Wikipedia ar ar dating 100 current dating sites europe
edit 1 above i said I'm not an expert, but I remember that all those dating methods have only a certain range where they're accurate.
If you're outside the range you won't get reliable results, but you can just use different isotopes that give good results in the desired range.
They claim that the rocks they obtained were from a lava flow which came out of the volcano in 1945.
They sent these rocks to 2 labs and had them dated by potassium-argon dating to be between 270, 000 and 1 million years old.
Other methods, such as Isochron dating could potentially be used to show that the data are still consistent with current geological theory. I wrote the first draft thinking the entire range of reported dates represented the error bars on one sample, implying that the perceived dating error was not statistically significant. (1) when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
I'm coming in late, but I don't understand this argument. If the sample gathered by these skeptics cannot be measured accurately (allegedly due to assumption violations), how can we trust results given on other samples?
Therefore no prediction of the theory has been contradicted.
) My question: Since the real age of the rocks was around 50 years, does this demonstrate that K-Ar dating is inaccurate?Motivation for the question to follow: Some of the common mistakes we make in evaluating claims are resisting contrary evidence, looking for confirming evidence, and preferring available evidence.To counteract these tendencies, we need to take deliberate steps to examine critically even our most cherished claims, search for disconfirming evidence as well as confirming, and look beyond evidence that is merely the most striking or memorable.@Oddthinking: Dismissing claims of anomalous data is a No True Scotsman if it is done in a cavalier fashion.In the philosophy of science, this danger is described by the Durhem-Quine Thesis (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis).