Vorkosigan

Saying Shanks is pathetic is not the same as saying BAR is pathetic. Unless you think the two are coterminus.

Which of Eisenman's comments on the carbon dating of the DSS is erroneous?

And you are right, I should have read Hutchinson's site first. He used to have a lenthy set of actual data which showed that Eisenman's objections had a solid foundation, but the numbers have been taken down and replaced with a completely different article.

Yes, I have read the book. And there are a couple of references to information on carbon dating. Read the footnotes, which elaborate his case and provide some general interest articles, one on carbon dating.

Shanks, BTW, is pathetic.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

I already noted what was contained in the footnotes--nothing supporting Eisenman's position except Eisenman's own speculations regarding "internal evidence," a citation of a New York Times article, and an accusation of bias against the radiocarbon team. Footnotes 20-25 on Chapter 5, contained on pages 988-989.

If you're aware of something other than that, perhaps you should cite it more explicitly.

Regards,
Rick

Vorkosigan

Then Eisenman doesn't have "zero" does he? And I am "aware of something more than that." You neglected to mention that Eisenman's footnotes also discuss the numerous variations between the carbon dates and agreed-upon dates. For example, dates of the same document varying by three centuries -- the Community rule which he thinks is related to JBap dated on one test to 134-230 CE, and on another to 346-317 BCE. "A papyrus contract, with an actual date of 135 CE, produced a date of 231-332 CE." See note 20 on page 988.

In other words, you left out the most signficant portion of his argument, the actual test results indicating wildly varying ages. These are, as far as I know, uncalibrated carbon dates and thus no sound basis for argument; further, the time frame of the debate is within the margin of error (a century or so). All of that tends to support Eisenman's view that the carbon dates do not rule out his claims. On the accusations of bias I have no comment, I do not want to get involved in that debate.

Now, again, which claims of Eisenman regarding the carbon dating can you identify as erroneous?

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

You're building strawmen. Here's what I said:

He still has exactly zero.

That these are "uncalibrated" certainly does not stem from the report

The notion that they are inaccurate is, as near as I can see, universally denigrated by physicists and geologists. The only rebuttal I've come across is Atwill's, which relies on the selective quotation, outdated scholarship, and citation without reference known so well from other debunkers of carbon-dating--Young Earth Creationists.

This is an entirely separate issue from whether or not Eisenman supported his position--it is not inherent in an unsupported position that it be incorrect, nor in a supported one that it is. My claim is that Eisenman provides no reference to any geologist, physicist, or scientific paper that supports his position. And he doesn't--not one.

If you'd like to take this issue further, here's what I'll do: I'll write up a response to Eisenman's argument, as well as that of Atwill. Radiocarbon is of virtually no interest to me, so I'm not doing it for free.

What I expect in return is your commitment to either take up the converse position, or to concede the point. In either event, what I don't want to see is "That was interesting," and then moving on.

Vorkosigan

You said there were no references to information on carbon dating. There is one, as you previously noted, the NYT article. And see below....

True. I stand corrected. It was my understanding that the calibration has to be done by local tree ring chronologies, of which there are none for the area.

A blatant mispresentation. I did not say they were "inaccurate." Rather, I noted, as Eisenman did, that they varied wildly. Then I -- again -- did not say they were inaccurate, but rather, that they could not form "a sound basis for argument." A totally different understanding. As the article from ASU notes:

• It is also true that, in comparing known ages with a possible range of ages obtained from 14C measurements, the procedures for producing the calibrated age are such that the actual age can fall anywhere within the calculated limits.

That was precisely my claim. The "hardness" of the hard science here is not as "hard" as you seem to think. The variations in the ranges include Eisenman's dates -- just read down the column "calibrated data" and you will see that the upper end of the ranges overlaps Eisenman's claims in about 3/4 of the cases. Since the difference between the disputants falls within the margin of error for the process, it cannot support the claims that Eisenman's opponents are making for a decisive refutation of his thesis. As usual, NT scholars are simply resorting to rhetorical assassination to cover their lack of solid evidence and sound methodology.

That claim is simply incorrect. For Eisenman references the numbers from the carbon dating itself, which most certainly is a reference to scientific paper; two papers are indeed here, in footnote 20 on page 988, plus a BAR article. And these certainly support his position that some of the DSS stuff dates from the first century CE. If you doubt that, look at the ranges for the calibrated dates. They agree with both Eisenman and his critics. In fact, if you look at the Damascus Document, the data agree with Eisenman far more than they do his critics. The paper you cited above does not present Eisenman's claims for those items, and thus cannot be considered a refutation of his position. The authors simply declared victory and fled without getting the relevant data from Eisenman. The fact is that Eisenman can cite the data in support of his thesis even if the conclusions of the paper disagree.

