm not sure how you think a scientist would not think that your paper isn't baloney, as it is a poorly veiled attempt at undermining geology and the underpinnings of science which are shown to work unsurprisingly well, every single day.
Upvote
0