Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Archaeological Dating Debate · Acedra
Home
Explore
History
Archaeological Dating Debate
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
82 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations, please subscribe. This is Dan Richards “the Dedunker.” Recently, on X, he told me that my views on archaeological dating techniques are flawed. He even followed up with a video on YouTube to tell the world that I don’t even understand basic science. Ouch. Maybe he has a point. Have my years of training and teaching ancient history and
0:28
archaeology failed me? Technically, I am not an archaeologist, right? Maybe Dan found something that I missed. I mean, sure, my field of ancient history overlaps quite a bit with archaeology, and my area of specialty is in chronology and dating methods, and I have read hundreds of articles on the subject, and discussed the matter with archaeologists directly, and taught it to students for more than two decades, but maybe I don’t know as much as I
0:55
think I do. Dan corrects educated people all the time with his no-nonsense common sense. And he feels very strongly about this. Is it time for me to admit my error? Let’s find out.
1:24
Did it come? Oh yeah! I’ve been looking for a new mattress. I wake up in the morning, and sometimes my neck hurts. Sometimes my back hurts. I just need something firmer. So I ordered the Nolah Evolution Luxury Firm mattress to try out. I’ve heard good things about Nolah. All of their mattresses are created without the use of harmful chemicals, and none contain fiberglass.
1:55
Holy cow! And they offer a 120-day sleep trial, so I can have more than three months to try this out. And they delivered it right to my door - shipping in the US is free!
2:10
I'm in heaven! You wouldn't believe it. It's so soft. I can't believe how they got it in that little box. Can you guess what these are? These are pillows. How could these possibly be pillows? Holy cow, they're expanding! They really know how to pack. I don't want to get up. I think I'm going to stay here all day. Go on, get out of here. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. The video is still coming. Okay, so it’s been a few days, so I thought I would give you an update. I am loving the
2:44
new mattress. The pressure point relief that it has is saving me from the aches and pains I was having. One unexpected advantage is that it regulates the heat better. I sleep cooler. I liked the mattress so much, I made arrangements for Nolah to sponsor this video. If you’re looking to upgrade your sleep, head to Nolahmattress.com, and use the code: worldofantiquity to get an extra $50 off your Nolah mattress. And you’ll get two free pillows. Nolah mattresses include
3:13
a limited lifetime warranty, and they offer financing options and flexible payment plans. Welcome to the Myths of Ancient History series, in which I look at the most popular and most egregious examples of bad history and archaeology on the internet and explain how and why they are bad. It is an interesting way to familiarize people with various issues related to these subjects. So today I want to talk about the question of whether relative dating
3:38
methods in archaeology are scientific, and we’re going to look at claims made by Dan Richards, someone who is so certain that he is right that he is willing to stake his reputation on it. But as you might guess, from the very fact that we are considering this topic in this particular series, his pompous swagger is unmerited. You know, I just want to say, if the shoe were on the other foot,
4:03
if Dan, an electrician by trade - and probably an expert electrician, told me how to wire up a breaker box, I would defer to his knowledge on the matter, but Dan believes he is more knowledgeable than me in other subjects too, including archaeological dating methods. Oy oy oy. To set the stage, let me tell you about relative dating vs absolute dating. These are two categories of scientific dating methods used by archaeologists. What’s the difference?
