Religion: The Deuce

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4586
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

It's almost like they're doing actual science. Who would have thought?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:46 am UTC

DSenette wrote:
addams wrote:Medicne is Science.

What is your point?

that some medicine isn't science....like....alternative medicine


Hey! Where did you go to School?
Use what works. Alternative? Alternative to what?

Prayer? Yes? It is a bad idea to stop conventional care to pray.

Boil water? Same thing. People like to feel useful.

I was taught. I remember it very well.

What do we do? What do we ask of the people?

We do our very best. I know I'm not good enough. I was told. I was also told I might be the best 'they' have sometimes.

What do we ask? Boil water and pray. shh. Quietly, please. I'm thinking.

Is that alternative?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:03 am UTC

I think I had an argument with a young woman about childbirth.

She insisted that the woman giving birth should screem..
So, weird. It is a cultural thing.

The best I can understand this way of doing things is the women somehow share the experence. I 'get' that. It is like screeming at a sunset. A shared experence.
Only; Very, very different.

We ended the conversation with; ' Bamboo,Bamboo; I' ll be me and you be you.'

How weird to have social pressure to screem.
How weird to have social pressure.

I think she is looking forward to screeming her head off, someday.
Working in that enviroment would take some getting used to.
This young woman bitched a lot about the family ties that bind. She is a highly advantaged young woman.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:50 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:On Dendrochronology. This is a concise description of how it works. The science is not in the counting of the tree rings, it's in removing the variability by understanding why it varies and accounting for that.
2. How do tree rings, ice cores, and other "proxies" help us determine historic temperatures?

The way scientists measure and interpret various proxies depends on the information each proxy provides. For example, to obtain temperature records from tree rings, scientists drill cores into several trees that are growing in a region. They identify site-specific factors that influence tree growth such as temperature, precipitation, altitude, and tree age, and then compare these factors against the width or density of the tree rings over the lifetime of the tree. The scientists then standardize the regional data and remove or adjust for individual tree growth responses that are not related to climatic factors. These can include forest density (trees in an open location face less competition for moisture and light than trees growing in a densely forested area) and tree age (a tree grows differently at the beginning and end of its life).

Once researchers are confident about how local tree growth correlates to air temperature, they then seek out older trees in the region that are preserved (perhaps in a local swamp or lake). By matching rings from trees that partially overlap life spans, scientists can construct a continuous climate record over thousands of years.
Yeah, this is what I mean. Statements like 'dendrochronology is not a legitimate field of science' only works if you think tree rings have nothing to do with their age. Because dendrochronology is the study of how to better measure the age of trees with their rings--IE, how to correct for things that prevent tree rings being an accurate measure of the age of a tree.

It's kind of like saying 'forensic ballistics is not a legitimate field of science--because you can't tell anything about a body's movement from the resulting impact.' But that's what forensic ballistics is! It's (essentially) better understanding how impacts can be used to describe the movement of bodies! It's only illegitimate if impacts have nothing to do with the way the bodies that created them moved--and if you think that's true... really, there's nowhere left for us to go.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:17 am UTC

So? Do you count tree rings?

It is an ok way to pass time. How many people have rounds lying around to count?
Do you? It has been ages sense I attempted to get an age on a tree that way.

What do tree rings and religion have in common?

Some people have an understandable pride in their trees. Some trees live a long time. Thousands of years. Trees.
Yes. The trees are Gods to some people. They don't cut the trees down, unless there is a good reason.
Why are you counting tree rings? Did you bag the tree yourself? How many rings on a Christmas tree?
What do Christmas Tree rings have to do with Religion? Nothing. Right?

Religion is so funny. Fake trees don't have rings. Fake trees are nice.

Christmas Trees are a huge Religious Meme. They come in every color of the rainbow.The out of doors has several on display.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:35 pm UTC

In this context dendrochronology is a tool. In and of itself it is useful but incomplete. For historical dating it is one of many tools. The reliability is a function of the number of tools used and the number of independent data points available. Corroboration is the key. Carbon dating, dendrochronology, written records, measures of the state of decay of the site being looked at, the depth at which it is found, with statistical controls to make sure that you are seeing what you believe you are seeing. Then add many eyes looking at the result. And then turning around and doing it again, over and over. The dates can never be precise but can provide a reliable timeline for broad events over time. The problem with the Old Testament is the it doesn't correlate well with the perceived historical record. And there is no reliable corroboration. It shares the problem that you get with a lot of weak science, single sourcing. This doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it something that you can't check out. The New Testament differs in this regard from the Old Testament.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

Different book,please.

How about something by St. Thomas?

Plato's Cave? That's a funny one.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
XTCamus
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:59 pm UTC
Location: "...on that dizzying crest"

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby XTCamus » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:38 am UTC

Other books are funny, but you gotta admit nothing is funnier than the meek, loving, anti-capitalist Jesus, being used so unironically to support war and oppression.

User avatar
GenericAnimeBoy
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:33 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby GenericAnimeBoy » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:42 am UTC

XTCamus wrote:Other books are funny, but you gotta admit nothing is funnier than the meek, loving, anti-capitalist Jesus, being used so unironically to support war and oppression.

If by 'funny' you mean viscerally awful. :roll:
In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

User avatar
XTCamus
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:59 pm UTC
Location: "...on that dizzying crest"

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby XTCamus » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:38 am UTC

GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
XTCamus wrote:Other books are funny, but you gotta admit nothing is funnier than the meek, loving, anti-capitalist Jesus, being used so unironically to support war and oppression.

