5 ms·

The attack on this paper is remarkably ad-hominem: in the PubPeer discussion [1], there are 21 tweets from Broslough, over a period of an hour and a half, befor

The attack on this paper is remarkably ad-hominem: in the PubPeer discussion [1], there are 21 tweets from Broslough, over a period of an hour and a half, before he admits that, at that point, he had not even read the paper! At this point, just two substantive issues have been raised (neither by Broslough): there seems to have been a mistake in the C14 date analysis, and some of the photographs appear to contain repetitive features. The former issue is plausibly a simple mistake, and I wonder if it would have any bearing on the question of whether there is evidence of an airburst here. The latter seems more serious, if it indicates that pictures have been doctored, but, as the person raising the issue says, this may be cleared up by examining the originals. While a religious agenda may well distort scholarship, it certainly does not have to. As the only (so far) comment on the Retraction Watch article says, "most of the challenges here are ad hominem against the authors – the same criticism we make about pseudo-science defenders." [1] https://pubpeer.com/publications/37B87CAC48DE4BC98AD40E00330143 https://pubpeer.com/publications/37B87CAC48DE4BC98AD40E00330...

nemo 5y ago
Broslough has many criticisms in his threads that go well beyond mere ad-hominems and I don't think there's a real ad hominem in anything he wrote. Pointing out that a researcher has no scientific training and is working out of a strip-mall university is not an ad hominem. Science is driven by expertise, and non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion - that isn't an ad hominem, it's the correct method for dealing with any domain requiring expertise. He didn't merely criticize their lack of credentials esp. the lack of geologists, but criticized how they practiced stratigraphy for collecting samples for the supposed shocked quartz, as well as going into a details thread showing why their claims of quartz shock were unrealistic, and pointing out that the presented evidence of the supposedly shocked quartz did not actually appear to show that at all. There's a whole lot of problems with that paper, the science isn't there, the people who wrote it largely had no relevant scientific training and made many blunders, the evidence presented is unreliable, the analysis is deeply flawed. A number of trained scientists have weighed in now with substantial critiques of virtually every part of the evidence presented: https://twitter.com/ChrisStantis/status/1440404380386160646 https://twitter.com/ChrisStantis/status/1440404380386160646 https://twitter.com/petrabonegirl/status/1440833392006688768 https://twitter.com/petrabonegirl/status/1440833392006688768 https://twitter.com/FlintDibble/status/1440416847841546247 https://twitter.com/FlintDibble/status/1440416847841546247 https://twitter.com/MTB_Archaeology/status/1440473335687630865 https://twitter.com/MTB_Archaeology/status/14404733356876308... https://twitter.com/elleryfrahm/status/1440510054369677314 https://twitter.com/elleryfrahm/status/1440510054369677314 https://twitter.com/NErbSatullo/status/1440615036691501059 https://twitter.com/NErbSatullo/status/1440615036691501059 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1440654636705140747 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1440654636705140747
- shusaku 5y ago
  Part of the problem is that twitter is just awful. It’s really hard to find the relevant parts of the discussion. But it’s a fascinating research topic, so I’m quite enjoying the discussion. Thanks for laying out the links.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Pointing out that a researcher has no scientific training and is working out of a strip-mall university is not an ad hominem Yeah, both of those are ad hominem. > Science is driven by expertise, No, science is driven by methodology, including criticism that avoids appeal to authority and other personal characteristics of researchers to focus on the objective characteristics of the work. > and non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion Science isn't opinion-based. > non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion - that isn't an ad hominem, it's the correct method for dealing with any domain requiring expertise. It is ad hominem (argument to personal qualities of the proponent of the position rather than directly to the merits of the position), whether or not you view it as correct.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    Sounds like OP is a proponent of scientism -- where the authority of scientists and their opinions form the basis of a worldview. Scientists aren't priests. Once they become that, for one, science itself is in danger of stagnation.
  - bjt2n3904 5y ago
    A magnificent rebuttal. People bemoan the "lack of trust in science" -- but any "science" that acts like this is not science at all.
    - TimTheTinker 5y ago
      I think a genuine "trust in science" (i.e. in the method alone) manifests itself primarily as a desire to learn about the world first-hand. "Why does this happen?" "Let's make an experiment and see if we can find out!" I'm not just talking about kids. All of us would do well to keep an objective mindset, experiment, and hold opinions lightly enough to change them when the data tells us otherwise. Ironically, this kind of trust also causes us to question the opinions and conclusions of scientists, wanting to replicate their experiments or look at studies with similar subject areas—because it's the method we trust, not the (imperfect) people who are practicing it. On the other hand, people bemoaning a "lack of trust in science" are (perhaps unwittingly) encouraging people to look to scientists like they might have to priests in bygone eras.

