I recall (vaguely) a number of television programmes than suggested, at some stage and to varying amounts of posturing, that the generally accepted sequence of dates for the Egyptian rulers just didn't withstand critical scrutiny. I think it was John Romer who pointed out that one ruler's tomb had been very carefully constructed around another of later date. Whether any other available reconstruction of the sequence was any better, is open to some doubt.

This is perhaps what is behind any classicist's reluctance to accept specific dates for Thera. Changing one date could have a catastrophic effect on the edifice. It may be better for historians to carry on with the existing assumptions until enough evidence has come through, than throw a whole series of babies out with the bathwater.   No doubt there are junior historians beavering away at their theses, hoping to make their name by reconciling this particular date with all the other information previously regarding as pointing in another direction altogether.

It is worth pointing out that scientific interpretations have been known to change with time. Less rapidly than historical ones, no doubt, but it still might be better to take the carbon dating as just one more piece of evidence.