If by 'funny' you mean viscerally awful. :roll:

No, I mean funny, as in laughable, ridiculous, worthy of scorn, mockery and derision. To respond seriously is to give them more credit than they are worth. As an analogy, imagine if we reacted less seriously toward terrorists. (After all, countless more die from other less sensational yet equally preventable causes.) Maybe if religious terrorists were ridiculed instead of feared their power would dissipate? And if half of the money spent on anti-terrorism was spent on preventing these other deaths... Oh, I know, that's crazy talk. Obviously even one life saved from a terrorist attack is worth at least a hundred lives lost to less visceral causes, right?


Edit: It is the morning after and yikes did I ever go over-the-top and off-topic. (None of it is directed toward you, GABoy.) There may be a good point in there somewhere... but it is an unholy mess.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

XTCamus wrote:Other books are funny, but you gotta admit nothing is funnier than the meek, loving, anti-capitalist Jesus, being used so unironically to support war and oppression.


Nah. There is funnier shit.

Plato's Cave. That's funny shit.

Umm..Oh. "There are none so blind as he that will not see."?
What does that mean?

Do we count Hysterical Blindness? Well?
Do you belive in it? I might. What did you see?

Fuck. How do we know?
What is it we know?

War? There is a war, somewhere. Where?
How do we know? I went into the East Bay of S.F. California.
It was like a fricking War Zone. 'The People were loving it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

I edit at the top. We don't want to mix politics and Religion. Do we?
They are very different things.

One is Public; Like a Frog.
The other is Private; Like Skipping Church.
My post is a mess, too.

....We don't get points for neatness...
..We don't get points..


Hey. I had a thought.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/F ... 767221.php
Richmond is in the East Bay.
They had a big boom.
When I was there I heard small arms fire and listened to second hand gossuip.

I did not get a clear idea about who was shooting at who.
The men were pleased.

It looked like a bunch of Assholes to me. Of course, I took their advice on directions Out of There!

I know for a fact; The group I was visiting is led by a man that works for tha US government.

He would be in the mob screeming, "Government I s Worthless!

The World is Too Strange for me.

Climate? The common man wants an enemy? Fight 'The Air'.
Too abstract?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
GenericAnimeBoy
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:33 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby GenericAnimeBoy » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:49 am UTC

XTCamus wrote:...
Edit: It is the morning after and yikes did I ever go over-the-top and off-topic. (None of it is directed toward you, GABoy.) There may be a good point in there somewhere... but it is an unholy mess.

Meh, no offense taken. It's good to not let people who are clearly doing it wrong weigh you down. Still, it's people taking politics and nationalism ('Murica) and stamping the name of my God on it. :shock: He doesn't seem to have been in a smiting mood these last couple millenia, and I'm not generally superstitious, but I still worry about standing too near some of these people in a lightning storm. :roll:
In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

Jesus Christ! You are coming danerously close to truth.

Fuck. Who wants truth?

We each reflect our Gods. We are like Gooseberries.
That's the truth.

Some people say it comes in a flash of inspiration.
Some people say it takes lifetimes of single minded labor.
Some people say there is no light. Might makes right.

Platos Cave? How long has it been?
I was thinking about 'The Cave'.
Our screens are like the shadows on the wall.

So, I went outside. Ahhh! The world is delightful. It is beautiful!
People suck.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:56 pm UTC

XTCamus wrote:Other books are funny, but you gotta admit nothing is funnier than the meek, loving, anti-capitalist Jesus, being used so unironically to support war and oppression.


I am often amused by the diversity of viewpoints that all assume Jesus would personally approve of theirs. People have a pronounced tendency to attribute their desires to god's will.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I am often amused by the diversity of viewpoints that all assume Jesus would personally approve of theirs. People have a pronounced tendency to attribute their desires to god's will.
Point in fact.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:38 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I am often amused by the diversity of viewpoints that all assume Jesus would personally approve of theirs. People have a pronounced tendency to attribute their desires to god's will.
Point in fact.

Well. That's disterbing.
Yet; In the East, Monks learned to defend themselves.
Oh. Monks did that in the West, too.

Humans are panicy animals. That's what the man in the movie said. It had a ring of truth to it.

Yuck..Self defence? Those classes were fun.
I could not pass one of those classes, today.
Besides; How does a person defend themselves against Bubba with a gun?

So, funny. That guy is telling people to sell their clothes to by a sword. Butt naked on the streets with a flag and a sword. A frightening foe. (Can you imagine those folks naked?)

That's Freedom. tee hee.
That's Freedom? I'll have the pasta.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 pm UTC

Yeah, I took a few martial arts classes, and while they were fun, I'm under no illusions that it turned me into some kind of kung fu expert. Mostly gonna be impractical compared to a firearm. However, they're decent exercise.

In more historical viewpoint, the second amendment was rooted in the tradition of the time, and the confluence of western philosophy. Locke, hobbes, etc. You could, I suppose, attempt to draw some cause and effect from Christianity through there, but it'd be a rather tortured chain of causality.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:14 am UTC

I don't know about the tortured chain of causeality.

I do know "The best way to get out of a terrable situation is don't get into a terrable situation."

Having failed that. We turn to Philosophy. Philosophy has its roots in Religion.
It is difficult for me to tell the difference.

The internet! I can ask wiki.

I asked. It seems Phylosphy is taking a bath alone, Then talking or writing about it.
It seems Religion is taking a bath with all your favorite people.
Very social and private too.

Some people don't do Religion right.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Spoiler:
guenther wrote:First of all, how hard is it to figure out if you really mean "if you oppose science in one place, you oppose science"? If you don't really believe that, then just say it.
Because you and I are probably operating under different definitions of 'oppose' and 'science'--and part of what I am trying to do is change my definitions to better reflect yours.
guenther wrote:Second, you're saying contradictory things. Based on your above statement, I showed that opposing evolution is opposing science. But then more recently you explicitly said that opposing evolution is NOT opposing science. You are contradicting yourself. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt of a reversal of your earlier statement. If it's not, then I don't know how to parse a self-contradictory position.
Evolution isn't a field of science; it's a scientific theory. Opposing a field of science is way weirder, and what I meant when I said 'if you oppose science in one place, you oppose science'.

But I feel like I might be splitting hairs: I don't really think opposing evolution is much different than opposing dendrochronology. The big 'difference' is that evolution is a theory--so it's possible to imagine it being proven wrong. But dendrochronology... it's a definition. It means 'scientifically studying the age of trees via their rings'.
The only way you can oppose the field of dendrochronology is if you think tree rings have nothing to do with their age. How does that even work?
Spoiler:
guenther wrote:Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying for a while now. It's not a good idea to capture opposition to one flavor of science as "being opposed to science".
I thought I had clarified this precise sentiment several times now--that I think it is very possible to oppose things without intending to or wanting to oppose them. If you prefer, 'obstruct' is a much more 'intention neutral' term.

But 'obstruct' carries the incorrect implication that non-science presented as science somehow obstruct the process of science--they actually don't. Not necessarily. But non-science presented as science does make it harder to understand things, and for this reason I oppose it--whether it is a product of intent or mistake. I assume it is mostly a product of mistake, because I assume most people do not desire to deceive. But whatever I assume, my assumptions remain irrelevant.

I don't care to speculate why the preacher puts on a lab coat, grabs a test-tube, and tells his flock that he's used science to disprove evolution. Whether he's lying or just doesn't grasp science, I don't think it's important--I just want him to stop doing that.

I don't think that tree rings correlate strongly with their annual age. The number of rings increases as age increases, yes. Annually? Not to the degree needed for me to confirm is safe to date by.

Why? Because phantom and missed rings do occur. If at an average (as noted from Dendrochronologists own research) of 1 in 4 years, that can be a massive change in dating. That's about the variance between the historical records I'm looking at and the natural tree ring growth Dendrochronologists are looking at. So, in knowing tree rings can vary by on average 1 in 4 (at a really rough guess, this is me not spending 5 years worth of research just yet), which data set do I first suggest is more accurate? The tree rings "count each ring", or the paper "count each year" one?

Then, after checking which data set is more accurate, I can (and have, and will continue to do) spend the 5 or more years studying that data set. So, which one do I prefer? Which one would you prefer (if hypothetical here, one just a historical record, the other just some trees)? Personally, I'd trust both, but I'd trust the paper records to be more accurate than the tree ring records.

DSenette wrote:
Spoiler:
Technical Ben wrote:The Great Hippo, if science can peer review and this is it's only requirement, what stops religion/politics/media/economic etc doing the same? If only peer review is needed, how does the individual distinguish a real thing from a fake one? Is Homeopathy real Homeopathy because it's peers accept it as that (it's not science, but never claims to be)? How would you falsify Homeopathy without an external measure?

If I wish to apply an external measure to science, or specific parts of science (the community/practices/fields), then what should I apply?

THG, this is where I wanted to see the data or examples of:
If you say 'Dendrochronology is wrong', then what you are saying is 'the scientific method is wrong'. Because Dendrochronology is a product of the scientific method!

I don't see Dendrochronology fitting scientific method. I see that tree ring growth varies. I know peoples counting of days does also. Which one varies greater than the other? Which would I use for calibration? Which would I use as a better data set? I agree, most histories fall off into myth at some point. But where that change is, or which histories do this, is the part I'd like to see.
this is you woefully not understanding the way dendrochronology corrects for things. of course tree ring growth varies. but it varies in a reasonably predictable way. you can, within reason, come up with quite reliable models of what can and does change what you should expect to see in tree ring data. you use then use those models to make your calculations of ages of trees etc...

Technical Ben wrote:PS DSenette:
he also has rejected the use (in it's entirety) of dendrochronology as a dating method (even though, a lot of the things that he surely HAS to have used as external dating sources for the stories in the bible he is claiming are true used dendrochronology at some point.

If this is so, please pull me up on it. I'll happily go back and review and recalculate/verify externally any dates I have that have been got to via a method I don't see as practically applicable. :)

what are your external corroborating points for the biblical dating of the events in the bible?

We are going around in circles here. I have no worry if we use external means or internal ones. I have a worry over showing bias and unfairness to one and not the other. So with science, either give it internal verification and respect others internal verification. Or if you expect me to show external verification then show me your external verification too. Currently, I would say the bible (as it's historical and practical parts) has internal consistency and external verification through archeology and external records.

As to the dating of "perceived history", I am happy to look at where you say the bible differs from this history. The key is where such a point would be. Say, is the fall of Jerusalem correct? Is the building of the Temple recorded correctly? The Death of certain kings or dynasties? As "science" gets a free pass at being allowed to "calibrate" or "adjust" it's findings later. Are you not going to allow me to do the same with the bibles history? If it turns out the dates for the kings reigns are out by 10 years, or vary by 1+ year each 100 years, why can science say this is an allowed error bar, but it's forbidden for me to say it's how the history was recorded?