nemo 5y ago

Broslough has many criticisms in his threads that go well beyond mere ad-hominems and I don't think there's a real ad hominem in anything he wrote. Pointing out that a researcher has no scientific training and is working out of a strip-mall university is not an ad hominem. Science is driven by expertise, and non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion - that isn't an ad hominem, it's the correct method for dealing with any domain requiring expertise. He didn't merely criticize their lack of credentials esp. the lack of geologists, but criticized how they practiced stratigraphy for collecting samples for the supposed shocked quartz, as well as going into a details thread showing why their claims of quartz shock were unrealistic, and pointing out that the presented evidence of the supposedly shocked quartz did not actually appear to show that at all. There's a whole lot of problems with that paper, the science isn't there, the people who wrote it largely had no relevant scientific training and made many blunders, the evidence presented is unreliable, the analysis is deeply flawed. A number of trained scientists have weighed in now with substantial critiques of virtually every part of the evidence presented: https://twitter.com/ChrisStantis/status/1440404380386160646 https://twitter.com/ChrisStantis/status/1440404380386160646 https://twitter.com/petrabonegirl/status/1440833392006688768 https://twitter.com/petrabonegirl/status/1440833392006688768 https://twitter.com/FlintDibble/status/1440416847841546247 https://twitter.com/FlintDibble/status/1440416847841546247 https://twitter.com/MTB_Archaeology/status/1440473335687630865 https://twitter.com/MTB_Archaeology/status/14404733356876308... https://twitter.com/elleryfrahm/status/1440510054369677314 https://twitter.com/elleryfrahm/status/1440510054369677314 https://twitter.com/NErbSatullo/status/1440615036691501059 https://twitter.com/NErbSatullo/status/1440615036691501059 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1440654636705140747 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1440654636705140747

shusaku 5y ago
Part of the problem is that twitter is just awful. It’s really hard to find the relevant parts of the discussion. But it’s a fascinating research topic, so I’m quite enjoying the discussion. Thanks for laying out the links.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Pointing out that a researcher has no scientific training and is working out of a strip-mall university is not an ad hominem Yeah, both of those are ad hominem. > Science is driven by expertise, No, science is driven by methodology, including criticism that avoids appeal to authority and other personal characteristics of researchers to focus on the objective characteristics of the work. > and non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion Science isn't opinion-based. > non-expert opinion is correctly regarded as less reliable than expert opinion - that isn't an ad hominem, it's the correct method for dealing with any domain requiring expertise. It is ad hominem (argument to personal qualities of the proponent of the position rather than directly to the merits of the position), whether or not you view it as correct.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  Sounds like OP is a proponent of scientism -- where the authority of scientists and their opinions form the basis of a worldview. Scientists aren't priests. Once they become that, for one, science itself is in danger of stagnation.
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  A magnificent rebuttal. People bemoan the "lack of trust in science" -- but any "science" that acts like this is not science at all.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    I think a genuine "trust in science" (i.e. in the method alone) manifests itself primarily as a desire to learn about the world first-hand. "Why does this happen?" "Let's make an experiment and see if we can find out!" I'm not just talking about kids. All of us would do well to keep an objective mindset, experiment, and hold opinions lightly enough to change them when the data tells us otherwise. Ironically, this kind of trust also causes us to question the opinions and conclusions of scientists, wanting to replicate their experiments or look at studies with similar subject areas—because it's the method we trust, not the (imperfect) people who are practicing it. On the other hand, people bemoaning a "lack of trust in science" are (perhaps unwittingly) encouraging people to look to scientists like they might have to priests in bygone eras.