5 ms·

> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) > So I'd bet against it. That argument would seem to imply that all publi

> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) > So I'd bet against it. That argument would seem to imply that all published research is wrong

aaron695 9y ago
Most research(I'd guess) doesn't contradict other research/theory, it tells of discovery. No one has proven there's no 9th planet for instance. No one's proven drug X doesn't help with disease Y. Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link) Of course conformity with theory is also a problem, we think it's 50,000 years so we make our study on X (aka DNA) conform with this. But both articles are HN worthy and one is wrong. So if you're not skeptical then there's a problem with your world view.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  Perhaps the 65000 years people didn't leave any descendants. Or perhaps that DNA research wasn't definitive. You say there are multiple things that contradict it. What are the others? It can't be evidence of people being there at more recent times -- that doesn't contradict evidence that they were there earlier.
- ak39 9y ago
  You wrote: "Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)" But that's obvious. The field of paleontology/archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings. That makes perfect sense.
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    In other words, dating an archaeological finding gives you a lower bound of how long there has been human activity on the site. Finding something older does not contradict previous results - and there are good reasons why older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.
    - aaron695 9y ago
      > older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence. I agree but I'd expect some sort of logrithm though. But perhaps not. As per the article Australia had the extinctions which line up with an earlier time period. And as per the article evidently it's not PC to imply humans did it. There's more than science going on here. I just want a real independent expert to comment not someone with an agenda like PoP.
- ak39 9y ago
  You wrote: "Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)" But that's obvious. Paleontology and archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings. That makes perfect sense.

> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) > So I'd bet against it. That argument would seem to imply that all published research is wrong

aaron695 9y ago

Most research(I'd guess) doesn't contradict other research/theory, it tells of discovery. No one has proven there's no 9th planet for instance. No one's proven drug X doesn't help with disease Y. Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link) Of course conformity with theory is also a problem, we think it's 50,000 years so we make our study on X (aka DNA) conform with this. But both articles are HN worthy and one is wrong. So if you're not skeptical then there's a problem with your world view.

jamesrcole 9y ago
Perhaps the 65000 years people didn't leave any descendants. Or perhaps that DNA research wasn't definitive. You say there are multiple things that contradict it. What are the others? It can't be evidence of people being there at more recent times -- that doesn't contradict evidence that they were there earlier.
ak39 9y ago
You wrote: "Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)" But that's obvious. The field of paleontology/archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings. That makes perfect sense.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  In other words, dating an archaeological finding gives you a lower bound of how long there has been human activity on the site. Finding something older does not contradict previous results - and there are good reasons why older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.
  - aaron695 9y ago
    > older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence. I agree but I'd expect some sort of logrithm though. But perhaps not. As per the article Australia had the extinctions which line up with an earlier time period. And as per the article evidently it's not PC to imply humans did it. There's more than science going on here. I just want a real independent expert to comment not someone with an agenda like PoP.
ak39 9y ago
You wrote: "Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)" But that's obvious. Paleontology and archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings. That makes perfect sense.