Автор сообщения: gorm
Дата и время сообщения: 11 January 2008 at 11:07:58:
В ответ на сообщение: Re: обращение к М.Л.Городецкому
В частности, если он на что-либо ссылается, лучше проверить, что ещё написано по его ссылке. Давно замечено, что точность цитат - не его конёк, а история с Радзивиловской летописью и ссылкой на Лурье - один из известных примеров.
Отличный пример такого рода манипуляции с цитатами обнаружил Флорин Дьяку. Вроде бы в наших обсуждениях этого не было.
"Therefore, it is surprising to read in Fomenko's latest book a story about a 1989 experiment, organized by Britain's Science and Engineering Research Council, in which thirty-eight radiocarbon laboratories from all over the world were involved in a precision testing of the method. Fomenko described the outcome as follows: "[The laboratories] received specimens of wood, turf, and carbonate salts whose age[s] had only been known to the organizers . . . but not to [the] actual analysts. Only seven laboratories (of thirty-eight!—A.F.) reported satisfactory results; others proved wrong by factors of two times, three times and higher." [Italics in original]
This passage leads the reader to think that if the correct age of a sample was, say, 1,000 years, some measurements provided readings of 2,000 years, 3,000 years, or even more. Could that happen in 1989, after four decades of progress, billions of dollars spent, and a Nobel Prize awarded?
A half-page article entitled "Unexpected Errors Affect Dating Techniques," signed by Andy Coghlan, had indeed appeared in the September 30, 1989, issue of the New Scientist. Coghlan had interviewed Murdoch Baxter, the director of a research centre near Glasgow and the organizer of the experiment. Baxter said that only seven out of thirty-eight laboratories produced satisfactory results, while the others were "two or three times less accurate than implied by the range of error they stated."
But this is not what Fomenko wrote. According to Baxter, if the correct age was, say, 1,000 years, some laboratories produced a result of 1,080 ± 40, whose estimated error should have been ±80 (twice bigger) to include the correct date. Others had such readings as 940 ± 20, whose estimated error must have been ±60 (three times bigger) to capture the truth. The meaning was clear from Coghlan's first sentence, "The margin of error . . . may be two to three times bigger," which doesn't mean that the results proved wrong by factors of two, three, or more, as Fomenko claimed.
The article states that while a few laboratories dated all their samples almost to the year, others were off by up to a quarter of a century. That means the mistakes had no connection with the technique, and even the largest errors were nothing like those that occurred during the method's pioneering days. But, unfortunately, Fomenko omitted these details.
The British experiment had an impact on radiocarbon dating centres all over the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency decided to improve the standards of the reference samples used for testing the machines and revised the technology for the chemical pre-treatment of the samples. Still, the critics continued to oppose the method."