3 ms·

Wow, this story leaves quite an impression on me on what it means to be a celebrated expert who is quite uncontested. You can basically meddle with the knowledg

Wow, this story leaves quite an impression on me on what it means to be a celebrated expert who is quite uncontested. You can basically meddle with the knowledge we humans have on that front and it will take quite a while for people to uncover it. I feel immediately more critical on our scientific and academic leaders and more responsible myself -- despite having no position in academia.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Old mate’s been dead for 85 years. You’d think if someone had a better idea they’d have come forward with it earlier. I find it hard to believe no one spoke up because old dead guy is so renown.
- toolslive 8y ago
  The whole thing reminds me of the Piltdown man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man A friend of mine, who is an archaeologist once explained me there are topics in archaeology you cannot touch without risking your career.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
The expert was largely uncontested as the explanation he gave was adequate given the question being asked. More evidence was needed for a better explanation, and there wasn't a strong push to fund more research to answer "where did the stone for Stonehenge come from?" Though there can be some examples of scientists unwilling to question past experts, the bigger obstacle is the limited amount of evidence that scientists are able to collect.
- vlz 8y ago
  Yes, and I would emphasize the funding aspect. Archaeology is not a discipline we spend tons of money on anyway. I would expect errors to live on longer here than in say cancer research.
chriselrod 8y ago
Reminds me of Brian Wansink, the Cornell professor who was a "world-renowned eating expert for over 25 years". When statisticians finally started looking at his lab's work, they noticed absolutely extraordinary amounts of errors. Like, 150-errors-in-just-4-papers level of extraordinary. http://andrewgelman.com/2017/06/15/pizzagate-gets-even-ridiculous-either-not-read-previous-pizza-buffet-study-not-consider-part-literature-later-study-found/ http://andrewgelman.com/2017/06/15/pizzagate-gets-even-ridic...
beagle3 8y ago
You should. It happens all the time, and more often than not whitewashed later so if you read the history later all looks dandy and nothing more than a minor healthy disagreement. Dan Shechtman had to wait for Linus Pauling to die to be unlabeled as fraud (and later receive a nobel). Turns out he wasn’t the first to observe the supposedly impossible 5-fold crystal symmetry - but he was the only one willing to risk his name and career to make it known (and was not far from being pushed out as a fraud). Barbara McClintock had a similar story with jumping genes. Semmelweis with washing hands. There are cranks, of course, and they likely outnumber the real discoverers 100:1 - but the price of knowledge is eternal vigilance against prevailing dogmas, especially those of deferring everything to leaders of the field.
ksangeelee 8y ago
The abstract for the study (which is behind a paywall) states of Thomas's work "While respectable for its time". The article doesn't feel like it reflects this sentiment. The title also seems unfairly overstated, claiming Thomas was 'spectacularly wrong'. He correctly identified where the rocks came from, to within a few miles of the location identified in the study.
21 8y ago
Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
rasz 8y ago
Very true. Remember that National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) peer reviewed "revalence of injury during CrossFit training" study telling you it causes harm (covered by hackernews multiple times)? Turns out it was 100% fabricated. https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/russell-berger-crossfit-science-lgbt https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/russell-berger-crossf...

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

Old mate’s been dead for 85 years. You’d think if someone had a better idea they’d have come forward with it earlier. I find it hard to believe no one spoke up because old dead guy is so renown.

toolslive 8y ago
The whole thing reminds me of the Piltdown man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man A friend of mine, who is an archaeologist once explained me there are topics in archaeology you cannot touch without risking your career.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

The expert was largely uncontested as the explanation he gave was adequate given the question being asked. More evidence was needed for a better explanation, and there wasn't a strong push to fund more research to answer "where did the stone for Stonehenge come from?" Though there can be some examples of scientists unwilling to question past experts, the bigger obstacle is the limited amount of evidence that scientists are able to collect.

vlz 8y ago
Yes, and I would emphasize the funding aspect. Archaeology is not a discipline we spend tons of money on anyway. I would expect errors to live on longer here than in say cancer research.

chriselrod 8y ago

Reminds me of Brian Wansink, the Cornell professor who was a "world-renowned eating expert for over 25 years". When statisticians finally started looking at his lab's work, they noticed absolutely extraordinary amounts of errors. Like, 150-errors-in-just-4-papers level of extraordinary. http://andrewgelman.com/2017/06/15/pizzagate-gets-even-ridiculous-either-not-read-previous-pizza-buffet-study-not-consider-part-literature-later-study-found/ http://andrewgelman.com/2017/06/15/pizzagate-gets-even-ridic...

beagle3 8y ago

You should. It happens all the time, and more often than not whitewashed later so if you read the history later all looks dandy and nothing more than a minor healthy disagreement. Dan Shechtman had to wait for Linus Pauling to die to be unlabeled as fraud (and later receive a nobel). Turns out he wasn’t the first to observe the supposedly impossible 5-fold crystal symmetry - but he was the only one willing to risk his name and career to make it known (and was not far from being pushed out as a fraud). Barbara McClintock had a similar story with jumping genes. Semmelweis with washing hands. There are cranks, of course, and they likely outnumber the real discoverers 100:1 - but the price of knowledge is eternal vigilance against prevailing dogmas, especially those of deferring everything to leaders of the field.

ksangeelee 8y ago

The abstract for the study (which is behind a paywall) states of Thomas's work "While respectable for its time". The article doesn't feel like it reflects this sentiment. The title also seems unfairly overstated, claiming Thomas was 'spectacularly wrong'. He correctly identified where the rocks came from, to within a few miles of the location identified in the study.

21 8y ago

Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

rasz 8y ago

Very true. Remember that National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) peer reviewed "revalence of injury during CrossFit training" study telling you it causes harm (covered by hackernews multiple times)? Turns out it was 100% fabricated. https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/russell-berger-crossfit-science-lgbt https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/russell-berger-crossf...