DDHv wrote:It is interesting how often when discussing the work of someone with other assumptions, logical errors are made. One logical error is disparaging the other person instead of testing the evidence. I think this is called the ad hominem error (spelling probably not correct).
[quote=anwi]Besides those figures, which might have a connection to reality - well let me put it this way: The author should drop his claim to a Ph.D. - urgently and voluntarily.
Moreover, he might consider switching his field of research to more "safe" fields like e.g. number theory...
Another is to state it is not worth checking the evidence.
[quote=anwi]Consequently, I wouldn't look for meat in that one.[/quote] Ie, "Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Another is to switch to another argument that doesn't touch the one used. Usually by ignoring what was actually said.
[quote=fallsfromtrees]Interesting enough, the article doesn't mention time frames for the three major super eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot. The first was indeed the largest at 2.1 million years ago. The second was the smallest of the three about 1.3 million years ago, and the third was larger than the second about 640,000 years ago. Doesn't fit in well with their view that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or their main premise that the size of eruptions is decreasing with time. Also noted he didn't discuss the Toba eruption of 80,000 years ago, which apparently almost wiped out the human race. Nothing like selectively choosing your data to prove your point. [/quote]
Galileo got into trouble by proselytizing for Copernicus' solar centered astronomy, not for his own experimental work. I've no problem with pushing a viewpoint, just with lack in any of historical, experimental, observational, predictive, OR logical rigor. Of course, my thinking that the universe should make sense is a faith based assumption.
The article only discussed which layer of ash was on top of which, nothing about absolute dates, which is covered elsewhere. Every form of radioactive dating that I know about has several assumptions which have not been proven. Example: note how many of them have the two variables in the same formula of starting parent isotope amount and starting daughter isotope amount. With two variables in one formula, no certain result can be made. Worse, many lava flows get multiple datings depending on which method has been used. BTW, experiments have shown variable decay rates in at least two unstable isotopes. At present no one has come up with a good reason why. These were discovered by accident, and no one knows which others will get like results. For one:
Stober, D. The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements. Stanford Report. Posted on news.stanford.edu August 23, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010.
On this I would like experiments on many unstable isotopes
The other one known to me is a thorium isotope which changes its decay rate in response to extreme, sudden pressures. Why???Just why should mention of an Indonesian eruption be put into a discussion of ash spewing North American eruptions? Is there some way of identifying Toba ash in North America?
Can any theory be tested without going to data? Can using another theory to argue against it be testing it unless you can show the other theory connects solidly to data?
If a person does not argue to either data or assumptions, why should any attention be paid to his conclusions?[/quote]
The argument in the article was that the quantities of ash be ejected has been decreasing with time, thereby proving a point. This was supported by a list of NA eruptions, with the implication that this extended to the entire world. That was the point of bringing in the Toba eruption - which in fact is the largest eruption in the last 2.5 million years, larger than any of the three Yellowstone eruptions. The second point was that the third Yellowstone eruption was in fact larger than the second. Both of these disprove the thesis advanced, that the size of eruptions is decreasing with time. The decision to include only NA data was in fact an effort to cherry pick the data to satisfy the thesis, and that is a con game, not science.