Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. - Sir Isaac Newton
Friday, November 6, 2009
2009 Nuclear Dating - Group 2
14 comments:
642575
said...
This group discussed how radiostopes are used to date substances. In prosecution, this group said that radioactive dating has been known to be inaccurate. In defense, the group said how radioactive dating is important to tell what time period an artifact is from. It can also be used to determine whether or not a painting is an original. In my opinion, the defense seems to be more reasonable side, as it is a very helpful process and while sometimes inaccurate has no side effects.
Yes this group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this technology to exist by talking about how they are used in dating substances. The defense for radioisotopes is that it can be used to figure out from what time period something is from and this is important. The prosecution against radioisotopes is that it is sometimes inaccurate. To me, the defense argument makes more sense than the prosecution argument because radioisotopes do not have any side effects and even though they are not accurate at times, using them to date substances can be a very helpful process.
Group 2 succesfully explains the use of radioisotopes to date certain materials. The defense argues that Nuclear Dating has no current alternative, and the dates determined by it are generally correct. The prosecution however, argues that nuclear dating is not always correct and there can be mistakes. I agree with the defense in this case, due to the fact that there is no current alternative that can compete with the accuracy of nuclear dating.
This group, explains in great detail, the technology and processes behind the concept of nuclear dating. They successfully did this by explaining the unique characteristics of a radioisotope. The Defense in the video stated how extremely crucial radioactive dating is towards determining how old an artifact is. The Prosecution, however, expands upon the idea that nuclear dating isn't always accurate and can be be wrong in some cases. Overall I followed the Defense's argument, because radioactive dating has proved significant to scientists in numerous cases. Also very good acting and a great video in my opinion.
This group addressed the unique nature of the isoptope for nuclear dating. It explained its use in the world both positively and negatively. Positively, nuclear dating allows scientist to estimate how old something is through the decay of carbon. This can be helpful in both situation of merely rock or even in crimes. Negatively, nuclear dating is based only on probabilty and therefore can be inacurrate. However, if this is the only side effect I would have to agree with the positive side of the conflict. It is better to have a rough estimate of age rather then nothing, and most likely if we keep working with it we will find more ways to improve it or another system to discover age.
This group adressed the nature of radioisotopes in nuclear dating. The defense talked about how it is important because it allows us to find out how old something is and we need it for that. It is also acurate most of the time. The prosecution arguse that there is it is not always right. I agree with the defense because it is helpful to know how old substances are. 640640
This group briefly discussed how the nature of the isotope affects nuclear dating, yet it was enough to explain it. The arguments used by the defense focused on the "accuracy" of radioactive dating and its usefulness. The prosecution focused on the likelihood for radioactive dating to be inaccurate. In my opinion, I support the prosecution, but its arguments were weak and lacked coherence.
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. In defense to nuclear dating, it can be used to date not only rocks and minerals, but also older paintings like those of Picasso. The defense also stated that radioactive dating is very accutate. The cons of radioactive dating is that the process is very complicated, and therefore can be messed up very easily. In my opinion the defense seems to make more sense. If you have the technology you mind as well use it.
This group addressed how radioisotopes can be used to date substances. Anvantages to radioactive dating are that it tells what time or how long a certain substance has been around. Dissadvantages to that are that the dating is not always accurate and there can be mistakes in the dating. I believe that the defense makes more sense because even if there are some mistakes and the dating could be inaccurate there are no side effects to it and it is still very helpful.
This group does address the unique characteristics of nuclear isotopes that allow them to be used to date material radioactively but does not make them entirely clear. In this particular video I would side with the prosecution. Here’s why: The prosecution zeroed in on the likelihood of error occurring within a complex process like nuclear dating. I think this is a sensible argument. In truth, we never really know how much element exists in a sample to begin with so anything dated radioactively is merely an educated guess. I can clearly identify with the point being made. In contrast, the defense focused on the radioactive dating process’s track record basically (It‘s usually correct). This is a weak argument. Though a few valid points were brought up, more evidence and clarification were needed to really rebut the prosecution. All in all both arguments seemed to lack a certain cohesion but were obviously thought out and presented carefully. Good job in addressing such a controversial topic without dragging religion into play.
The unique nature of radioisotopes was addresses thoroughly by this group. They made it clear why this technology could exist. The defense of radioactive dating said that the process has been tested numerous times and has been proven accurate, the decay clocks of an element don't change, and that it is extremely important in understanding the history of the earth through rocks, fossils, and artifacts. The prosecution said that the process was based on probability, it had been proven wrong on some accounts, the process is complicated and could be easily messed up, and that it goes against some Catholic beliefs. The defense is more convincing to me.
This group did successfully adress the unique nature of radioisotopes used in nuclear dating.
Defense: Nuclear Dating allows us to figure out how old not only rocks, but also other artifacts are. The dating is generally correct. At the moment there is no other alternate to figuring out the age of extremely old artifacts.
Prosecution: Although Nuclear Dating is in general correct, there is a margin for error, and mistakes have been found.
The defense sounds most convincing as the prosecution did not propose any real threats to humans or other species through nuclear dating.
The group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope. The arguments used in defense state that radioactive dating its accurate and its important because its used to tell how old artifacts are. The arguments used in prosecution is that radioactive dating is inaccurate and is easily able for something to go wrong. I agree with the defense because the use of radioactive dating its accurate most of the time and it has no side effects.