4:36
Absolute dating is a method used to determine the approximate calendar year that an artifact belongs to. Relative dating is a method used to determine chronological order without reference to calendar years. In other words, it dates artifacts in comparison to other artifacts. Which came before what. That’s the difference. But Dan thinks that there is another difference. In his mind absolute dating
5:03
(determining the year) is real science, but relative dating (determining chronological order) is guesswork, and not science. Let’s see what he has to say about it in his video, “World of Antiquity Doesn’t Know Basic Science (Dating).” -You know, I used to make a lot of videos about David Miano from World of Antiquity, but I haven't really done that too much lately. But we do still cross paths, and we had an exchange on Twitter over the last couple of days that, well, it inspired
5:33
me to make a video here, because I think that this really needs to be hammered home to some people. -Yes, he’s referring to an exchange we had on X recently. It all happened when I posted a remark to this post by Ben of UnchartedX. You may have heard of him. He pointed to a recent find in Qatna, Syria, where there were burials, and you can see there a photo of some stone vases in one of the burials. Ben has become famous for wanting to redate the stone vessels to a time thousands
6:02
of years earlier than what archaeologists say. So here he writes, “Hard stone vases and dishes, of the same type in found in Egypt, were also found in a ~3600 year old burial in Qatna, Syria. They are explained as 'old kingdom' Egyptian and there as the result of trade - but who knows where they actually came from, or how they got there?” So I reposted and wrote, “If the methodological dating of artifacts doesn't fit into your narrative, all you have to do is say,
6:35
"Who knows where they actually came from, or how they got there?" Yes, it was meant to get a rise out of people. It would seem my post was too cryptic for some, so I clarified a short time later with a second post, “For people who didn't seem to get the point of this post, it's about how we have real methods for dating artifacts, and if I dismiss these dates because it conflicts with what I want to be true,
6:58
I am changing the data to fit my narrative, rather than changing my narrative to fit the data.” This is when Dan swooped in to correct me. “And any archaeologist worth their salt would quickly tell you we have no way to date these outside of context dating, and as such we can't know how old they actually are. The date a piece of 'trash' is discarded by the previous owner is not indicative of when it was made.”
7:27
So he says here that “context dating,” and by this he apparently means relative dating, or perhaps stratigraphy specifically, is the only way to date these objects. It actually isn’t, because carbon dating is also a part of this. And he also refers to the stone vessels as trash discarded by a previous owner, which we have no indication of whatsoever. These could be heirlooms. They could be gifts. They could have been traded.
7:56
Usually a vessel is thrown out after it breaks. These were in fine condition when interred. So the date of these vessels was not determined by the date of discarding. But the most important assertion he makes is that what he calls context dating (what archaeologists call relative dating) cannot tell us when an object was made. Yes, it can. And to use his language, any archaeologist worth his salt would agree.
8:24
But how can it, if relative dating doesn’t give the calendar year, and only gives chronological order? Because if you have the chronological order, and various parts of that sequence have been assigned to calendar years through absolute dating methods, then even parts of that sequence that have not been absolutely dated can be assigned to specific times. We look at it and we say, “If this is from this time, and that is from that time, then this must come in between.”
9:04
The irony here is that he is appealing to archaeologists to tell me I am wrong, when I am simply sharing what archaeologists actually say. And this is the funny part: he will continue to argue throughout the thread that archaeologists agree with him. He then asked me: “Do tell how they date these with certainty, not context dating. I'll sit and listen to your academic brilliance.” And if you are unsure, yes,
9:31
that is sarcasm. He doesn’t think I am brilliant. This was an opportunity for me to explain how relative dating works, specifically sequence dating, sometimes called seriation dating: So I wrote, “By "context dating," do you mean relative dating? That's a great method! As I said to someone else on this thread, Flinders Petrie himself came up with sequence dating, which allows us to determine the sequence of artifacts,
9:57
and that is an excellent way of determining that these vases came from the Old Kingdom, as they are made in the Old Kingdom style. And that is how it was determined that even those these were found in a Middle Kingdom burial, they actually come from the Old Kingdom. Thank you for bringing it up. But no thank you for your casual dismissal of this great method for dating.” Please take note that archaeologists have already determined that the vases are older
10:23
than their context. The burial is from the Middle Kingdom period, but the vases were determined to have been reused, that they were not made from the Middle Kingdom period, but actually in another country (Egypt) at an earlier time (the Old Kingdom). Now how did they know that? Because sequence dating enabled them to know the chronological order of stone vases, and they recognized them as being from that period. They are acknowledging that they are out
10:52
of their original context. But that doesn’t mean that they can come from any old place and time, because there is a dating method that allows us to pinpoint the date of manufacture more precisely. The thread is long, and I am not going to read the whole thing to you. But check it out when you can, because it is entertaining. Let’s listen to some more of the video. -So let's discuss scientific methodology and scientific evidence, and the difference
11:18
between like real science and science that kinda maybe not so much. Maybe it used to be science. -Used to be science? Science is the pursuit of knowledge of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. It has been that way ever since the scientific revolution, and I don’t think that has changed. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn’t mean science used to be science,
11:45
but that a specific scientific practice used to be science. -Anyway, let's talk about science. Now if you're scientifically literate, there's generally two different branches of science, two different general categories. You're going to have hard science and soft science. I think most of us recognize that like psychology is a softer science, whereas neurochemistry or neuroscience is a hard science, right?
