Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The Odds of Life - THIS CHANGED MY MIND" video.

  1. Aerospace Engineer here: In the last couple of years I have gotten into economics for the simple reason that economists are interfering in engineering to a staggering level, which is why we have an energy crisis, but that's another story. In looking into another profession and how it trains people you not only get to examine that profession but re-examine your own and we don't do that enough. One of the great flaws in economics is the lack of self-evaluation. They have an awful lot of theory and modelling that has NEVER been truly tested except on US and right now that's looking like very bad outcomes as they keep telling us all is well and that's not going to end well for any of us. Your profession is in a similar predicament except you are NOT costing several billion people a future like economists are. HOWEVER, what you and you colleagues are doing is modelling based on UNTESTED THEORY. Yes this is all very interesting and I like your channel because it expands my own knowledge base, but you need to temper this will reality and let people know these are theories that are UNTESTABLE because of the time frames involved. They are some every interesting theories and models but they are just that - theories and models. PLUS and I can't emphasise this enough with dating technologies whether its carbon dating or any other dating. CALIBRATING your measurement system is almost impossible beyond a few 1,000 years because where's the actual sample that you know for certain what its age is that you can use to calibrate against. Your calibration for longer time periods is theory not measured reality. You are one of the very few sciences that is allowed to get away with this lack of calibration but then we also understand that calibrating such systems is almost impossible. So you get some slack on this, but please DO NOT MISTAKE that other STEM fields are unaware of this.
    8
  2.  @gusolsthoorn1002  That's the problem I see as an engineer. Sure its been studied and that's fin an great, BUT has it been calibrated. I remember the results for the shroud of Turin and they had the 3 best labs in the world get 3 different results. 2 were sort of close to each other and the other was over 10% different. Which begs the question HOW? Its fairly simple they are testing very small samples and at the actual stage of measurement you don't have to do much with the sample to get different answers that can be significant. As a tool I think radiometric testing has been profound in helping understand the history of our planet. But it still has to be understood as just another measuring tool and like all measuring tools it has limits to its accuracy.
    2
  3.  @kanishkchaturvedi1745  I KNOW THAT And if you bothered to READ what I have said that is the problem. Do you know that when they carbon dated the Shroud of Turin they used the 3 best labs they available and the results varied by 10% at 1,000 years age. If radioactive dating is so damn accurate and so well understood then how do 3 top labs have that much variation? ALL measuring techniques have limits to their accuracy which is why calibration is so incredibly important to understand. Metrology (the science of measuring) is one of the least understood fields of science and yet its one of the most important. But trying to explain that to IGN0RANT M0R0NS is hard.
    1
  4.  @gusolsthoorn1002  AND YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN MY ARGUMENT If you can calibrate it then you can get the accuracy, but if you can't then you can't. If you have been in aviation then you know what I mean.
    1
  5.  @gusolsthoorn1002  Ok. I thought you were going in another direction.
    1