14 comments:
This group discussed how radiostopes are used to date substances. In prosecution, this group said that radioactive dating has been known to be inaccurate. In defense, the group said how radioactive dating is important to tell what time period an artifact is from. It can also be used to determine whether or not a painting is an original. In my opinion, the defense seems to be more reasonable side, as it is a very helpful process and while sometimes inaccurate has no side effects.
Yes this group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this technology to exist by talking about how they are used in dating substances. The defense for radioisotopes is that it can be used to figure out from what time period something is from and this is important. The prosecution against radioisotopes is that it is sometimes inaccurate. To me, the defense argument makes more sense than the prosecution argument because radioisotopes do not have any side effects and even though they are not accurate at times, using them to date substances can be a very helpful process.
Group 2 succesfully explains the use of radioisotopes to date certain materials.
The defense argues that Nuclear Dating has no current alternative, and the dates determined by it are generally correct. The prosecution however, argues that nuclear dating is not always correct and there can be mistakes.
I agree with the defense in this case, due to the fact that there is no current alternative that can compete with the accuracy of nuclear dating.
This group, explains in great detail, the technology and processes behind the concept of nuclear dating. They successfully did this by explaining the unique characteristics of a radioisotope. The Defense in the video stated how extremely crucial radioactive dating is towards determining how old an artifact is. The Prosecution, however, expands upon the idea that nuclear dating isn't always accurate and can be be wrong in some cases. Overall I followed the Defense's argument, because radioactive dating has proved significant to scientists in numerous cases. Also very good acting and a great video in my opinion.
This group addressed the unique nature of the isoptope for nuclear dating. It explained its use in the world both positively and negatively. Positively, nuclear dating allows scientist to estimate how old something is through the decay of carbon. This can be helpful in both situation of merely rock or even in crimes. Negatively, nuclear dating is based only on probabilty and therefore can be inacurrate. However, if this is the only side effect I would have to agree with the positive side of the conflict. It is better to have a rough estimate of age rather then nothing, and most likely if we keep working with it we will find more ways to improve it or another system to discover age.
This group adressed the nature of radioisotopes in nuclear dating. The defense talked about how it is important because it allows us to find out how old something is and we need it for that. It is also acurate most of the time. The prosecution arguse that there is it is not always right. I agree with the defense because it is helpful to know how old substances are. 640640
This group briefly discussed how the nature of the isotope affects nuclear dating, yet it was enough to explain it. The arguments used by the defense focused on the "accuracy" of radioactive dating and its usefulness. The prosecution focused on the likelihood for radioactive dating to be inaccurate. In my opinion, I support the prosecution, but its arguments were weak and lacked coherence.
This group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. In defense to nuclear dating, it can be used to date not only rocks and minerals, but also older paintings like those of Picasso. The defense also stated that radioactive dating is very accutate. The cons of radioactive dating is that the process is very complicated, and therefore can be messed up very easily. In my opinion the defense seems to make more sense. If you have the technology you mind as well use it.
This group did successfully adress the unique nature of radioisotopes used in nuclear dating.
The defense's arguments are that there are no alternatives to dating and the dates are usually correct.
The prosecution's arguments are that nuclear dating can have faults, and is not always correct.
I agree with the defense because while it may sometimes be inaccurate, there are no side affects.
This group addressed how radioisotopes can be used to date substances. Anvantages to radioactive dating are that it tells what time or how long a certain substance has been around. Dissadvantages to that are that the dating is not always accurate and there can be mistakes in the dating. I believe that the defense makes more sense because even if there are some mistakes and the dating could be inaccurate there are no side effects to it and it is still very helpful.
This group does address the unique characteristics of nuclear isotopes that allow them to be used to date material radioactively but does not make them entirely clear. In this particular video I would side with the prosecution. Here’s why:
The prosecution zeroed in on the likelihood of error occurring within a complex process like nuclear dating. I think this is a sensible argument. In truth, we never really know how much element exists in a sample to begin with so anything dated radioactively is merely an educated guess. I can clearly identify with the point being made.
In contrast, the defense focused on the radioactive dating process’s track record basically (It‘s usually correct). This is a weak argument. Though a few valid points were brought up, more evidence and clarification were needed to really rebut the prosecution.
All in all both arguments seemed to lack a certain cohesion but were obviously thought out and presented carefully. Good job in addressing such a controversial topic without dragging religion into play.
The unique nature of radioisotopes was addresses thoroughly by this group. They made it clear why this technology could exist. The defense of radioactive dating said that the process has been tested numerous times and has been proven accurate, the decay clocks of an element don't change, and that it is extremely important in understanding the history of the earth through rocks, fossils, and artifacts. The prosecution said that the process was based on probability, it had been proven wrong on some accounts, the process is complicated and could be easily messed up, and that it goes against some Catholic beliefs. The defense is more convincing to me.
This group did successfully adress the unique nature of radioisotopes used in nuclear dating.
Defense: Nuclear Dating allows us to figure out how old not only rocks, but also other artifacts are. The dating is generally correct. At the moment there is no other alternate to figuring out the age of extremely old artifacts.
Prosecution: Although Nuclear Dating is in general correct, there is a margin for error, and mistakes have been found.
The defense sounds most convincing as the prosecution did not propose any real threats to humans or other species through nuclear dating.
798320
The group addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope.
The arguments used in defense state that radioactive dating its accurate and its important because its used to tell how old artifacts are.
The arguments used in prosecution is that radioactive dating is inaccurate and is easily able for something to go wrong.
I agree with the defense because the use of radioactive dating its accurate most of the time and it has no side effects.
Post a Comment