12:08
-The expressions “hard science” and “soft science” are colloquial terms, generally, and you hear them far more often among the general public than you do by scientists today. More commonly you will hear the terms natural sciences and social or behavioral sciences. I will leave some links below about how the terms hard and soft are misleading and scientists are avoiding these terms more and more. But for now, let me point out that
12:33
both terms contain the word science, and that is because they both are science. -The data in a neurochemist's freaking data set isn't inference, isn't based on somebody self-reporting, isn't based on, well, 500 different people said that, they felt this way and therefore… but that's what psychology is, right? So archaeology finds itself in a similar position. It is informed by hard data from time
12:59
to time, but generally speaking, the way that archaeology goes about doing things is very soft. -Dan here expresses a common misunderstanding among the general public, which is that soft sciences are based on ideology and opinion rather than scientific principles. I have already done a video about how scientific the field of archaeology is, which you can check out when you get a chance, but our disagreement on X was not about whether archaeology is hard or soft. It was
13:27
about the merits of two types of archaeological dating methods: relative and absolute. Both methods are within archaeology itself. So the purpose of his preamble is unclear to me. If we are analyzing the methods, what matters is whether it can be tested through controlled variables and scientific methods of analysis. Can it be stated, tested, and accepted or rejected by following the scientific method? If so, then it is just as
13:56
valid as a so-called “hard” science experiment. Let’s look at sequence dating. It is based on observation of the typologies of the artifacts. The typologies are not opinions. These are not guessed. They are objective. The seriations or sequences are discovered, not created. And although archaeologists don’t use the term “controlled variables” in sequence dating, the method relies on consistent factors treated as "controlled" or standardized to ensure
14:24
that the sequences are as correct as possible. Artifact type consistency across many sites is one. Another is provenance, that is, limiting analysis to artifacts from a defined geographical region or site to reduce variability from cultural differences. They also use only sites with contextual integrity to form the sequences, which means using, for example, well-documented stratigraphic data to anchor sequences. These are intentionally kept constant
14:54
to ensure accurate and reliable results, preventing it from influencing the outcome. Now there are some uncontrolled variables, like the reuse of artifacts, such as in this case, or post-depositional disturbances. But archaeologists mitigate these possibilities through careful selection of data and cross-referencing with other evidence (e.g., absolute dating). In fact, absolute dating is used to anchor many typological sequences to real dates.
15:25
-Now don't get me wrong. Like evolution was sussed through these soft inferences, right? They, Darwin, looked at the different finches and he put it together in his head. This isn't an invalid way of figuring things out. So don't get me, like, don't mistake me for throwing out the baby with the bath water here. Anyone know what he is talking about? Evolution is in the field of biology, which is a natural
15:47
science. Isn’t this a science that Dan considers hard? And finches and fossils are not considered soft data. They constitute hard data. Just like seriations are hard data. Soft data is based on opinions, feelings, and attitudes (like movie reviews). Hard data is measurable and verifiable, like fossils and artifact types. They are tangible and material. But, to be fair, he seems to be saying that it is the interpretation of this hard data that is
16:17
the soft part. If so, this means that Dan considers inductive reasoning as soft and deductive reasoning as hard. But both forms of reasoning are used in the hard sciences. -The thing that I'm bringing up here is that it's not a tool for debunking when you have a soft science for very obvious reasons. And when it's paraded around as such, which is what Dave was doing, you treat it like hard, that he won't even admit that there's a difference.