But I'd not make an excuse for the dating, because from what I've seen, the history written in the bible was researched very well. Whom ever wrote it made sure the dates were as accurate as possible. Even referring to records of kings and national censors. So, if they went to that much trouble, I'd not expect them to be decades off in their record keeping.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:I don't think that tree rings correlate strongly with their annual age.
What do you think correlates more strongly to a tree's age besides its rings? If your answer is "I don't know", then there's no way out of this: As far as you can tell, dendrochronology is the study of a tree's age--by employing the most relevant piece of data we have. The number of rings.

If you can find something more relevant to determine the age of trees with, I'm sure dendrochronologists--and science!--would be glad to hear about it. But until then, you don't get to dismiss an entire field of science because you don't like the materials it's working with. If tree rings are the most relevant thing to the age of trees, then to determine the age of trees, we must look at tree rings. The degree of accuracy is a separate concern; you haven't been saying 'Dendrochronology doesn't produce sufficiently accurate results', you've been saying 'Dendrochronology isn't a field of science'. That means you must think tree rings either have nothing to do with the age of trees--or you know of something else that is more relevant to determining the age of trees.

So, which is it? Do tree rings have nothing to do with the age of trees? Is there something that has more to do with the age of trees? Or is dendrochronology a valid field of science? You can only pick one of these three options.
Technical Ben wrote:Why? Because phantom and missed rings do occur. If at an average (as noted from Dendrochronologists own research) of 1 in 4 years, that can be a massive change in dating. That's about the variance between the historical records I'm looking at and the natural tree ring growth Dendrochronologists are looking at. So, in knowing tree rings can vary by on average 1 in 4 (at a really rough guess, this is me not spending 5 years worth of research just yet), which data set do I first suggest is more accurate? The tree rings "count each ring", or the paper "count each year" one?
Why do you think dendrochronology consists of counting tree rings and writing down the result? If this was the case, anyone could be a dendrochronologist. We wouldn't even call it dendrochronology--we'd call it 'Counting-Tree-Rings-Ology', and we could hire preschoolers to do it.

Dendrochronoloy is the study of how tree rings are relevant to a tree's age. That means dendrochronologists aren't just counting tree rings; they're studying things like phantom and missing rings--determining how to correct for their existence--and finding ways to correct for all the errors that merely counting tree rings cause. Dendrochronology is the study of accounting for the very errors you are assigning to dendrochronology!
Technical Ben wrote:Then, after checking which data set is more accurate, I can (and have, and will continue to do) spend the 5 or more years studying that data set. So, which one do I prefer? Which one would you prefer (if hypothetical here, one just a historical record, the other just some trees)? Personally, I'd trust both, but I'd trust the paper records to be more accurate than the tree ring records.
I wouldn't. But that's probably because I have a little familiarity with the historical record, and I can tell you from personal experience that the historical record is often unreliable. Rocks, bones, and tree rings do not lie, misrepresent, or otherwise confuse; they merely are what they are. Analysis of a historical record must take the author into account--analysis of bones must only take the bones into account.

Now, it is tree that a historical document might tell us something that bones couldn't. It is also true that in studying the bones, our methods might lead us to make a mistake that the historical record wouldn't have. But if I read a historical account that says 'There was no battle here', and I go to this place, and I dig it up, and I find the bodies of dead warriors, I will trust the bones over the historical account.

Because the thing about rocks, bones, and tree rings is this: They are real. I can touch them. I can analyze them. The person who wrote that document? They are long gone. I cannot ask them for clarification--I cannot even ask them questions. But I can ask a tree's rings questions--if I am sufficiently clever when it concerns tree rings.
Technical Ben wrote:I don't see Dendrochronology fitting scientific method. I see that tree ring growth varies. I know peoples counting of days does also. Which one varies greater than the other? Which would I use for calibration? Which would I use as a better data set? I agree, most histories fall off into myth at some point. But where that change is, or which histories do this, is the part I'd like to see.
Here, let me try: I don't see Meteorology fitting the scientific method. I see that the predictions made for rain vary. I know that relying on my Uncle's achey knee to determine if it's going to rain varies also. Which one varies greater than the other? Which would I use for calibration? Which would I use as a better data set? I agree, most achey knees eventually fail to predict the rain. But where that change is, or which achey knees do this, is the part I'd like to see.

All I'm saying is maybe we should consider my uncle's achey knee to be part of the scientific method.

(By the way, history isn't science. Never was and never will be. Dendrochronology is!)
Technical Ben wrote:Whom ever wrote it made sure the dates were as accurate as possible. Even referring to records of kings and national censors. So, if they went to that much trouble, I'd not expect them to be decades off in their record keeping.
Don't you see how this is cyclical?

"These records are incredibly accurate!"

"Actually, here's a dataset that indicates those dates aren't as accurate as you think."

"But this incredibly accurate record is incredibly accurate--so we shouldn't pay attention to that dataset, since it contradicts this incredibly accurate record."

The problem is that the dates aren't actually very accurate. You just think they are, and you keep dismissing any contradiction merely on account of it being a contradiction.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

There problem per se is that the Bible is a single source and is self referencing. If you are saying that it is okay to reinterpret the Bible in light of your increased understanding of the world, than fine. This is what science does. By using consistent methods and techniques science can understand how errors, to say the use of Dendrochronology to make estimates of age, occur, and allows them to adjust the techniques and retest the data. The Old Testament in particular suffers form the lack of secondary sources which link to the Bible directly. To my knowledge there is no historical support in terms of mentions of Moses, or the any of the other prominent figures in the Bible in the first five texts. As a contrast, the historical record tends to support the existence of Christ.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:05 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:There problem per se is that the Bible is a single source and is self referencing. If you are saying that it is okay to reinterpret the Bible in light of your increased understanding of the world, than fine. This is what science does. By using consistent methods and techniques science can understand how errors, to say the use of Dendrochronology to make estimates of age, occur, and allows them to adjust the techniques and retest the data. The Old Testament in particular suffers form the lack of secondary sources which link to the Bible directly. To my knowledge there is no historical support in terms of mentions of Moses, or the any of the other prominent figures in the Bible in the first five texts. As a contrast, the historical record tends to support the existence of Christ.
Right, this is the thing: The historical record contradicts the Biblical record all the frigging time. In fact, biblical historicity is a pretty contentious (and interesting!) field of history.

