For one thing, we have some knowledge of nuclear science. That provides a theoretical basis, a predictive model. Then we have something called "calibration," where we see if the model jives with how things work in the real world. Carbon 14 dating has been calibrated against items which can be tree-ring dated, ice-core dated, and historically dated.
Then, after we have a tool based upon the preceding, we have the accumulated experience of using it for some decades, which gives us a data base of real problems and real problem fixes. That gives us some confidence that when one person consistently gets results that are far off-base, that person is doing something very wrong.
"Then we have something called "calibration," where we see if the model jives with how things work in the real world. Carbon 14 dating has been calibrated against items which can be tree-ring dated, ice-core dated, and historically dated."
and if two or more of those calibrations dont agree? this is possible in a volitile region like the mediterranean. a man tried to provide proof the water level is rising based on global warming and put a time scale on it in relation to some findings about a 100 miles from a volcano. he didnt account for the volcano making the land masses different, making his timing wrong. in this case, two of his methods agreed. water level given the current rate, and the findings of some fishing equipment in the area. it did not hold together when one thing disagreed however, volcanic activity.
calibration is needed, but how does anyone know that every aspect is accounted for and agrees with the datings?
I heard, but haven't been able to find documentation of, a famous example of C14 calibration where artifacts from Pompeii were dated, and found to match exactly the date of the volcano's eruption. (79 AD) Do you know if this is true?