From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Summary:  he hasn't convinced me
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:19:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <8001@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
writes:

>Michael Siemon writes:

>>Bales has in the past advertized in his .signature that he helps Tektronix
>>make its instruments.  Now, the point he has NEVER addressed in ANY way,
>>whatsoever, is the mutual confirmation of independent measurements of the
>>same thing.

>If I can avoid it, I don't want to get into a second discussion of posting
>quotes to prove what I've said.  But we did discuss this for a while, probably
>several years ago.

I do not recall any susbtantive discussion (as opposed to noise) addressing
this issue in the 5 years I have been following talk.origins.  You *also*
fail to address it below.  Jon Livesey has also pointed this out, quite
forcefully.  WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE (none has appeared!) against the
mutual confirmation of datings that depend on different methodologies?

>in order to be consistent with what I advocate for isochron data.  My response
>was that this is the way I, Tektronix, and the rest of world treats instru-
>ment readings. I am still waiting to hear why isochrom methods should be
>treated differently.

They aren't, nitwit.

>I claim that results from methods which have been experimentally verified to
>have error should be treated as if they might be in error.

When the errors in question apply to a different method, and the sources
of error are understood and controlled in isochron dating, this is nothing
but an attempt at a shell game.  I haven't waded through your voluminous
response to Bill (you have given me VERY little reason to assume that you
have anything to say; if others do not post a critical look at your notes
I will do so -- but my general impression is that until you demonstrate
an understanding of the issues, you can be ignored.  NOTE -- the current
article does NOT give any indication of such understanding.)

>>It is *because* one wishes to control potential error in one method that one
>>checks it against another.

>Not really.  To control error in measurement, *standards* are used.

Have you the SLIGHTEST understanding of what a "standard" is??????
It is nothing BUT a (consensually nonproblematic) method against which
*other* methods may be checked.  You are *trying* to summon out of some
realm of ghosts a "problem" with radioactive dating methods.  This is
particularly ludicrous in view of the STANDARD for time measurement
being a particular radiative decay (Cesium, I think?).

Once again, there is a VERY simple logical structure to the case:

	a) radioactive decay is THE standard by which time is measured
	b) a sample of rock will either have been "closed" as a chemical
	   system with respect to all the parent and daughter isoptopes
	   of a decay series, or else it will have been subject to some
	   addition or subtraction of its chemical makeup
	c) any measurement at time X of putative decay products from a
	   consitutent of the rock at formation is subject to question
	   with regard to the chemical history of the rock (hence; some
	   methods REQUIRE external caliration -- C14 being the type case)
	d) if a particular decay series involves chemicals that persist
	   in the parent rock, while having substantially different chem-
	   istries, then relative proportions of the parent and daughter
	   isotopes CROSS_CHECK against any contaminating processes.
	e) in the absence of any evidence of a disruption of proportion
	   (i.e., unless one assumes a miracle -- rather a no-no for
	   experimental science, eh Bob?), the STANDARD of time-keeping
	   applies uncontroversially, and we get billions of years for
	   the ages of samples, neatly confirmed by the isochron.
	f) the history of a given rock sample may include events that
	   leave its chemical composition in flux for some indefinite
	   period of time before the "closure" of the chemical system;
	   in such cases, isochrons will give LATER dates than the "real"
	   ones -- an earlier date is impossible without some miraculous
	   on-going "adjustment" of the composition
	g) since you object to the EARLY dates, YOU had better be able
	   to demonstrate some such miraculous processes, or be dismissed
	   as a crank.  Reference to *un*self-calibrating methods is in
	   this context evidence of i) lack of understanding or ii) dis-
	   honesty.
	   
>past, for example, the length standard was a bar maintained by a government
>under controlled conditions.  Now I believe it is a certain number of wave-

natter, natter, natter.  *do* please look up what the standard second is.
I am beginning to think that the "proper" use of the standard metre is
for someone to go to Paris and check it out and use it to beat you about
the head and shoulders.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.origins