The only way you could think the Bible is a pretty accurate historical record is if you started by assuming that the Bible is a pretty accurate historical record--and started assuming that contradicting the Bible correlated with being inaccurate. In other words, if something contradicts the Bible's version of history, this never indicates the Bible's history is incorrect; it indicates that the something is incorrect.

Dendrochronology is wrong because it contradicts the history given by the Bible. And if that's what you believe, you're in a whole bean-bag of trouble: Because a lot of things contradict the history of the Bible.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

I want to muse about Religion.

I saw some stuff. With my very own eyes. Long ago and not so long ago.
Priests. They come in many flavors. Not all very, very good.

Most really good. You? Have you ever listened to those guys?

Well; I did! It was entertainment for me.
There was a little Church in the middle of Fricken Nowhere.
When men questioned their calling.
When men had PTS they seemed to have a process. A stage in the process brought them to us.

The guy that ran the place was like a 'rock star'. He was Good!
The floor show was the same every week. It was done with confidence and purpose. I did and still do not understand it all. I don't have to. I'm not catholic.
The men that came to visit for six months or so were all offered. Huh? In ret
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

I don't get it. Some of the stories these men wrote and read to us were amazing.

Sories of hardship and love.
Stories. Some of those men were beautiful.
I thingk men look great in dresses. So do women.

These days both men and women are Priests.
I was shocked, but it's true; They have sex, get married, or not, the women give birth. The men sometimes end up in the strangest situations.

One guy was working for the UN delivering. Well; He lived with the people. He had contacted the UN and they said they were sending in food. It got there. Too late for many. He talked lot. I learned about stuff by listening to those men.

What did you learn in Church? I'm not Catholic.
I went to some of those Mega Evangelical Born Again Southern California Church.

It was a large building. It was a full building. Many, many people.
It was modern. The words were projected for the people to see.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:24 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Right, this is the thing: The historical record contradicts the Biblical record all the frigging time. In fact, biblical historicity is a pretty contentious (and interesting!) field of history.
Perhaps a less aggressive way of looking at it would be to say that the Bible as commonly interpreted is poorly supported historically. Considering the state of man in that period, the context that they would have brought with them when they read it would be completely different than our context, if indeed it is the word of God.

However it is now, at this time, given current events, that I sometimes wish I could believe, and surrender to the idea of underlying purpose. I believe it is at least one of the reasons that people grasp at the idea of a presence who can provide some form of meaning. I understand that what has happened is essentially meaningless, simply a random outcome of some combination of bad wiring and faulty programming, but a part of me wishes that it were otherwise.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:27 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:I don't think that tree rings correlate strongly with their annual age.
What do you think correlates more strongly to a tree's age besides its rings? If your answer is "I don't know", then there's no way out of this: As far as you can tell, dendrochronology is the study of a tree's age--by employing the most relevant piece of data we have. The number of rings.
What has more correlation? Historical records. Absolutely. We can test this. Get some known dates. Now go check the trees and ring data available. The known date (by definition) is more accurate than the tree ring data. Thus, from what I am aware, tree ring dating is only helpful with unknown dates. I cannot use it to correct or calibrate known or "claimed" historical dates. We are trying to use estimations or external indicators (tree rings) to balance a banking ledger (historical records). The external data may help us to have an indication of where something went wrong, but the correction starts with the internal records. For example, if your shopping bag (tree rings) shows a larger purchase than you seem to get suggested from your bank balance (historical records), you go over your bank balance to see if it includes all the purchases. Then, you find the one or two that are not included and add it to your bank balance ledger. Likewise, if the history in the bible is claimed to be dated wrong, would I not wish to see where this is?

If you can find something more relevant to determine the age of trees with, I'm sure dendrochronologists--and science!--would be glad to hear about it. But until then, you don't get to dismiss an entire field of science because you don't like the materials it's working with. If tree rings are the most relevant thing to the age of trees, then to determine the age of trees, we must look at tree rings. The degree of accuracy is a separate concern; you haven't been saying 'Dendrochronology doesn't produce sufficiently accurate results', you've been saying 'Dendrochronology isn't a field of science'. That means you must think tree rings either have nothing to do with the age of trees--or you know of something else that is more relevant to determining the age of trees.
I have no concern over the age of a tree. Tree ring counting is science. Using the tree ring counting to age a tree is science. Using it to redefine "known dates" is not science. I am concerned over the correlation and strength of the age of a tree to predict the age of events or places already claimed to have happened at specific dates. Can science give us a more accurate recording of events than historical recording? Or are they both the same and we just need to work together to build a better more accurate picture of both? I'd say the greatest value of Dendrochronology is dating unknown finds and artifacts. I'd say it does not have an ability with confirming dates argued over though. But that's not a discredit to it anymore than claiming a drill is best at drilling and a hammer best at putting in nails.

So, which is it? Do tree rings have nothing to do with the age of trees? Is there something that has more to do with the age of trees? Or is dendrochronology a valid field of science? You can only pick one of these three options.
Or I can choose "tree rings correlate with tree age, this has no scope on age of the thing made of the tree". I can also argue that tree age shows the age of the tree, not the time it lived. I can say that the tree rings show data for age at a considereably less reliable method than people. For example, if I got a person to record on paper how many days and years past for 70 years, then checked a tree rings growth for 70 years, which is more accurate?
Technical Ben wrote:Why? Because phantom and missed rings do occur. If at an average (as noted from Dendrochronologists own research) of 1 in 4 years, that can be a massive change in dating. That's about the variance between the historical records I'm looking at and the natural tree ring growth Dendrochronologists are looking at. So, in knowing tree rings can vary by on average 1 in 4 (at a really rough guess, this is me not spending 5 years worth of research just yet), which data set do I first suggest is more accurate? The tree rings "count each ring", or the paper "count each year" one?
Why do you think dendrochronology consists of counting tree rings and writing down the result? If this was the case, anyone could be a dendrochronologist. We wouldn't even call it dendrochronology--we'd call it 'Counting-Tree-Rings-Ology', and we could hire preschoolers to do it.

Dendrochronoloy is the study of how tree rings are relevant to a tree's age. That means dendrochronologists aren't just counting tree rings; they're studying things like phantom and missing rings--determining how to correct for their existence--and finding ways to correct for all the errors that merely counting tree rings cause. Dendrochronology is the study of accounting for the very errors you are assigning to dendrochronology!
Technical Ben wrote:Then, after checking which data set is more accurate, I can (and have, and will continue to do) spend the 5 or more years studying that data set. So, which one do I prefer? Which one would you prefer (if hypothetical here, one just a historical record, the other just some trees)? Personally, I'd trust both, but I'd trust the paper records to be more accurate than the tree ring records.
I wouldn't. But that's probably because I have a little familiarity with the historical record, and I can tell you from personal experience that the historical record is often unreliable. Rocks, bones, and tree rings do not lie, misrepresent, or otherwise confuse; they merely are what they are. Analysis of a historical record must take the author into account--analysis of bones must only take the bones into account.

Now, it is tree that a historical document might tell us something that bones couldn't. It is also true that in studying the bones, our methods might lead us to make a mistake that the historical record wouldn't have. But if I read a historical account that says 'There was no battle here', and I go to this place, and I dig it up, and I find the bodies of dead warriors, I will trust the bones over the historical account.

Because the thing about rocks, bones, and tree rings is this: They are real. I can touch them. I can analyze them. The person who wrote that document? They are long gone. I cannot ask them for clarification--I cannot even ask them questions. But I can ask a tree's rings questions--if I am sufficiently clever when it concerns tree rings.
I agree that such a finding would disprove that record. That's not what I'm seeing here though. We both agree these battles, nations and peoples existed. It's only over when they existed that there is a difference. So, to find out when, we both have our own methods. One is counting a day and recording it. One is the year being recorded by natural growth. I know one has a greater variance than the other. To me it's not the counting. I can "ask questions" of a document to the same degree I can of bones and trees etc. How? Through study. You can even check scientifically and mathematically for bias results, for example using Benford's Law. As said, I only have trust in this particular historical record, because it's shown to be written by people very obsessive with keeping accurate records. Just like you trust dendrochronologists because they follow scientific methods very well, I trust certain Hebrew historians because they copy accurate time records very well.

Technical Ben wrote:I don't see Dendrochronology fitting scientific method. I see that tree ring growth varies. I know peoples counting of days does also. Which one varies greater than the other? Which would I use for calibration? Which would I use as a better data set? I agree, most histories fall off into myth at some point. But where that change is, or which histories do this, is the part I'd like to see.
Here, let me try: I don't see Meteorology fitting the scientific method. I see that the predictions made for rain vary. I know that relying on my Uncle's achey knee to determine if it's going to rain varies also. Which one varies greater than the other? Which would I use for calibration? Which would I use as a better data set? I agree, most achey knees eventually fail to predict the rain. But where that change is, or which achey knees do this, is the part I'd like to see.

All I'm saying is maybe we should consider my uncle's achey knee to be part of the scientific method.

(By the way, history isn't science. Never was and never will be. Dendrochronology is!)
Technical Ben wrote:Whom ever wrote it made sure the dates were as accurate as possible. Even referring to records of kings and national censors. So, if they went to that much trouble, I'd not expect them to be decades off in their record keeping.
Don't you see how this is cyclical?

"These records are incredibly accurate!"

"Actually, here's a dataset that indicates those dates aren't as accurate as you think."

"But this incredibly accurate record is incredibly accurate--so we shouldn't pay attention to that dataset, since it contradicts this incredibly accurate record."

The problem is that the dates aren't actually very accurate. You just think they are, and you keep dismissing any contradiction merely on account of it being a contradiction.

As to Meteorology, it is based on future dates right? So, as you said, even without accuracy it fits "the scientific method". For while it's predictions are far from the results, it applies scientific method. Tree ring data applies "historical method", from what I can see, not predictive methods. Although, I agree it does apply science in part, it's not to the amount you are insisting I apply, that it should be allowed to override historical records.

I don't dismiss it on being a contradiction to the historical dates. My entire reason is on the proven accuracy of each method. I know the error ranges of each. I know humans can lie out right, but I qalso know that natural data sets can have "unknown unknowns" or just erroneous collection. But I do know how to test the accuracy of each, to gain confidence in each. So, I put tree ring data and carbon dating above pure guesses on a general range or layer of soil. I'd put historical records above both, when I can confirm the accuracy of such a record.

While refering to historical records might be circular, how is tree ring data not circular also if it requires historical records to test? If we take away historical records, then tree ring data is 100% scientific, but we have no way to test if it's predictions match observations. As none of us have a time machine, we need the historical records to check if the "predictions" of tree ring data match the "observations". So sadly, we have a non scientific measure, it's a historical measure.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

Is it Sunday?
Where is God?

God is in Laughter.

I want to remember one of my very best friends.
I laughed at him. I laughed with him.

His poor wife. tee hee. That's a different story.

I am not sure of his name. He was funny. He was from Iran or Iraq his wife was from the other one.(shrug)
It's about Religion! We laughed.

He could make the air raid siren sound. He lived in a War Zone most of his life. He had brothers.
He told me stories about his childhood. Brothers can ne mean. Some of them.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

umm. I ran out of room?
That guy? What was his name?

He told me. Then, he said, "Americans can't say it."
Sam. In American it's Sam.

I didn't call him Sam. I slaughterd his real name. Saying?

What's in a name?

His War Stories were told from the perspective of a child who is now an adult.

One of my favorites is about his brothers locking him out of the bomb shelter.
So, funny.
It is like Butler-Ross' Five Stages of Death.
He was , just, a kid. Really. That shot was going on all of his life.
Last edited by addams on Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

The house next door got hit with a bomb. What are the chances?
No one was hurt; Much.
Those people were in a shelter. Salaadat was a skinny thirteen year old.
His brothers locked him out.

Peace. I thought there was Peace between he and I. He knew I would let him in, or come outside with him. We walked together.

Where was God that night? Was the direct line down?
So, funny.

Prayer is like calling God on the Telephone.
Islamics expect a busy signal. That's why they pray five times a day

An Islamic woman told me that one.
part. So she said.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:30 pm UTC

I may have a primitive form of spell check.
With auto correct.

Where did that come from?
It makes some of what I write (?)

I write like Joyce?
Joyce is hard to read.

I don't read that other guy either.
"The Universe in a wild flower. A world in a grain of sand."

http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/bla3.htm

That guy is both preachy and What? Some stanzas stand alone. The first one.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Ubik » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Reposting same stuff feels bit dull, but I guess I have posted at points where Technical Ben had just taken a break from this thread. In addition to a link, here's the contents of my earlier post spoilered. I feel it is still relevant, as validity of dendrochronology still keeps coming up.
Spoiler:
Ubik wrote:An abstracted version from a full article on The Biblical Chronologist: Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? An even shorter version: Independently collected tree ring sets match each other, cycles in solar activity are used as reference points to make sure that multiple or missing rings haven't happened.

Ice cores correlate with tree ring data sets: Linking ice cores and other climate archives

Edit: I'd also like to bring up the very long drought at Atacama desert again. It's based on relatively simple physics (surface has been uncovered very long time, thus has been subjected to more cosmic radiation, the said surface would have been washed away if there had been any notable amount of water).
Written records are not the only thing that the tree ring records can be compared with. I can't remember if I already mentioned lake varves, but they are yet another way nature produces "records." For example, lake cores have been extracted from the bottom of lake Suigetsu to get radiocarbon records that extend over fifty thousand years into the past.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
No one is suggesting that. The claim is not 'The Hebrews were terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the Egyptians'.

Rather, the claim is: 'Everyone is terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the evidence'.

Historical records are not evidence.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:What has more correlation? Historical records. Absolutely. We can test this. Get some known dates. Now go check the trees and ring data available. The known date (by definition) is more accurate than the tree ring data. Thus, from what I am aware, tree ring dating is only helpful with unknown dates. I cannot use it to correct or calibrate known or "claimed" historical dates. We are trying to use estimations or external indicators (tree rings) to balance a banking ledger (historical records). The external data may help us to have an indication of where something went wrong, but the correction starts with the internal records. For example, if your shopping bag (tree rings) shows a larger purchase than you seem to get suggested from your bank balance (historical records), you go over your bank balance to see if it includes all the purchases. Then, you find the one or two that are not included and add it to your bank balance ledger. Likewise, if the history in the bible is claimed to be dated wrong, would I not wish to see where this is?
Historical records are not evidence. They're anecdotes.

Now, it is true that anecdotes can be useful, and informative, and can--in certain contexts!--even be used as evidence (but only as evidence to falsify claims like 'There are no anecdotes about X!'). But anecdotes are always anecdotes, and evidence is always evidence.
Technical Ben wrote:I have no concern over the age of a tree. Tree ring counting is science. Using the tree ring counting to age a tree is science. Using it to redefine "known dates" is not science.
If you are not concerned over the age of a tree, then why are you so concerned with saying dendrochronology--the science of dating trees--is not science? If you had no concern about the age of trees, you certainly wouldn't say things like this:
Technical Ben wrote:I don't see Dendrochronology fitting scientific method.
--particularly when you've (probably) never even met a dendrochronologist!
Technical Ben wrote:I am concerned over the correlation and strength of the age of a tree to predict the age of events or places already claimed to have happened at specific dates.
...okay, do you understand that this is a completely separate thing from dendrochronology? IE, dendrochronology is not 'the field of science by which we defy historical records'. Dendrochronology is only 'the field of science by which we date trees'. Whatever you do with that information is not the concern of dendrochronology! Dendrochronology is only concerned with getting that information!

So, with that being said, do you think perhaps saying 'Dendrochronology does not fit the scientific method' is a bit wrong-headed of you? Because your beef with dendrochronology doesn't seem to have anything to do with dendrochronology--rather, your beef has everything to do with what people do with the data dendrochronology produces.
Technical Ben wrote:Or I can choose "tree rings correlate with tree age, this has no scope on age of the thing made of the tree". I can also argue that tree age shows the age of the tree, not the time it lived. I can say that the tree rings show data for age at a considereably less reliable method than people. For example, if I got a person to record on paper how many days and years past for 70 years, then checked a tree rings growth for 70 years, which is more accurate?
Are we talking about a period of 70 years? Because last time I checked, we're talking about a period of--at the very least!--two thousand years. So let's rephrase your question to make it more appropriate:

If I got a person to record on paper how many days and years passed for two thousand years...
Spoiler:
Image
...oops.

So, moving on: Which would tell us more about how much time has passed? The writings of a dead guy who saw a fraction of it, or a tree that lived for the entire length of it?
Technical Ben wrote:While refering to historical records might be circular, how is tree ring data not circular also if it requires historical records to test? If we take away historical records, then tree ring data is 100% scientific, but we have no way to test if it's predictions match observations. As none of us have a time machine, we need the historical records to check if the "predictions" of tree ring data match the "observations". So sadly, we have a non scientific measure, it's a historical measure.
What are you talking about? We compare tree rings to scientific data. At no point do historical records enter this comparison loop.

There's plenty of good science to use to determine the accuracy of tree ages. We don't need the historical record to test it. We don't need the historical record to test anything's age. We don't use the historical record to test our science. We never have! Rather, we've always done the reverse: Test the historical record's dates with science.

I mean, what you seem to be suggesting here is that science should allow for anecdotes to be treated like genuine scientific evidence. But science is predicated on the very notion that anecdotes are not scientific evidence!
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:15 pm UTC

Who is using tree rings to date anything in Archeology? I just see the data for climatology. What I see the most when I look, is the data being used for proofing radiocarbon dating. History is history. But even then they like multiple sources. It's all guesses. They can't say with authority who wrote the first chapters of the Old Testament or how long it was an oral tradition before it was written down. There is no secondary physical data. No location for Eden, no indication of the Ark where it was supposed to have landed. Move past the first five chapters and you start to sync with history to some degree

Technical Ben wrote:Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
Who wrote the first five chapters? What Hebrew Scholar? Where did he write it. Did he know Noah, or Moses? How did he know the story of Creation, who told him? We have a narrative, where are the buttressing facts to support it. Where is Noah buried. Why after keeping genealogical records showing the progression from Adam to Abraham, did they quit cold? Why would it not be possible to trace the lineage back to Noah? Can you bring the bloodline of Noah to the present day?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:00 am UTC

It is a bunch of disjointed stuff.

Once upon a time, I thought the whole book was worth the first 26 verses.
S have changed my mind.

The sermon on the mount was so...poetry.
It is no more true than Blake's poetry is.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:33 am UTC

Technical Ben wrote:What has more correlation? Historical records. Absolutely. We can test this. Get some known dates. Now go check the trees and ring data available. The known date (by definition) is more accurate than the tree ring data.


Which "known dates" are these? Dates have been applied retroactively to the bible, and are almost certainly incorrect. The bible itself (correct me if I'm wrong, it's a while since I read it) does not utilise any useful calendar. Dates are not mentioned; events are in loose chronological order, but with no real sense of precisely when they happened.

And how/why would we be using dendrochronology to find historical dates to start with? Unless the event in question was "on his 100th birthday, Moses planted a cedar tree at [known location]", there would be no relevant dendrochronological evidence.

Technical Ben wrote:I cannot use it to correct or calibrate known or "claimed" historical dates. We are trying to use estimations or external indicators (tree rings) to balance a banking ledger (historical records).


a) No we're not.
b) What dates? The only dates that come to mind are those written down by historians like Josephus - who wrote down the date when he was writing (around 100 A.D.), and commented on the growth of a new Jewish faction.

morriswalters wrote:Who is using tree rings to date anything in Archeology? I just see the data for climatology. What I see the most when I look, is the data being used for proofing radiocarbon dating. History is history. But even then they like multiple sources.


Yeah, the only real application of dendrochronology I've ever come across is as a climate proxy, where thicker layers represent favourable years (at mid-high latitudes this would mean hotter summers; at low latitudes it would mean cooler seasons). Calibration for petrified or otherwise dead trees might be done using historical events, but these are more likely to be celestial in nature, and they're generally correlatable with other deposits (e.g. varvites, calcite growth, etc).

morriswalters wrote:No location for Eden, no indication of the Ark where it was supposed to have landed.


Well, there is that guy who claims to have found the ark on no less than 5 separate occasions...

morriswalters wrote:Why would it not be possible to trace the lineage back to Noah? Can you bring the bloodline of Noah to the present day?


As soon as you go back 1500 years or more, it's a fair assumption that everyone of the right ethnicity is a descendant.

Also, taking it literally, wouldn't we all be descended of Noah anyway? Since everyone else was apparently drowned by a peace-loving god?
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:59 pm UTC

you are aware that part of the "historical record" of the bible, the part where you're talking about people writing down the days and what not...revolves around EVERYONE on the planet living to be 600+ years old? like, everyone. not just these couple of folks. er'rrbody lived to be like 1,000 years old. do you not see how you would FIRST have to prove that that is even REMOTELY possible before accepting the dating method involved?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

You're right, "This tree might be 2 or 3 years older or younger than you think" doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue...
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests