I don't know whether there has been a gap in my education, or the synapses just aren't firing today, but I honestly cannot understand what Sigrid is talking about in some of the post, the jargon and the logic. Then I made what seemed to me the logical step of saying that a question mark is not a falsification. But I was offering my explanation and interpretation of the data, and trying to be clear and honest about what I was doing. She is making a method argument against any selective questioning, or weighting, of data at all. Now this is on its face absurd.
Real data is messy.
The data involves margins of error and scientists work hard to defeat the sources of tiny errors that can throw a date off. To say that a date that comes out at one end has the same weight as a date that agrees with well-established patterns is nonsense. Its all data, yes, in the sense that you want to find out why something unusual got reported, because there could be something interesting there. But this is nct like biblical inerrancy where one has to believe all or nothing. All archaeological sites would get misleadingly late dates from radiocarbon batteries by this method.