5 ms·
But Brusatte said there remained some legitimate concerns about the integrity of the fossil. “There have been doctored fossils from this part of the world befor
by 23B1 3y ago
But Brusatte said there remained some legitimate concerns about the integrity of the fossil. “There have been doctored fossils from this part of the world before, and the scientists did not dig up this specimen themselves. The skeletons are no doubt genuine, but I suppose the poses of the bones could have been altered, although I have no direct evidence for this,” he said.
The downstream effects of a post-truth post-trust era.
- zgluck 3y ago"There have been doctored fossils from this part of the world before" - so, he obviously means "from China". This kind of etiquette is weird. (And of course I pretty immediately felt the voting feedback on why. So much pride in a dictatorship; that is also weird.)
- maxbond 3y agoMaybe they meant that region of China. Or maybe they just liked that phrase. I think you're reading too much into this.
- Etrnl_President 3y agoBest China > West China
- Kamq 3y ago> The downstream effects of a post-truth post-trust era. All this era has shown us, is that we should never have been relying on trust in anything even close to science. Trusting people to put the truth their own career advancement is how we got into this mess with the replication crisis.
- wredue 3y ago[flagged]
- edgyquant 3y agoNope this is false and a gaslight perpetuated by vested interest. I thought the same btw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36790301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36790301
- indigochill 3y agoUltimately I believe people are conflating terms: 1. Science as an institution of academics, some of whom have demonstrably prioritized their career over doing their job (and even when that's not the case, has been shown to be wrong if you go back far enough to various scientific theories that were disproved by later discoveries), and... 2. Science as a process of inquiry that begins with an observation which leads to a hypothesis which is then put to the test through experimentation. This needn't be a process limited to academic science, either, but can be exercised in many areas of life. I suspect we all generally agree that Science #1 should usually be taken with some salt (even in the best scenario, once you take science at its word, you've stopped doing science, though there are times, like gravity, when for practical purposes you can accept a high degree of technically-non-perfect certainty is close enough), and Science #2 is generally good for either reinforcing or correcting our understanding of the world.
- wredue 3y agoYou didn’t ever think the same. You’re an anti-science, anti-intellectual because it helps prop up your fascist desires.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoThis is disingenuous. Glorifying 'science' (which can be entirely shoddy to 'gold standard' and cover the whole gamut of garbage to spot on, which can change weekly) and dismissing cultural knowledge (i.e. how certain plants remedy ailments), generational knowledge (i.e. what weather changes mean), lived experience and non-accredited research because 'it's not science.' You have to be critical of everything (reasonably), do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Or you can just believe that everything not 'published science' is wild internet crackpot theory if that makes life easier for you.
- stephen_g 3y agoAll science is based on some kind of trust unless everybody personally replicates every single study and experiment...
- Kamq 3y agoOn some level, sure. But there's a difference between trusting two rival institutions that come to the same conclusion, and trusting a single research team that stands to advance quite significantly from a particular publishing.
- earthbee 3y agoIt's not exactly a new phenomenon. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/f...
- 23B1 3y agoAh okay I feel better then.