British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#71

Post by nonbel » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 2:43 AM UTC

JackCh wrote: post #70

nonbel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly there is, "Irtysen Stele", "Sehel Stele" and "Famine Stele": https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-2-t...

I don't know anything about rocks, but it's very hard for me to take this website seriously when their FAQ repeats several times word for word ( https://i.imgur.com/B0VojAZ.png ): > If it is not convincing enough: Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply n…

Yea the site looks a bit disorganized and crackpotty. Perhaps because its translated from french?

You can find videos of them on youtube actually making these stone blocks though. The method works. Based on how long it took a small team to make a couple on their first attempt, it could be a hundred or even thousand times more efficient than carving them out and transporting them.

So if I were going to build a large limestone pyramid that's how I would do it.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#72

Post by l0b0 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 10:01 AM UTC

tlb wrote: post #51

coldtea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a logical impossibility to really determine whether "fabrications are usually discovered" or not. We can only know about fabrications after they have been discovered -- so there could be 2x or even 10x as much that we don't know about and count among the "non fabricated" work.

It's not impossible. We know how many fabrications are discovered. You can take a random sample of papers and analyze them in depth to estimate the number of papers that are fabricated.

Since you're looking for a (presumably) small signal you need to analyse quite a lot of papers to determine anything. And of course, who can trust a giant analysis study without further analysis?

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#73

Post by tlb » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #62

tlb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible. We know how many fabrications are discovered. You can take a random sample of papers and analyze them in depth to estimate the number of papers that are fabricated.

> You can take a random sample of papers and analyze them in depth to estimate the number of papers that are fabricated. That assumes that the fabrications in those papers will be revealed upon further analysis. And, what's worse, that such analysis is economically feasible. Most metastudies don't even verify the original results, just assume them as fine.

That's makes it merely expensive, not impossible.

The Reproducibility Project got a long way on a modest budget. They replicated 100 studies, got similar results on only 35%, for $15M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project.