Poll on a Landmark Work: Your Take on Our Breakthrough Paper’s Design #

**I’m proposing an extremely precise date for the Minoan eruption.** #

With a background in computer science, I’ve applied rigorous research methodologies and synthesized evidence across multiple disciplines to provide a consensus date for this ancient cataclysm that occurred roughly 3500 years ago. This singular event has the potential to precisely date myriad occurrences over the course of a millennium.

By combining insights from archaeology, radiocarbon dating, geology, and records from ancient Egypt, among others, I propose a date with a staggering 3-month range as the most likely timing for the eruption. Many recent studies still present a wide range of uncertainty, often around ±100 years, while the most informed scholarship narrows it down to a decade or two.

My analysis builds on cutting-edge scholarship across fields, with the most up-to-date consensual knowledge.

It appears one recent battle between two labs encompasses most of the discourse. In my forthcoming paper, I plan to distill the essence of this debate, merging it with the few strongest, most relevant results from other fields to further dispel doubts and refine the eruption’s dating.

Take Egyptology for instance – a discipline where only about 200 individuals worldwide are versed in hieroglyphics and scholarly work is rare. Having delved into more than 500 books and papers on the subject, I find myself among a few who can communicate this knowledge in an accessible way.

I have ideas on what I think will make my paper more interesting, but I’m not sure, and so I’m curious.

With my paper of historical importance, I aim to craft a couple of beautiful-looking A4 pages that everyone will be glad to read. Here, not experts’, but your ideas are of utmost importance.

Case in Point

Here's one very important paper - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1189395.
It's basically two A4 pages, a list of reports, a few paragraphs like "this is combined from such and such fields of research", no methodology described whatsoever adequately - and probability charts like this. This paper was quoted many hundreds times. Impressive? Indeed. Outstanding, I must admit.

Your answers will shape this work.

Any amount of feedback is appreciated - complete any number of fields.

Your quick thoughts are essential; here’s what will help: #

1) How technically detailed should the methodology be presented? Should I provide extensive detail and numerous references? Or summarize briefly and only highlight the most useful methods?

2) Regarding reviewing the history of dating efforts, what approach is best? Thoroughly tracing the elimination of possibilities over time? Or focusing just on how this new synthesis builds on established works without retreading covered ground?

3) On addressing systemic issues in academia, is it helpful to directly, yet constructively, mention the lack of communication and siloed disciplines? Does this usefully highlight how those limitations affected past scholarship? Or could it come across as unpleasant and close minds to the evidence itself? I have specific answers and frameworks as suggestions, and so this paper's impact can do an even greater good.

Example challenges

There are numerous systemic issues that can work against positive results, with some of them stemming from established academic practices. For instance, many scholars may choose to write something ignorant in order to meet a deadline, rather than honestly saying "I hypothesize", and we don't want to clutter our minds with flawed thinking, or even see it.

4) What tone is most compelling and constructive? An open, collaborative tone inviting engagement? Or directly challenging the status quo in the field? A cautious vs curious vs confrontational approach? Which best persuades, shows and promotes true integrity?

5) Should the date range be presented as definitive? Definitely non-controversial unlike other proposals? Or framed more tentatively as a strong suggestion open to actually unneeded examination (it's really strong - the evidence will speak for itself)?

6) What level of pushback is expected from the orthodox establishment? Some is inevitable when established names don't even talk to each other in the field (rather going house-vs-house instead), but can good framing mitigate knee-jerk defensiveness?

7) What will your initial reactions be if you hear that many events of 2000-1000 BC occured within a range of years, not decades or centuries? For the general public, is a specific date for ancient events exciting or hard to accept after so much uncertainty?

8) What other aspects of framing could affect how receptive audiences are? Any other factors to consider? Should I be bold? What other perspectives, concerns or suggestions do you have regarding how this research and proposed new dating for the Minoan eruption is presented and framed?

9) Should I quote pretty words about very basic (yet useful to know) things like: "The Greek culture, having roots in its Phoenician counterpart (which, broadly speaking, included almost every group around the Mediterranean, with the same design patterns and more - these were the same traveling people [1]), was also deeply rooted in traveler-centrism[?]"
[? - Should I provide a quote here, or is that obvious and unneeded, with my phrasing being great enough to not quote an established name? Would regular people not knowing about that still want some famous work to be mentioned for such a simple logical conclusion?]"

Poll on a Landmark Work: Your Take on Our Breakthrough Paper’s Design #

I’m proposing an extremely precise date for the Minoan eruption. #

Your quick thoughts are essential; here’s what will help: #

**I’m proposing an extremely precise date for the Minoan eruption.** #