That thread doesn't describe any actual holes -- i.e., nothing which definitely refutes the researchers' claims -- it's just a lot of generic "I don't think sci

That thread doesn't describe any actual holes -- i.e., nothing which definitely refutes the researchers' claims -- it's just a lot of generic "I don't think science should be done this way" stone-throwing. Which, okay, there's a conversation to be had there, but don't mistake it as weakening the importance of the find. It's possible that the New Yorker has another Jonah Lehrer writing for them. It's possible that this author has conspired with a paleontologist to craft a total fabrication and describe mammal burrows that don't actually exist. It's possible that several other paleontologists are all participating in this fabrication, with the certain knowledge that it will destroy their careers and their reputation before very long. Or, alternatively, this particular paleontologist happened to be in the right place at the right time, and because of some past experiences, has developed an unconventional approach to handling his discoveries. Other researchers are participating, cautiously at first, and then getting excited by what they find. And, even if the working hypothesis -- that this site is a record of the last hours of the Cretaceous period -- turns out to be false for some reason, everyone is still working in good faith on what will turn out to be a monumentally important find anyway. It's a tough call, but I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment. Time will tell, I suppose.