[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion 14C and falsifiability
Dear Greg Doudna.
Much of this last post is constructive, IMO. You may wish to correct the
inadvertant typo of contrasting Zurich with Zurich (on cleaning), rather
It is indeed "thorny" whether to call one or even five dates later than
your proposal "outliers"--partly because is is difficult to compare
different assemblages. If one should be cautious using the data to confirm
a c68 CE deposit date on principle, then on principle one should also be
cautious in other proposed deposit date confirmation applications. Not just
one text indicates against a 55 BCE deposit, as far as I can tell. Jack
Kilmon noted 1QH, a later text, which you helpfully acknowledge is not
suspected of castor oil contamination. Why focus on an argument that if
all the unknowns go one way, maybe a particular dating proposal could work?
I understand trial and error to some extent, at least, from experience, but
inviting more dubious early deposit date proposals in order to flush out
the true date appears to invite turmoil.
I don't think the 4QpPs.a date, if it were confirmed by multiple tests at
different labs with various cleanings and improved methods and
calibrations, necessarily would put R. Eisenman's theory "back into
business in a big way," since he has claimed the teacher of righteousness
in 1QpHab was James, but the AMS date of 1QpHab--if we accept it--precludes
that. Though I know (I think) you meant the phrase in another sense (i.e.,
in the eyes of others), one can also say (in another sense) he never quit
his business, anyway. But, let's say, hypothetically, that some AMS data
had allowed--*chronologically*-- R. Eisenman's proposal. Isn't that the
sort of unbiased imput we presumably ask of this scientific method?
P.S. Thanks to you, and Sigrid Peterson, and Asia Lerner.