16:44
-Okay, he thinks archaeology is a soft science, but no one is saying “this is debunked because…archaeology.” What they’re saying is this is debunked because of facts determined through scientific dating methods. And just to be sure I don’t cause any confusion, when I say “facts,” I mean that in the scientific sense. A fact in science is an observation that has been confirmed so many times that it can be accepted as “true,” but not
17:13
in the absolute sense. Everything in science comes with some level of uncertainty. Even absolute dating is not absolutely true. It comes with a level of uncertainty too. Now, you might say, “Well, inductive reasoning can only be used to make hypotheses. You can never establish facts from inductive reasoning. So he’s right about that.” Yes, you can establish facts from inductive reasoning. It is possible to draw general
17:41
conclusions from specific observations, like noting that pottery styles consistently change in a sequence across multiple sites and inferring a chronological order. Dan wants to believe that inference of any kind is nothing but guesswork. But no. Inference can produce reliable patterns—verifiable facts, such as a relative timeline of artifact types. But of course inductive conclusions aren’t absolute truths. They’re probabilistic,
18:12
vulnerable to new evidence or exceptions. But facts from induction gain strength through repeated testing and additional data, and, in the case of sequence dating, these sequences can be corroborated with other methods (e.g., radiocarbon dating), which minimizes uncontrolled variables like disturbed contexts. So sequence dating can yield factual insights about trends in the past. For comparison, let’s look at UnchartedX’s vase scan project. The measurements that the team
18:43
takes constitutes hard data. But the conclusions drawn from inferences about this data is largely speculative. Maybe they were made by CNC machines. Maybe computers were involved. Maybe these vases were stolen by the Egyptians. The inferences made with sequence dating are not of this sort. The chronological sequences are supported by far more data and corroborated by many converging lines of evidence. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking they are on the same level.
19:14
-He won't even admit that there's a difference. He won't even admit that that one is scientific and that one's not. I mean, even the archaeologists have to begrudgingly admit that there is, like, things that give them absolute dates and relative dates. One of these is solid and one of these is not. And that that's that's only somebody who's idealistically inclined would probably have a problem seeing this.
19:38
-As we go through this, I will let you decide if I am the one who can’t see straight. -But we'll go ahead and talk for a minute. If your position is not something that's replicable, it's not science. -Replicability, for those who don’t know, is being able to repeat a scientific experiment and get consistent results. This helps establish reliability and guards against flukes, bias, or fraud. But scientific experiments are not all there is to science. There are many
20:07
kinds of science that can’t be rerun in a lab. But they’re still considered science because they rely on rigorous evidence (for example, fossils, the motion of the stars, cosmic background radiation, etc.) and testable hypotheses, even if the phenomena themselves are one-offs. So the statement, “if it’s not replicable, it’s not science,” is false. In archaeology, relative dating methods like stratigraphy and artifact typology don’t involve replicability
20:37
in the same way a lab experiment does—where you’d rerun a test under identical conditions. But it’s still there. Replicability shows up in the consistency and reliability of the methods when applied across different sites, contexts, or by different researchers. So, for example, artifact types, just like fossils, show up in different places and are noticed by different archaeologists. They find the same patterns. This is a form of replication.
