From your lips...
(headers snipped for brevity)
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <hostuart@sky.fit.qut.edu.au>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to AIGs reaction to SA article. (no html!)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:30:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 87David Jensen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 18:30:20 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> acoxon1274@aol.com (Acoxon1274) wrote in
> <20020804143902.11844.00001931@mb-cu.aol.com>:
[snip]
>>Here's an example of the problems we Creationists have with
>>radiometric dates being published as solid evidence:
>>
>>"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the
>>prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague,
>>Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among
>>archaeologists toward it, as follows: 'If a C-14 date supports
>>our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not
>>entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if
>>it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it."
>>
>>T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and
>>Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute
>>Chronology, ed. Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in
>>Pensee, 3(1): 44].
>>
>>Dated though the article may be, it still tells me that
>>what I was taught in school is pure assumption and personal
>>belief/bias masquerading as science.
>
> Since you have this article available, could you also provide the
> context of this quote? I think that a paragraph or two on either side
> would help me understand why this was said.
You are, of course, hinting at the obvious. Acoxon does not have the article. He is quoting a secondary source without acknowledgement, and has the implication diametrically reversed.
Two years ago I contacted professor Olsson directly myself on this matter; with reference to a quote by another creationist which was given rather less completely. Professor Olsson had this to say:
| In our paper, p.35, in the Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium
| Ingrid U. Olsson (ed.)
| Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology
| Almqvist & Wiksell Stockholm
| John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, London, Sydney
| 1970
| Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-11 57 69
|
| we (T. Save-Soderbergh) wrote:
|
| C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the
| Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly
| summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
| "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If
| it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And
| if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."
|
| As you can see the quote, as you wrote it, was almost correct. Nothing
| except for some formal writing was changed. I myself have experienced
| similar attitudes to results given by me. Sometimes the "customer",
| later on, has admitted that he earler was wrong and that the result
| forced him to reconsider his opinion.
| I can not give any better reference to Brew.
The extreme irony of this remark is that, if I understand the matter correctly, Professor Olsson reported Brew's comments in the context of a complaint about archaeologists who were unwilling to revise their opinions in the light of radiocarbon dating. This is given in the context of CRITICISM of such an attitude.
Professor Olsson is a well published expert in radiocarbon dating, well aware of its reliability and accuracy (when due care is taken); and is here being criticial of the attitude described.
The right attitude would be to recognize the implications of absolute dating for refuting a hypothesis.
I wonder how many creationists are willing to admit error and reconsider an opinion in the light of dating results, or even acknowledge evidence which is contrary to their position; and how many creationists illustrate the attitude of the quote by simply ignoring inconvenient data.
Cheers -- Chris