> I would submit we should be cautious with metaobservations like, "this is much older than other sites," because we should be trying to prove ourselves wrong,

> I would submit we should be cautious with metaobservations like, "this is much older than other sites," because we should be trying to prove ourselves wrong, whereas these sorts of metaobservations amplify confirmation bias. Both 'we should be trying to prove ourselves wrong' and 'Being so far out of line with other evidence means that the evidence in favor of hominids needs to be exceptionally rock solid' can both be valid at the same time. The base rate of a 'false positive' for extraordinary claims that conflict with an existing body of evidence is typically much higher so confidence in the evidence would need to quite strong for that piece of evidence to move the consensus. I'd consider myself largely a frequentist but the relevant xkcd [1] comes to mind I'd argue that ignoring that aspect can amplify one's susceptiblity to confirmation bias if one is predisposed to believing in a very early American hominid story for whatever reason. [1] https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/frequentists_vs_bayesians_2x.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/frequentists_vs_bayesians_2x.pn...