As a developer, I see the absolute broken processes and driving forces in the software world and assume that it's not just unique to us. Apparently every other field is also overloaded with bugs, improper testing, and bad assumptions.
Virtually every area of science has contributed to the modern understanding of dating. If something is fundamentally wrong in that understanding, it would be exciting to put it mildly.
And yes, there are issues as well. I could go on for hours about them. But archaeology is both an old field and a highly self-critical one. Any idea that's survived awhile is probably either "close", wrong in some very subtle ways, or extraordinarily attractive to our particular, western academia.
My teachers never pretended that quantum physics was a fully understood, concrete field. A lot of what they said was prefixed with "we don't really know if this is how it works, but this is the model".
No, they apply (or, rather, are reasonable approximations) in the specific case of objects that aren't too small, and that don't move too fast relative to each other, etc. That is, the common case, but not the general one.
We’re talking about archaeology, which is notably unconcerned with black holes or anything with a detectable de Broglie wavelength. I think that if were not going to be pedantic, and accept that we’re talking about physics as applied to Classical objects like finger bones, he’s right and there is little debate to be had. It we want to be a little pedantic we can say that QM is just about the best tested theory ever, and the rounding error left to quibble over isn’t a factor here.
If we want to be super pedantic we can point out that the “common” case on the scale of the universe is ultimately quantum-gravitational and therefore subject to physics that is not understood. Of course that majority is at distance scales we can’t access, or at energies or seem since the first second after the Big Bang. In that very very pedantic case you’re just as wrong as he is, but I think you’d rightly argue that it’s a pointless distinction in context. I’d agree with you.
[1] Standard physics isn't really up for question. Newtons Laws still apply in the general case.
All science is up for question, stuff that isn't questionable isn't science.
What you state reminds me of the scientists in the 1900s saying all science had been discovered.
If you haven't already, you should read Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)
The sentiment you are expressing is very tempting, but it doesn't give credit to the knowledge we have actually acquired.
It's difficult to discern between the many levels of partial knowledge (as all knowledge is partial), but it's what we must do.
Direct, completely unmediated observation is not the only way to acquire knowledge. It is definitely a very good method. However, we humans are also incredibly good at finding clever, credible ways of inferring things from indirect clues.
Even inside human history, we make various guesses about when various events take place. The extant records that we use to date any particular item or event lead us, in many cases, to a best guess. How accurate this guess is - well, who really knows.
Quite often, there is conflict over when or even if certain events have occurred in the past. This is the nature of the lack of easily obtained records of the past. Even when there is extent documentation available, there is still conflict.
I take all the prognostications of dates in the far past as a guess, since we don't really know.
> However, we humans are also incredibly good at finding clever, credible ways of inferring things from indirect clues.
We are not as clever or even credible in a lot of what we do as humans. We are far too biased and political even in the fields of science and technology. That is just a part of our nature. If you looked at all the controversies over the last, what, 300 years, or we could look back over the last 2500 years and we'll see this rear its head many, many times.
I have stated the position that we should not be concerned that we are certain, but put in the efforts to keep investigating all areas for insight and further knowledge. It really doesn't matter if our models are incomplete and wrong as long as we keep moving forward. It's when we are certain that we lose the ability to move forward. In many areas in science (even in technology) we have become "certain" that our theories and models are correct. This is a problem and we need to address this.