21:07
-Okay, so like Darwin's finches. You can look at those finches and say, "Hmm, that's interesting,” but that's not science. That's an observation. That's points. That's step one of a hypothesis that you had to flesh out with data. -Observations are data. Those things exist. Everyone can see them, so it’s objective. They get described and catalogued. That’s data. -And it was debated for a very long time. Still debated today. But it was debated for a very long
21:35
time, and the door was finally shut on it with hard science genetics. These things prove beyond a shadow of a doubt these two species were related. Now you have evidence. Now you have science. -Wait, is he saying that it wasn’t until gene sequencing began that biological evolution became science? Surely not. He is right about one thing though. The collection of fossil data is similar to the collection of
22:02
artifact data. Artifact typology, the basis of sequence dating, is about classifying objects based on style, material, or form, in an attempt to establish how these evolved over time. Replicability comes into play when different archaeologists independently analyze artifacts from separate sites and reach similar conclusions about their relative age or cultural sequence. For example, if a specific pottery style is pegged as "early Bronze Age" in one region,
22:32
and another team finds it in a comparable layer elsewhere, the typology’s reliability strengthens. It’s all about the method’s ability to produce consistent, predictable patterns across datasets. While exceptions can occur, because objects can be transferred from one setting to another, if the discrepancies are consistently in the minority, the pattern holds. Replicability isn’t about lab-style repetition but about whether the method yields dependable, repeatable frameworks
23:01
when applied to new evidence. The "experiment" is the real-world application, and the "result" is the coherence of the timeline it builds. If those frameworks align with other evidence like absolute dates, and that is the case with sequence dating—it’s science, even without a test tube. -Now 150 years ago, what Darwin was doing was the best that they had. And that's where archaeology kind of still is today. It doesn't have anything to prove where this rock came from.
23:32
It doesn't have anything to prove that this arrow head is x number of years old. It goes by inference. It goes by context. And that's most of the time going to be accurate, but not always. -Well, this shows a great deal of ignorance about relative dating, because we have absolute dating methods, like carbon dating, that have established the accuracy of the pattern. Yet Dan really wants to separate the two. In the X thread, he wrote: “*rolls eyes
23:57
hard enough to shake the house's foundations* There's a difference between the data used to pick the date and 'real science'. This is inference, purely and wholly. Carbon dating, or other 'real science methods' as opposed to educated guesses in a vacuum. And you know this is what I am referring to. Yet you dance.” What he called my dance is when I pointed out that there are different levels of probability for all
24:22
claims. But he prefers a simple, dualistic worldview. Carbon dating is real science, but sequence dating is educated guesses in a vacuum. And somehow, inexplicably, he thinks this is what the archaeologists also are saying. And apparently, therefore, UnchartedX’s statement, “who knows where they actually came from, or how they got there?” is entirely justified. I mean think about this for more than just a few seconds. What reason is there
24:50
to think that having the calendar year of an artifact must be the result of hard science, but having the chronological order of artifacts cannot be so? These are just answers to different questions. “Which came first?” is one question. “What year was this made?” is another question. Both questions can be answered through different scientific methods. One question is not inherently more conducive to science than the other. And with the corresponding answers: this one was produced
25:19
before this one, or this was made somewhere between 3000 and 2,800 BP, one is not inherently more scientific than the other. Unless you think that simply having a number is more scientific, because math, or that using a radio carbon lab instead of an archaeology lab is more scientific, because higher tech machines. But now you are just appealing to aesthetics. -And in certain situations, for example, Ben's belief about the vases is these were heirlooms,
25:54
these were treasured objects, so if you find them somewhere else, that doesn't mean that they were brand new or contemporary to those people. It quite very well could have been antiques that they bought from Egypt. -But that’s exactly what the article said. The stone vases were not from the same time and place as the grave. They were centuries older and from far afield. The vessels were from the Old Kingdom period, whereas the grave was from the Middle Kingdom
26:21
period. It was sequence dating that enabled archaeologists to figure that out. It wasn’t based on guesswork. It was based on science. So when Ben said, “Who knows where they actually came from, or how they got there?", he was being very unscientific. -The same kind of thing. It's not a tool for debunking. It's not even a tool for good mockery. All it is is showing that certain people don't seem to understand
26:50
the difference between hard and soft data. This is an important point for me to make not because I want to prove Davey Boy wrong. I feel like I've already done that enough times. -He is right that some people don’t seem to understand the difference between hard data and soft data. Hard data is objective, quantitative, and measurable. Soft data is subjective, qualitative, and harder to measure—based on opinions or speculation. Right? So I ask you:
27:10
are artifacts objective (Do they exist? Can we see them), quantitative (Can we count them?), and measurable (Can we measure them?)? Yes. They are not opinions. We don’t speculate their existence. They are there. Just like the fossils are there. Just like the movement of the heavenly bodies is there. That’s hard data. “Yeah, but the interpretation of the data is speculative.” Well, as I said the sequence
27:37
of the artifact types is established by repeated patterns seen all over the place, and they are anchored to the timeline by carbon dating - but even without this anchoring, the sequence is established, not through guesswork, but through observable repeated patterns in objective evidence, not dissimilar to the same way that Galileo looked at the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and sun spots to establish that the earth revolves around
28:04
the sun. Was Galileo merely speculating? Or were his inferences grounded in objective evidence? You know there were probably people who wouldn’t believe that the earth revolved around the sun until we got photos of it from space. Maybe their descendants are those who say that they won’t be convinced that the stone vases come from the Old Kingdom unless they find a way to carbon date stone. But in both of these cases,
28:30
science established them as facts before either of these things occurred.
