3 ms·

This is widely considered a crank conspiracy theory, not even something that would qualify as controversial. There are many people that have debunked this, and

This is widely considered a crank conspiracy theory, not even something that would qualify as controversial. There are many people that have debunked this, and this wikipedia section is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...

ellopoppit 4y ago
That's not how science works. The theory has been debated, not debunked. Calling a debated theory regarding an event of uncertain origin a "crank conspiracy theory" is anti-scientific and just plain silly
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  That is exactly how science works. The have presented a hypothesis that has not stood up to scrutiny and doesn't fit the evidence. Instead of looking for new hypothesis and they resubmit the same one with modified evidence each time. They are invested in the outcome, not they data, and they are as far from the spirit of science as people can be. The core proponents of YDIH are scammers going on the Joe Rogan Experience to trick the gullible and make more money. They were off on their comet impact crater age by 57,990,000 years. Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons proposing it from further part in the discussion. Even if you remove the people from the discussion, no part of the theory stands up to scrutiny aside from a warming trend that's better fit by other less dramatic root causes.
  - ellopoppit 4y ago
    >Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons proposing it from further part in the discussion. That's not how science works. If scientists make hypothesis based on prelimary evidence which turns out later to be erroneous based on new evidence, that does not banish them from science. What a silly anti-scientific notion that is. You're playing the same ideological game that the critics of heliocentrism, antisceptics, vaccinology, plate tectonics, the Alvarez hypothesis, etc. all played. Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping.
    - RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
      >Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping. 1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification. 2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting.
      - ellopoppit 4y ago
        >1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification Doubt is intrinsic to falsification you silly goose! >2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting. Indeed that may seem linguistically ironic at first, until you study the history and how the most ground breaking science has always been persecuted by gatekeepers. Like a finger pointing at the moon, if you get hung up on the finger, you'll miss the moon.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    The biggest piece of evidence of the impact hypothesis is the YBD black mat with impact proxies in it. Mega-fauna and clovis culture below the black mat and...none of it above. As far as I know the only way to get a black mat layer with impact proxies is with an impact. For the Chicxulub impact the black mat with impact proxies was the clincher that settled the hypothesis that an asteroid wiped out the dinos.
    - throwaway5752 4y ago
      From my link above: "Research published in 2012 has shown that the so-called "black mats" are easily explained by typical earth processes in wetland environments.[e][96] The study of black mats, that are common in prehistorical wetland deposits which represent shallow marshlands, that were from 6000 to 40,000 years ago in the southwestern USA and Atacama Desert in Chile, showed elevated concentrations of iridium and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules and titanomagnetite grains. It was suggested that because these markers are found within or at the base of black mats, irrespective of age or location, they probably arise from processes common to wetland systems and not as a result of catastrophic bolide impacts" As for, "For the Chicxulub impact the black mat with impact proxies was the clincher that settled the hypothesis that an asteroid wiped out the dinos." the black mats in YDIH are completely distinct from the global KT boundary, not comparable. And the shocked quartz, crater rim, gravity anomaly, expected spherulite distribution around the world, and myriad other pieces of evidence at the Chicxulub site that lined up with the KT bound based on multiple time estimation techniques (as well as much, much better fit with observed extinction patterns in existing biota).
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        The incontrovertible evidence is worldwide platinum concentration spikes, coupled with soot from continent-spanning conflagrations, without corresponding sulfur fluctuations. Read the linked paper. It is solid. The people calling it cranky have been caught doing all kinds of shenanigans, such as calling melt glass spherules "pollen" without ever looking at any with an electron microscope, and sampling cores at the wrong places, carefully straddling the actual date. Scientists can be as petty as any pol. The Wikipedia page is "curated" by one of those, a retired historian with no background in geology.
fallingfrog 4y ago
I don't think this is a crank theory, it was put forward by real scientists, not random members of the general public. It looks to me like the consensus leans heavily towards it not being correct but it's not a crazy idea. I'm getting the sense that this has maybe become politicized for some reason? Why?
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  I would firmly disagree with you. I think you are falling for an argument to moderation. You can look at most fringe theories in history and find nominal scientists that support it. Scientists are people, too, and are subject to all sorts of human mental weaknesses. This is a crank theory because it starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it, and for a long time. Read this linked paper - really scrutinize the data, the charts, and the conclusions. There are simpler explanations that fit the data better, and the impact data is really dubious. I am not reacting to the point that some people wish there was a technically advanced pre-Clovis culture that was submerged (aka, Atlantis without admitting it is Atlantis). I am looking at the ice core data in this paper, the extinction records, and the time scales involved. They do not add up.
  - fallingfrog 4y ago
    Well, you seem like you’ve researched this more closely than I have. I really haven’t dug in at all except for the Wikipedia page. I’m comfortable admitting that I know less about this than you do.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      He has not, in fact, researched it scrupulously. He is the crank he accuses all of us as.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    When is 'starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it' a bad thing? A lot of physics discoveries started with a hypothesis, then scientists tried to set up experiments to look for empirical data to confirm the hypothesis. If that's your only objection to these theories, maybe you're starting with your own conclusion yourself.

