4 ms·
But the same logic applies. Instead of innocent until proven guilty it's "not a new species" until there's sufficient evidence to establish that. I'm dubious t
by eloff 5y ago
But the same logic applies. Instead of innocent until proven guilty it's "not a new species" until there's sufficient evidence to establish that.
I'm dubious that they have that evidence, especially given their further unsubstantiated claims that they're ancestors of the neanderthals. The linked article discussed 0 evidence for why it's a new species. Presumably there's a published paper that goes into details.
- InfiniteRand 5y agoIt's a new discovery in science, which means it will be about 10 years before we know if it's 90% correct or not. Probably need to wait a year to rule out simple measurement errors. To some degree if a scientific discovery is news, it isn't firmly established, because if the entire field hasn't heard about it, it hasn't been properly vetted.
- rsj_hn 5y agoIndeed, the worst place to learn about scientific breakthroughs is in the news media, as there is an inherent interest to emphasize the newsworthiness of the result rather than letting the scientific community digest, reproduce, and integrate the finding into the overall state of the art, which is a slow process that doesn't show up in headlines.
- Arnt 5y agoOK, so what's sufficient evidence? You're "dubious that they have that evidence". What evidence is required, in your opinion, then? Speaking as a layman, my first guess at a suitable threshold would be: finding a large-enough, different-enough part of a skeleton/whatever that in the past such parts have seldom turned out to be an existing species.