28:42
-The reason that this is an important point for me to make is that the people that watch him believe that they're “team science,” and that that position that he's portraying literally preys on scientific illiteracy. If his followers get science and get the methodology, they won't fall for that bullsh*t. They will know that stratigraphy is not remotely as good as dendrochronology for dating an object. -I hate to break this to Dan, but dendochronology
29:13
is a relative dating method, just as sequence dating is. On his own timeline, he made this post, and he attached a document that he believed to support his case. But if you look inside it, you will find not only that sequence dating is here on a list of scientific dating methods, but also dendochronology in the same category as sequence dating. And why is that? It’s because dendochronology is relative dating, not absolute dating.
29:42
Tree ring sequences do not tell you the dates that something happened. They don’t tell you in what year a tree was born, or when it died. Tree rings tell you what was going on in the climate year after year. So you can know that, for example, a drought preceded another drought by x number of years. The only reason we know when something happened in absolute terms through dendochronology is because many trees have been carbon dated. And this is how
30:10
we know absolute years through dendochronology. You need the additional absolute dating method to anchor the sequence. And this is exactly the same thing that happens with artifact typology. They have used carbon dating of the organic remains in the vessels or in the strata to anchor the sequence to the timeline. It works according to the same principles. And that is how it works also for stratigraphy. They carbon date objects in the sequence to anchor it to a timeline.
30:38
Now let me address what I know will be an objection by some. They might argue, well, dating a tree is solid. We will know exactly when a tree lived through carbon dating. But carbon dating organic remains in a vessel is not the same, because you aren’t dating the vessel. You are dating the remains, and those could have been put in it at a later time. And this is true. The date of the contents is not necessarily the date when the vessel
31:05
was made. If someone tossed new grain into an old pot, or old grain into a new pot, the carbon date could be decades off from the vessel’s actual age, maybe even a few centuries if the artifact is particularly durable. Archaeologists are well aware of this possibility. In fact, in the example of the post by UnchartedX that we have been talking about, I would expect that the organic contents of these vases would indicate a date younger than the Old Kingdom.
31:35
Context is king with these kinds of issues. With a vessel, archaeologists don’t just blindly date the remains and call it a day—they cross-check. If the vessel’s style (typology) matches pots from year x, and the site’s layers (stratigraphy) align with year x, and the carbon-dated grain says year x too, it’s a tight fit. If the grain dates to much later, they’d suspect contamination or reuse and dig for more evidence.
