3 ms·

In other words, opinion vs opinion. Maybe that's why the posted story is so murky. The following sentences: > Chinese researchers reject such allegations. “Thi

In other words, opinion vs opinion. Maybe that's why the posted story is so murky. The following sentences: > Chinese researchers reject such allegations. “This has nothing to do with nationalism,” says Wu. It's all about the evidence — the transitional fossils and archaeological artefacts, he says. “Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” > But the continuity-with-hybridization model is countered by overwhelming genetic data that point to Africa as the wellspring of modern humans. Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa [...] > “If there had been significant contributions from Chinese H. erectus, they would show up in the genetic data,” says Li Hui, a population geneticist at Fudan University in Shanghai.

dak1 10y ago
Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. It's basically the equivalent of climate deniers vs climate change, with the deniers' funding basically coming from a single government. There's intense nationalism (and racism) at play here, and the Chinese government isn't funding pure science so much as it is funding science with the intent of finding a specific result. I'm not a paleontologist, but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. This was often felt to be necessary to protect funding and academic positions (one professor of mine in private confessed to me that "80% of what I say is true, and the rest I say for reasons we all know"). I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). There's a good reason many paleontologists outside of China are taking many of these studies and theories with a China-sized grain of salt. That isn't to say that there isn't good science being done in China as well. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate the 20% from the 80%, and when findings seem to draw conclusions that the Government wanted to see all along, they're rightly viewed highly suspiciously. [1] https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/ https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forg... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-p... [3] http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/ http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-character...
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  >I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position When China was promoting the idea of it controlling the South China Sea, suddenly my feed was full of bullshit academic articles about finding Chinese culture artifacts on those not-really islands. As well as a fabled 600 year old book that no longer exists. Its clear this was done by the CCP to help their claim of those islands. Back in the old days China made propagandist attacks on western medicine and cooked the books on its traditional medicine, which was administered at the time and still today in many/some cases. It was almost all fraud. They weren't claiming a little bit of zing from Ginseng or a bit of pain relief from massage or acupuncture but cancer cures and such using roots and stews.
- moogleii 10y ago
  > Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. No, it's not. That "one researcher" made an opinion that he thinks nationalism is at play. “They want everything to come from China.” is literally an opinion. > but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. That's anecdotal. The snippet I included, directly after the nationalist's opinion, is a Chinese guy (part of the "they" I assume) at a Chinese university, disagreeing with him. Do you have actual numbers of how widespread the nationalist agenda on this particular issue is? Or is this just more opinion? Also, that sounds similar to lots of PhD's lives trying to get funding from their government. >I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). I could replace "China" with "Japan", who aren't exactly strangers to a similar agenda, heck even the NYT commented on it. But I don't claim to assume the whole country thinks that way because I doubt there are numbers on it.

dak1 10y ago

Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. It's basically the equivalent of climate deniers vs climate change, with the deniers' funding basically coming from a single government. There's intense nationalism (and racism) at play here, and the Chinese government isn't funding pure science so much as it is funding science with the intent of finding a specific result. I'm not a paleontologist, but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. This was often felt to be necessary to protect funding and academic positions (one professor of mine in private confessed to me that "80% of what I say is true, and the rest I say for reasons we all know"). I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). There's a good reason many paleontologists outside of China are taking many of these studies and theories with a China-sized grain of salt. That isn't to say that there isn't good science being done in China as well. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate the 20% from the 80%, and when findings seem to draw conclusions that the Government wanted to see all along, they're rightly viewed highly suspiciously. [1] https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/ https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forg... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-p... [3] http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/ http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-character...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position When China was promoting the idea of it controlling the South China Sea, suddenly my feed was full of bullshit academic articles about finding Chinese culture artifacts on those not-really islands. As well as a fabled 600 year old book that no longer exists. Its clear this was done by the CCP to help their claim of those islands. Back in the old days China made propagandist attacks on western medicine and cooked the books on its traditional medicine, which was administered at the time and still today in many/some cases. It was almost all fraud. They weren't claiming a little bit of zing from Ginseng or a bit of pain relief from massage or acupuncture but cancer cures and such using roots and stews.
moogleii 10y ago
> Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. No, it's not. That "one researcher" made an opinion that he thinks nationalism is at play. “They want everything to come from China.” is literally an opinion. > but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. That's anecdotal. The snippet I included, directly after the nationalist's opinion, is a Chinese guy (part of the "they" I assume) at a Chinese university, disagreeing with him. Do you have actual numbers of how widespread the nationalist agenda on this particular issue is? Or is this just more opinion? Also, that sounds similar to lots of PhD's lives trying to get funding from their government. >I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). I could replace "China" with "Japan", who aren't exactly strangers to a similar agenda, heck even the NYT commented on it. But I don't claim to assume the whole country thinks that way because I doubt there are numbers on it.