Rick, you have ducked the important issue (has Eisenman made any errors you can identify?), misrepresented what I said, and now been proven wrong on your claims. Your main, and insulting, point of contention, that evidential double standards operate here at Infidels, has been shown to be unfounded with respect to the claims you have advanced. I hope a retraction is forthcoming.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

The NYT can hardly be considered a source regarding carbon-dating.

Apologies, I'd misunderstood your position.

Eisenman, unlike you, however, does rule them inaccurate, when he decrees (again, without citing a source):

This--what you see above, is exactly what I was talking about regarding making determinations by fiat. Do you deny that Eisenman--correct or not (that's another issue)--has provided no support for this?

Well, I'm not sure whether to condemn what is essentially an arrogant accusation of bias against "NT scholars," or to point out that you assertions regarding the differences is incorrect on the pivotal scroll--1QpHab. So I think I'll do both--in fact, I just did.

If you'd like to take discussion on the radiocarbon dating of 1QpHab (and the rest) farther than this, see below.

He doesn't cite them as supporting his dating--he knows damn well that they don't. He states that they display a wide margin. That's not citing a paper that argues for him, or is in support of his position--the papers most *assuredly* are not. What he is attempting to do is rule out the carbon-dating entirely, not utilize it in favor of his dating, and what he fails to do is note any scholars who seem to have the same problems reconciling these margins that he does.

This isn't the present issue, and has no bearing on anything I've said. It's, in short, another strawman. The present charge is that Eisenman reached his conclusions based on nothing but fiat, without providing support for them. He did--see my above quote for an example. It's a question of his methodology, not one of his conclusions.

I laid out my guidelines for a discussion on why Eisenman's dating is wrong--which is a separate issue, and a decidedly more complex one, a response to which will require both a little time and some research. Should you accept, and should you still hold the converse after reviewing my response, I will gladly roll on over to the Formal Debate board, and demonstrate exactly why the dating promulgated by Thiering, Eisenman, Baigent and Leigh, Allegro, Teiching et al. to quote G. Vermes does "not spring from, but are foisted on, the texts."(The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p.22)

I note, once again, that this is too arrogant to warrant further comment. I also reiterate my guidelines for discussion regarding the accuracy of Eisenman's dating--which is a separate issue from the basis he provides for it:

I will write a response to the article from Atwill and Eisenman's position outlined on p.80-90 regarding AMS c-14 and paleographic dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (If there are additional sources that I'm not aware of, you are more than welcome to surprise me in your rebuttal, as the closest thing I'm aware of is Thiering and Rodley in "Radiocarbon" v.41.2.) I will rebut Eisenman's notion that we need to "fall back on the results of internal analysis," (p.85) on the grounds that we have a secure terminus ad quem.

Radiocarbon does not interest me, so I'm not doing it for free. What I expect in return is your commitment to either argue the converse, or if persuaded by my argument, to state that this is the case.

If you're not prepared to make this commitment, then perhaps we should let the issue drop. Your claim that I am avoiding it is both offensive and inaccurate--I've addressed my guidelines for discussion on it twice now. Your accusation above that I have "ducked the important issue" borders on dishonesty, on both the grounds that it's "the important issue" (it isn't, the present issue, as noted, is one of methodology, not conclusions) and the grounds that I've ducked anything of the sort.

Regards,
Rick

Sauron

Wait.

Just because you don't consider the NYT to be a high-quality scientific authority on the particular topic doesn't change the fact that Eisenmann did, in fact, offer a source on carbon-dating.

The original point was binary - either Eisenmann did, or he did not, offer sources on carbon dating. Clearly, the NYT was offered as a source.

By introducing your own standards of quality here, as to what you personally will - or will not - accept as a scientifically reputable source; well, you are in effect moving the goalposts.

Rick Sumner

This isn't so much a refutation of what I'd intended to say--I was clearly aware that he cited the NYT, I'm the one who first pointed it out--it's simply an easy out based on my poor choice of words.

Fair enough, I'll concede the point due to my own poor wording, and rephrase my position to state that Eisenman does not draw on or cite any scholars/scholarship who/that support(s) his position.

Regards,
Rick

Clutch

What a strange and unmotivated scruple! How about those who simply never cared one way or another about Shanks until his behaviour in this case attracted attention? Are they permitted to "condemn" him? Or do they have first to fill out a set of forms?

This looks like an attempt to find some defense, however qualified, for the indefensible.

Rick Sumner

Are those who had no opinion on Shanks justified in condemning him wholesale for his most recent actions?

No. There is no justification in condemning him wholesale in any event, as I outlined in a later post. Shanks has contributed a great deal, I have no doubt that he will continue to do so when all is said and done regarding the James Ossuary. It's not as though that is negated--as though, to use my earlier example, the oft used preface "This was before the James Ossuary," is somehow necessary.

Regards,
Rick