32:06
Dendrochronology gets an edge because it’s self-contained, but carbon dating artifacts isn’t guesswork—it’s just trickier. The gap narrows when you lean on multiple lines of evidence. It’s not that one’s "solid" and the other’s flaky—it’s about how you use the tools. Carbon dating anchors both, just with different risks of slippage. My point here is that both dendochronology and sequence dating are relative dating methods,
32:35
so Dan’s claim that absolute dating is science and relative dating is guesswork is wrong. -And we argued back and forth about this, and it's not my intention to drag Dave here for being an idiot, although he was pretty much a complete f*cking moron in that discussion And I'll say that point blank, Dave, idealistically drooling on your goddamn shoes over there, bro. -I appreciate you not dragging me. -You'll notice that you don't have a whole lot of
33:00
people commenting supporting you because they're all going hrrnnhn. -Actually, archaeologists have chimed in directly about this. Jeffrey Lewis wrote an excellent thread in response to this discussion, confirming that relative dating is scientific and not guesswork. And archaeologist Joseph Wilson chimed in to affirm. How many archaeologists did Dan ask? None that I know of. Instead, he scoured the internet looking for any article that would back up what he said,
33:29
and he had to go as far as Nigeria to an article written by a museum curator that spoke of relative dating as “mainly non-scientific,” and that is all he could find. This article is on the level of a student paper, by the way. Ironically, the other article he shared confirmed that relative dating methods are scientific. The only reason Dan even goes to academic papers from time to time is to look for evidence to support his own views. He is a cherry picker.
33:59
You think he reads academic papers for the sole purpose of broadening his knowledge? I highly doubt it. And that is because Dan wants to be a dedunker, not a student. -But if you go on to YouTube you'll find lots of people that watch David Miano talk about this kind of stuff like he's some sort of an authority, and the fact of the matter is,
34:20
he's either scientifically illiterate or he doesn't really know up from down. But anyway I'm not trying to drag the man, like I said. My point here is his followers need to recognize that this is… I want his followers to recognize that this is not science, man. And while Ben may well be wrong - as a matter of fact, me and Ben disagree on numerous things - but while Ben may well be wrong about this, that, or the other thing, the way that Dave's going
34:45
about it is pissing up a rope. It's using soft data portraying it as hard data, and in the end, all he's doing is making himself look dumb, and making his followers less educated in real science. But he's getting more clicks, isn't he? And that's really what this comes down to. -Dunning Kruger is in full swing. -You can call yourself team science all you want. You can call yourself honesty all you want. You can call yourself whatever. If you're afraid to color
35:15
outside of the lines because you think it's going to affect your bottom line, I don't know what to tell you, man. You’re not doing this right. Maybe we should do a poll. In the face of all the evidence that shows him to be mistaken, will Dan admit his error? I will say no. He will simply reword what he said to make it more palatable. It’s the old motte and bailey routine. He will declare relative dating not to be real science,
35:40
and mere guesswork, and then when he gets called out on it, he will retreat back to the position, “All I was saying was that relative dating is less reliable than absolute dating. That’s all.” But we know what he said. Look, I know that all the different methods of dating are not equal in precision and accuracy. Carbon dating has been absolutely revolutionary for the field of archaeology. It enables relative dating methods like stratigraphy,
36:07
typological dating, and dendochronology to be more accurate. But to call relative dating unscientific or guesswork or speculation or “soft data” or “soft science” is factually incorrect. And people like UnchartedX, who want to use these false claims to justify an “anything goes” mentality about dating, are rejecting science. -You're not doing this right. Okay, maybe you're doing great for building a YouTube brand,
36:37
but well, here we are, right? It's pretty easy to point out that you're not exactly doing this right. You're not being intellectually honest, and you are sacrificing your audience's knowledge base for your clicks, for your own ego. -Anyone else find this as ironic as I do? Anyway, I think we’ve done this topic to death by now. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up, and if you really liked it, consider giving a Super Thanks. I
37:06
appreciate you taking the time to consider this subject in more detail, and if you have any further thoughts on it, please leave a comment, and maybe even leave a comment under Dan’s video - but be polite. That works better. You might like my little e-booklet, Why Ancient History Matters. It's designed to persuade people that the subject is important, even in the modern world. You might also wish to use it to help spread the word, so feel free to share it with
37:31
someone you know. It's free for anyone who wants it. I've left a link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy. Catch you later.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat