ignore the tendency to believe the accuracy of this article because it’s from MIT, and see if you can spot a flaw in their thinking process.
https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime-casts-0106
They claim to have tested quicklime experimentally with a reasonable control, so I'm inclined to believe the ultimate conclusion
I am skeptical that the volcanic ash is not actually helpful (assuming the claims about its ancient use & reputation are accurate)
Perhaps both are relevant
Is there some other error in thinking you've found?
I wouldn’t say absolutely, because that would be a flaw in my thinking.
But I am skeptical of the selective use of historical documentation.
They also claim to have proved that this was how the Romans did it, because their experiment achieved a similar result. It didn’t, they only proved they can achieve similar results using this method.
But there is something more I can’t quite put into words yet, that has been bothering me about the way western science and academia think about things.
Side note, this kinda feels like an advertisement for a patentable process they want to sell.
