20 ms·

I think they are saying that they stopped reading the Twitter posts, not the article.

• fhars 8y ago
  And the twitter thread is what is good and should be read. The piece in the NewYorker makes it look like DePalma's work makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of the extinction of the dinosaurs, while the twitter thread (and https://twitter.com/SteveBrusatte/status/1111669545285107714 https://twitter.com/SteveBrusatte/status/1111669545285107714 cited therein) point out that the actual paper published about the discovery doesn't even mention dinosaours and that DePalma is just acting as "a pulp novel caricature of a paleontologist" following the established script of "Go to the press, get your fame, let the academics argue while the public goes 'Wowwww'". All the while violating the embargo on the paper.
  • minecrafter6561 8y ago
    >the actual paper published about the discovery the "actual" paper hasn't been published yet, if you read the article you would see that most of the details have been secret. also this article does mention dinosaurs on two accounts, perhaps the first feathers ever found at hell's creater were found at this digsite as well as the hipbone of another dinosaur
  • mcguire 8y ago
    If science by press release is bad, how is science by Twitter better?
    • Fomite 8y ago
      Twitter is discussing things, not making a sensational PR claim.