To explain.
Let’s say they have a method that can test bone age. Up to let’s say 1-2k years we can know for sure it’s accurate, since we might have believable records on the bones proving that the age test is accurate.
Past a certain age though there’s no more records. How can we know the testing is accurate and not just the method only going up to that limit and being inaccurate on anything older? Or are we just assuming?
In: 0
Ideally, we have multiple test methods that reach the same conclusion, or similar.
For example, we might use Carbon dating to find a fossil is 9,000 years old.
We also look at the rocks layer that the fossil was found in. If we based on our models of how sedimentary rock builds up, and it predicts that the rock layer the fossil was found in are 11,000 years old.
At the same time, we try to identify the species of the animal the bone belonged to. We might know that this species went extinct 5,000 years ago.
We might also use Flourine dating to determine the bone was underground for 10,000 years.
Based on all of these dating methods, and the fact they line up roughly, we can estimate the bone’s age at 10,000 years.
Followup research might show that due to heavy volcanic activity 10,000 years ago, caused an abnormal concentrations of Carbon 12, so our Carbon dating would underestimate the age by 600-1200 years. Yay! more accuracy.
Our sedimentary rock models might update, and show we over estimate by 500-2000 years. Better!
So ideally we use lots of different tests that say the same thing.
Latest Answers