ellopoppit 4y ago

That's not how science works. The theory has been debated, not debunked. Calling a debated theory regarding an event of uncertain origin a "crank conspiracy theory" is anti-scientific and just plain silly

throwaway5752 4y ago
That is exactly how science works. The have presented a hypothesis that has not stood up to scrutiny and doesn't fit the evidence. Instead of looking for new hypothesis and they resubmit the same one with modified evidence each time. They are invested in the outcome, not they data, and they are as far from the spirit of science as people can be. The core proponents of YDIH are scammers going on the Joe Rogan Experience to trick the gullible and make more money. They were off on their comet impact crater age by 57,990,000 years. Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons proposing it from further part in the discussion. Even if you remove the people from the discussion, no part of the theory stands up to scrutiny aside from a warming trend that's better fit by other less dramatic root causes.
- ellopoppit 4y ago
  >Thinking a crater was 10,000 years old when it's actually 57,000,000 year old is so fantastically incorrect that it should immediately disqualify the persons proposing it from further part in the discussion. That's not how science works. If scientists make hypothesis based on prelimary evidence which turns out later to be erroneous based on new evidence, that does not banish them from science. What a silly anti-scientific notion that is. You're playing the same ideological game that the critics of heliocentrism, antisceptics, vaccinology, plate tectonics, the Alvarez hypothesis, etc. all played. Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping.
  - RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
    >Real science is based on humility and doubt, not arrogance and gate keeping. 1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification. 2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting.
    - ellopoppit 4y ago
      >1: No, real science is based on evidence and falsification Doubt is intrinsic to falsification you silly goose! >2: I find your gatekeeping statement about science not being about gatekeeping interesting. Indeed that may seem linguistically ironic at first, until you study the history and how the most ground breaking science has always been persecuted by gatekeepers. Like a finger pointing at the moon, if you get hung up on the finger, you'll miss the moon.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  The biggest piece of evidence of the impact hypothesis is the YBD black mat with impact proxies in it. Mega-fauna and clovis culture below the black mat and...none of it above. As far as I know the only way to get a black mat layer with impact proxies is with an impact. For the Chicxulub impact the black mat with impact proxies was the clincher that settled the hypothesis that an asteroid wiped out the dinos.
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    From my link above: "Research published in 2012 has shown that the so-called "black mats" are easily explained by typical earth processes in wetland environments.[e][96] The study of black mats, that are common in prehistorical wetland deposits which represent shallow marshlands, that were from 6000 to 40,000 years ago in the southwestern USA and Atacama Desert in Chile, showed elevated concentrations of iridium and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules and titanomagnetite grains. It was suggested that because these markers are found within or at the base of black mats, irrespective of age or location, they probably arise from processes common to wetland systems and not as a result of catastrophic bolide impacts" As for, "For the Chicxulub impact the black mat with impact proxies was the clincher that settled the hypothesis that an asteroid wiped out the dinos." the black mats in YDIH are completely distinct from the global KT boundary, not comparable. And the shocked quartz, crater rim, gravity anomaly, expected spherulite distribution around the world, and myriad other pieces of evidence at the Chicxulub site that lined up with the KT bound based on multiple time estimation techniques (as well as much, much better fit with observed extinction patterns in existing biota).
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      The incontrovertible evidence is worldwide platinum concentration spikes, coupled with soot from continent-spanning conflagrations, without corresponding sulfur fluctuations. Read the linked paper. It is solid. The people calling it cranky have been caught doing all kinds of shenanigans, such as calling melt glass spherules "pollen" without ever looking at any with an electron microscope, and sampling cores at the wrong places, carefully straddling the actual date. Scientists can be as petty as any pol. The Wikipedia page is "curated" by one of those, a retired historian with no background in geology.

fallingfrog 4y ago

I don't think this is a crank theory, it was put forward by real scientists, not random members of the general public. It looks to me like the consensus leans heavily towards it not being correct but it's not a crazy idea. I'm getting the sense that this has maybe become politicized for some reason? Why?

throwaway5752 4y ago
I would firmly disagree with you. I think you are falling for an argument to moderation. You can look at most fringe theories in history and find nominal scientists that support it. Scientists are people, too, and are subject to all sorts of human mental weaknesses. This is a crank theory because it starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it, and for a long time. Read this linked paper - really scrutinize the data, the charts, and the conclusions. There are simpler explanations that fit the data better, and the impact data is really dubious. I am not reacting to the point that some people wish there was a technically advanced pre-Clovis culture that was submerged (aka, Atlantis without admitting it is Atlantis). I am looking at the ice core data in this paper, the extinction records, and the time scales involved. They do not add up.
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  Well, you seem like you’ve researched this more closely than I have. I really haven’t dug in at all except for the Wikipedia page. I’m comfortable admitting that I know less about this than you do.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    He has not, in fact, researched it scrupulously. He is the crank he accuses all of us as.
- hnfong 4y ago
  When is 'starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it' a bad thing? A lot of physics discoveries started with a hypothesis, then scientists tried to set up experiments to look for empirical data to confirm the hypothesis. If that's your only objection to these theories, maybe you're starting with your own conclusion yourself.