3 ms·
The retracted study in TFA was on HN's front page several times late last year [1][2]. Commenters in both threads pointed out the problem that eventually cause
by throwup238 2y ago
The retracted study in TFA was on HN's front page several times late last year [1][2]. Commenters in both threads pointed out the problem that eventually caused the retraction:
> They use the generic SHCal20 calibration curve for the southern hemisphere which is generally fine for testing bone and some plant matter but they didn't find any fossilized plants and I doubt it's accurate for soil samples in a volcanically active area. Gunung Padang sits atop an extinct volcano and Mount Gede is miles away uphill with active vents and hot springs. Local emissions of C14 depleted carbon dioxide and dissolution of ancient carbonate minerals in groundwater usually throws those numbers way off. The samples will appear older because the volcanoes are constantly dumping C14-poor carbon into the environment from deep in the earth. -civilitty [1]
> It looks like all 7 of their C14 dated samples were simply "organic soil", no artifacts or charcoal. If you're going to build a pyramid by piling soil and rocks, then the soil will be older than the pyramid. The authors don't mention having done any core samples away from the pyramid as a control group. It seems like they have, at best, proved that Gunung Padang contains old soil, without proving anything about the age of the pyramid itself. -driggs [2]
From the retraction:
> This error, which was not identified during peer review, is that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were not associated with any artifacts or features that could be reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or “man-made.” Therefore, the interpretation that the site is an ancient pyramid built 9000 or more years ago is incorrect, and the article must be retracted. [3]
[1] New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is oldest known pyramid (40 comments) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510
[2] The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep past, study claim (40 comments) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38181200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38181200
[3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1932 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1932
- gylterud 2y agoIt is interesting that HN commentators spotted this, while peer review didn’t. I often get great comments from peer review, but I used to worry that some critical mistake would be missed (one time there was!). My work is purely theoretical, so these days I formalise everything in a proof assistant. But in empirical science, there is no such certainty to be had. There really should be some kind of comment section under the published works.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nurettin 2y agoThat comment section should be moderated and merit points need to be awarded based on the personal opinions of other armchair experts.