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
There is always an element of doubt within scientific research, you will rarely find someone saying ‘this is 100% accurate’.
The accuracy of carbon dating for example has been questioned recently.
Really you look for numerous sources to corroborate/verify a conclusion, and it is worth remaining mindful that the methods used to calculate a given date are not perfect and may need to be refined as new information/methods become available, as you suggest.
Accepted conclusions for a given phenomena are often ‘the best we have got at the moment’, until something better comes along.
Sometimes when something better comes along, prior conclusions may be discredited or placed under further scrutiny.
Some conclusions to studies though are so replicable, the margin for error for so low, and the real world application stable, that further research is not prioritised. There is a ‘if it is not broken no need to fix it’ concept here, as there is a finite amount of resource (in all meanings of the term), that further study is simply not urgent, this is not to say further research would not be valid.
Latest Answers