I looked thru the reference your side provided as proof for its point. I didn't find the proof or anything close. Can you explain how data was provided which didn't contain what was purported? How could the provider not have known that? You don't suppose he would stoop to blindly providing references without first verifying their efficacy do you?<quoted text>
You could also have looked at the preceeding Ubaid culture.
It's a sliding scale.
A.)How to get to a reasonable mean. You discount the numbers that are too far out. You will left with a group that comes close together.
So we do not say, this is it, but the data suggest that the most probable date for this event lies around 10,000 years.
Dogen can explain it again, if he wants to.
Moving the goalpost is changing the question by adding to it.
Ape to human becomes non-human to human, becomes abiogenesis to human.
In ordinary everyday life it would be the experience that you can not break of the conversation because the person keeps adding to the question. It appears to be the same question but it is not.
We state and explain A.) as we did.
You state A.)+ but which one of the dates around it is the real one
We state: anything around A.)
You state but if A.)+ does not give a correct precise date then B.) is also an option since it was in the numbers too.
Reasoning: You people have more options for A.)so more uncertainty therefore B.)that is only singularly attested, is thus right, based on it's uniqueness.
Well you forget the one on the other side of the spectrum that is also singularly attested. And that we also dismissed precisely because it is anomalous. An artefact, false data that also needs explaining in terms of what was done wrong.
That's the method to deal with data, especially if you have various sources.
The only exception to not consider abberations from the norm false or artefacts would be very convincing proof that states otherwise.
So it would not be because you did not stay long enough in the museum.
And bob will explain your question on the shifting goalpost more concise, if he wants to.
How about this one? He stated that she understood everything perfectly, but when that "fact" didn't fit his predetermined position that she made a bad choice, he moved the goal post to she didn't know what was best.
Good science does not discount good data no matter how far out. Discounting such is a step toward bad answers.
As to your representation of me in your recounting of the exchange thus far, definitely your words/thoughts not mine. It's absolutely not the reasoning I have put forth.