Larsguy47

HI Spin, you're a genius! Now why not find a common quote where Aristotle is quoting directly from the writings of Plato? It's quite logical, as you say that if he didn't know him he must be quoting from Plato. Of course, he could be quoting from Socrates himself. So you're right. His quoting doesn't prove he knew him. Just liked him or at least liked quoting from him.

http://socrates.clarke.edu/aplg0501.htm

Here's a photo of Phaedo's home in Ellis I can't explain either:


I guess he was a real person. How could I have been misled that that silly book I have?!!

LG47

spin

Don't you know it takes one to know one?

Why does Aristotle have to quote Plato's Socrates verbatim? It is sufficient that he knew the content of the work and could quote the ideas from memory.

So, you've got another bogus claim. Well, it's good that you've basically admitted that the claim is bogus.

What has that got to do with Aristotle??

I can only go by the stuff that you post, Larsguy47. So far I've only seen bogus claims, such as this one about Aristotle or the six year reign of Darius or various others. If you've got some book that might lift your game, why not use it a bit more? A little evidence might bolster your sagging display.


spin

-Jay-

I get it fine. You don't.

OK. Go get your dictionary. It's probably a big red book on your shelf that looks brand new. Look up "may" and "can". I'll wait.

Got it? OK. You should have discovered that those words mean "to have the possibility of." What the authors are conveying here, which should be clear to anyone with a modicum of familiarity with the English language, is that under ideal circumstances, the equipment at Groningen is capable of 1-sigma values below 10 years. Not that every measurement will result in such precision and accuracy, but that some could.


Yeah, yeah. And I note here that you've abandoned your previous assertion that the sample was "large", which wasn't supported by the source material, anyway. But now, let's look at the standard deviations, or 1-sigma values, which you're asserting are are date ranges of less than 10 years. The results of the actual 7 datings run on the samples from Stratum IV at Tel Rehov used to date the destruction of City IV are shown below, taken from the data in your original source. This is the section of the statistical model that is later used to generate the chart you show below. By way of interpretation, the first line, "Boundary;" commands the model to look at the next block of data as connected to a single event. The "R_Combine 'Locus 5498" line indicates to the model that it is to generate a weighted average of the R_Date values that follow. The seven subsequent lines, "R_Date 'GrA-..." are the actual sample measurements, as determined by the AMS equipment. They are of the form "R_Date <sample name> <measured date in years before present (BP)> <standard deviation>"

The standard deviations of your samples are 50, 50, 35, 45, 40, 50, and 50 years, respectively. Not a single standard deviation is anywhere close to 10 years as you claim.

Now, what do those dates have to do with what's on the chart? Well, this is where the power of statistics is brought to bear. The seven samples above had a fairly wide spread. By building what we call a "model", we have a tool that helps us answer the question "if we had a huge amount of sample material from the same source that we could test, what sort of dates would we be likely to see?" (It's relevant to note at this point that those original samples are no more. They're combusted as part of the testing process, and the resulting CO2 is the useful stuff - in PGC the C14 in the CO2 is measured directly, in AMS it gets bound into graphite, but the important point is that both testing approaches are destructive to the original sample.)

Anyhow, we now have some original samples which have been used to build a model. The basic way the model works is that it randomly, within the bounds set by the original data, simulates a bunch of measurements (sampling). In this case, it took 227,094 samples. Those samples were plotted, and the results are the Figure 15.8 that we all know and love. Now, 227,094 samples is what is technically known as a "shit-load" of samples, so as a courtesy to the reader, the authors have simplified the chart. In it's pure form, it'd be a very dense histogram - years BCE on the horizontal axis, number of samples on the vertical axis, and you'd have a bunch of rectangles, one year wide, with a height corresponding to the number of times that year came up in the 227,094 samples. Tracking so far? Good. Obviously, you're going to have some number that comes up the most - there's your 871ish number. At this point, in the interest of legibility, the chart preparer used an arcane and magical process called "normalization", wherein he took the value of the highest number of samples and arbitrarily declared it to be a relative probability of 1. All the other sample frequencies were then scaled to that new relative point. That's what "relative probability" means.

Now, your 871 number does indeed have the highest probability of any other number shown on that chart. But every time it turned up in the simulation, it had a 1-sigma confidence interval (and a 2-sigma) with it. Within those confidence intervals, any number is equally likely. The center point isn't any more or less special.


You're just spouting nonsense now. The authors conclude their writeup by stating on page 292:



No, it isn't that hard. The problem is, you still haven't done it right. Your argument is specious. Your interpretation of the data is wrong. You don't understand the math and techniques involved. Take some of the time you spend coming up with this dreck and take an introductory calculus class, and then an introduction to probability and statistics class, then try again.

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

It's sagging to you and I'm posting as fast as I can; haven't you noticed?

Anyway, the 6-year limitation is Biblical. It's there. That's it. Take it or leave it. But the VAT4956 proves the 568BCE dating is bogus and it requires the redating to 511BCE. That's a more critical reference than anything. But it happens to agree with the Bible.

Now don't you think it's a little bit strange that these two "errors" just happen to match 511BCE which then dates year 37 of Neb2 to 525BCE, the same date the Bible does when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455BCE? C'mon. That's too coincidental.

Remember, it's not the strengths but the weakness of the chronology you have to be concerned with. A chain is no stronger than it's weakest link and the Greco-Persian Period is said to be the "darkest period in human history."

So many presume there were not revisions for some reason (unless dealing with the Bible) but there simply were.

LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks, NJ for your explanation, it's appreciated. What you don't understand is that their theory of "weighted averaging" shows the highest number of hits, just like you said, in and around 871BCE and they feel that that is closer to the "true date." The chart reflects, as I said, the highest number of hits. What you're saying is that the highest number of hits is possibly not an indicator of the "true date". But why wouldn't it be?

Since I know from astrochronology that 871BCE is the absolute fixed date for that event, when I see the RC14 pointing specifically at that same date, it confirms that the "weighted average" is an excellent and uncannily specific means of RC14 dating. When you have short-lived cereals as in this case it could represent the date of the event within a year.

So we're making progress. The shart shows the "highest hits" and that is suspected for possibly representing the truest date. Whether that is true or not depends on whether you can determine the actual date and compare. I can do that, and it's right on the button. So this "weighted averaging" works great. It's a great tool when you have the right sample.

In the meantime, I know and understand the limitations and some degree of flexibility, in fact, for the entire stated range, but I also understand that dates closest to the center are more "conservative". So no matter what, 871BCE is going to be "more" than dates in either direction farther away from 871BCE.

So you just conceded to me. It's presumed that the weighted average is closer to the true date. So if we were to use any reference from the RC14 from Rehov, we'd start at 871 BCE and work our way away from that date if need be. But at some point beyond 10, 20 or 30 years, the RC14 suggests less "relative probability."

So thanks. I understand this is not "absolute" but the best "reference" they could come up with based upon the analysis.

:redface:

LG47

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
It's the issue you are addressing below.

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
That was uncalled for.

No one around here has shown lack of knowledge of astronomy. And, by the way, when I was 13, I was the proud owner of a 6" reflecting telescope, which my Dad and I built. I know a bit about astronomy. And I've witnessed at least 3 eclipses of the Sun, although none of them were total.

From Larsguy47:
We know that. But you have neglected to mention that during an annular eclipse, if the Moon is not dead-center to the Sun, the appearance of the annulus is crescent-like. As I recall from the graphic you posted earlier, this is the case of the eclipse of 431, which just misses being a partial and not an annular.

From Larsguy47:
No, what you were originally trying to establish was that the 402 eclipse was total, and therefore showed the stars, which it wasn't.

From Larsguy47:
That is irrelevent. It was not total; therefore, no stars.

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
The 402 eclipse is not total. As far as I know, even the slightest bit of sunlight precludes stars. In any event, as we'll see below, the 402 eclipse is also wiped out by the dating.

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
Out-fucking-rageous.

You have no evidence for this. Try to write a professional, peer-reviewed article with bullshit like this and reviewers will laugh in your face. Come up with specifice documentation or textual analysis, or admit you have no evidence for tampering except that the date doesn't fit with your historic fantasy that the Bible in inerrant.

From Larsguy47:
Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong. The 402 winter morning eclipse is specifically precluded by the only text we have, which you have not produced one iota of evidence has been changed.

Let me interject something here. Larsguy47: you are demonstrating over and over again that you do not know how research is done. I don't know where you went to college, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if any of your professors would accept shoddy work like this.

From Larsguy47:
This is entirely possible. Plagues back then were uncontrollable.

From Larsguy47:
Okay. Fits the 432 eclipse perfectly.

From Larsguy47:
Okay, I guess.

From Larsguy47:
Or Plutarch, writing hundreds of years later, was wrong.

From Larsguy47:
No problem. Just events happening quickly.

From Larsguy47:
Yes it does. It just means tha the plague was virulent.

From Larsguy47:
One more time, you have no evidence of this. This is scholarly irresponsibility. Don't try this in school.

From Larsguy47:
No, you are trying to force a change in history to fit your cockamamie schemes of Bible innerancy.

From Larsguy47:
Thucydides: contemporary. Plutarch: hundreds of years later. Your choice.

From Larsguy47:
I won’t Plutarch’s error confuse me.

From Larsguy47:
And I won’t let a legend from 250 years after the fact confuse me either.

From RED:
From Larsguy47:
Let’s see this note. Please quote it: book, publication date, page, etc. Tha’s called scholarship. Until you show this note, I’ll assume it doesn’t exist. Show it, and then I can examine it.

From Larsguy47:
[QUOTE]But it's just one of many contradictions. As far as the suspicion of Thucydides being redacted, there are books on that[/quote}Please mention the specific book you are relying one, and give me a quote saying that that specific entry, concerning the eclipse, was redacted. In the absence of any source, or any reasoned analysis of the text, you are bullshitting.

From Larsguy47:
It doesn’t even get that status.

From Larsguy47:
Yes, you are considering it requires, basically, redating all of Greek history. As for example, I showed you on another thread that according to your fantasy dates, Socrates would have been the subject of a major comedy when he was a child.

From Larsguy47:
Prove an error or redaction from sources. This is just speculation of the rankest sort, with the underlying theme of Biblical inerrancy.

From Larsguy47:
Yes, you made a point. Now sit ... No, better not.

From Larsguy47:
From Larsguy47:
So let’s see the fucking book. This is worse than Secret Mark or Clifford Irving’s phony autobiography of Howard Hughes.

From Larsguy47:
Show us the fucking book or shut up about it.

From Larsguy47:
You have no evidence except for your fantasy redating of the Peloponnesian War that this is so, and it is contradicted by every other known chronology of Greek history. I have a suggestion: write a monograph of your updating and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

From Larsguy47:
Okay. We know that from Plato.

From Larsguy47:
It’s very easy to believe. When I was studying philosophy, I once wrote a major paper on Sartre. I quoted Sartre, if I recall correctly, over a hundred times. And Sartre was still alive. But we never met, and I was not about to replace Simone de Beauvoir.

From Larsguy47:
Only in your mind.

From Larsguy47:
I thought it came from your famous, unknown book.

From Larsguy47:
And the knowledge has been handed down through the ages.

OPENING NEXT CHRISTMAS:

THE PELOPONNESIAN CODE

Starring

Richard Harris as Socrates (appropriate since both are dead when the action starts)

Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie as Phaedo/Aristotle (unconventional casting)

Anthony Hopkins as Plato (why not?)

From Larsguy47:
Have no fear in that regard.

RED DAVE

spin

I'd recommend less posting and more thought. YOu're posting fluent rubbish at the moment.

If you say so. Nevertheless, it's plug wrong. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the data that a six year reign for Darius I cannot make sense when texts from Darius's reign clearly indicate that he reigned at least 35 years, as transactions were recorded for that year.

As what you are saying is rubbish -- and I mean blatantly wrong, crap, nonsense, unacceptable to rational thought --, of course it should be left... in the nearest trash can.

Farting around shifting other people's data won't change the fact that your Darius six years stuff is bogus to the core.

You must understand that nothing you have posted to date has been presented in such a way as to make your conclusions reasonable from your data. Usually you don't have much data and where you do, you make logical blunders. The classical is of this type:

Arnold Schwarzenegger lifts weights.
And my uncle lifts weights.
Therefore Arnold Schwarzenegger is my uncle.

The old X = Y and Z = Y, therefore X = Z fallacy.

Your latest example is

This reference is linked to the KTU 1.78 text because its surface was burned and it was found in the ashes of a room that had been burned.

roughly translated thus:

KTU 1.78 was burnt in a fire.
Objects in 1375BCE were burnt in a fire.
Therefore KTU 1.78 was an object burnt in 1375BCE.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

When you twiddle numbers to suit your conclusions coincidence doesn't enter the debate.

Thank you, Doctor Who.

The material used in chronological construction these days is based on primary materials, on epigraphy. The bible is not primary material of history. One doesn't know when it was written. The earliest biblical text we have is from Qumran and may date back to the 3rd c. BCE.

History books weren't written at that time except for a few Greek writers with a clear historiographical perspective on the process of recording historical data. What is left is epigraphic data which incidentally provides dating information while dealing with other things, such as accounts from the Hebrew firm in Babylon, Egibi, which record events in particular years of the currently reigning king. This sort of material is the food for modern chronological research.

The bible, because we cannot know when the texts were written, doesn't provide us information about the period of its texts. If, for example, Chronicles was written in 300 BCE then its writer wasn't in any position to know what happened several hundred years earlier and Chronicles supplies a genealogy of the Davidic line that went fifteen generations after the start of the exile.

You however have stated that despite the evidence you will accept the data from the bible as though whatever is written there is veracious. This ultimately leaves you in the position of not being able to know anything, because you don't base your knowledge on evidence, but on faith in the bible.


spin

-Jay-

You didn't say it. I said it. You're thrashing now. They used the weighted averaging to drive the model. The weighted average has nothing to do with how many times a result turned up in the model.

To quote Hendrik J. Bruins, et al, from pg. 273 of The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating:

This means, simply, that the midpoint value (which is what you're basing your conclusions on) could be as far off as anything in the confidence interval. Your own source, once again, does not support your conclusion.

spin

Perhaps you could write it for him in crayon. He might understand it then.


spin

-Jay-

I tried to use short words...

regards,

NinJay