Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
Climate records from a Japanese lake are providing a more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50,000 years
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dating-gets-resetThis would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but historical knowledge, as well....
(Cue edumacated kneejerk response from Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur in three...two...one...)
So what is your point?
ReplyDeleteThe point was clearly stated.
ReplyDeleteYes, but I know you...you don't just state some random abstract statement without something else up your sleave.
ReplyDeleteSo....???
I don't have any sleaves.
ReplyDeleteI think my point was obvious: "This would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but historical knowledge, as well...."
I think Corey's question is pretty valid. What's the point? We now have a more accurate way of dating things accounting for climate change....huzzah!
ReplyDeleteRob, I answered Corey's question. Did you miss it, really, or are you just posting to be a childish nuisance?
ReplyDeleteYou said the point was 'clearly stated'. The post said,
ReplyDelete"this would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but to historical knowledge as well...."
followed up by a derogatory comment to me.
So what is your point? What exactly are you arguing?
Here is my point:
ReplyDeleteFacts are not immutable. Facts can change based on the acquisition of knowledge.... This would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but historical knowledge, as well....
And again, what's the point?
ReplyDeleteI think you are using the word "facts" too generally. There are immutable truths in the world Connie.
My point is, Rob, is that facts are not immutable. Facts can change based on the acquisition of knowledge.... This would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but historical knowledge, as well....
ReplyDeleteThe subject is FACTS, not truth.
Perhaps you should clearly define "facts" as opposed to this broad generalization you are making.
ReplyDeleteSez who? YOU? LOL!
ReplyDeleteOooooh, all caps; you must be serious.
ReplyDeleteYou are making an argument, I am pointing out an obvious flaw, and your retort is to discredit me through condescension? Interesting.
Even more hilarious is that your statement, "Facts are not immutable" ipso facto is an immutable fact as you hold it.
In philosophy, a "fact" is a reality which is something that cannot be altered or changed. It is what it is. So I ask you again, earnestly, how are you defining "fact" when making such a statement?
Rob. Go whine about it on your own blog. Bye.
ReplyDeleteI'm not whining Connie, I'm merely trying to understand your statement. You cutting yourself off, while accusing me of whining, points out that you seem to not know what you are talking about....yet again.
ReplyDeleteYou are way more effective at accusing Corey of things, perhaps you should stick with that.
"I'm not whining Connie"
ReplyDeleteYes, you are.
"I'm merely trying to understand your statement."
Baloney. Utter shuck. Total and complete bull crap.
You hare here to criticize, as in, "... you seem to not know what you are talking about....yet again..." You are here to nitpick, faultfind, make crap up and generally exhibit your delusional "superiority" based on your hatred of Confederate heritage advocate.
Go do it on your own blog.
But Connie, if facts are not immutable, then how do you know my questions are:
ReplyDeleteBaloney. Utter shuck. Total and complete bull crap.
And how do you know that I am:
...here to criticize...nitpick, faultfind, make crap up and generally exhibit your delusional "superiority" based on your hatred of Confederate heritage advocate.
It seems you need to acquiesce knowledge, like the information I provided for you, so that you can better understand my comments.
Rob, I'm getting ready to pull a Simpson on you and send your comments to the spam filter unposted. Before I do, let me tell you something. I'm not the slightest bit interested in understanding your comments, or putting up with your childish need to play agent provocateur.
ReplyDelete