4 ms·

TLDR YDIH, if you watched Ancient Apocalypse this is what Gobekli Tepe episode was about. I thought it's debunked.

torlok 2y ago
It's a widely criticised hypothesis, because it doesn't fit the geological record. It's mostly propped up by interpretations like these.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
findthewords 2y ago
Data is incomplete. It is difficult to definitively "debunk" or "prove" as long as crucial information is missing. Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful. And scientists (humans) "use imagination to fill in the gaps" in ways that can be put to the test, "which is wonderful".
cryptonector 2y ago
The evidence for the YDIH is quite strong. But as usual science only makes progress one obituary at a time. Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit. It's an exercise in producing and testing hypothesis. For sciences that study the past it's harder to test because you can't build a test, but you can still check that a hypothesis is consistent with all the data available so far and any future new finds about the past. In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). Before sonar evidence showed that the continents must move, geologists would say that the tectonics theory was debunked (using whatever the appropriate term was then). Well here we are now saying the exact opposite. The only thing we can say with certainty right now is that we don't have consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas at this time. To say that the YDIH is debunked is not true and not helpful.
- jschveibinz 2y ago
  "Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit." May your words echo in the hallways of this forum!
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Don't hold your breath. HN is full of people with credentials, and people with credentials tend to push credentialism, and that means deferring to the experts on other fields so that others will defer to one in one's field of expertise. Mike Shapiro at Sun was fond of telling us that "we're not specialists -- we're generalists who can specialize as needed". I think that is a good attitude in general. It doesn't mean we get to weigh in on things we know nothing about, but it does mean we get to do critical thinking and that we can self-educate in order to form opinions when necessary.
    - wkearney99 2y ago
      And sensibility to recognize when having (let alone voicing) an opinion isn't necessary.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  >> In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). In that case, how do can we tell that's what happened?
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Antonio Zamora is a scientist studying this who writes papers and posts videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora and he does a good job of showing how the Carolina bays point towards the impact location, and what not. I'm not going to summarize it all here, but the point is that there is some, and perhaps enough evidence to go on.

It's a widely criticised hypothesis, because it doesn't fit the geological record. It's mostly propped up by interpretations like these.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

findthewords 2y ago

Data is incomplete. It is difficult to definitively "debunk" or "prove" as long as crucial information is missing. Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful.

cryptonector 2y ago
> Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful. And scientists (humans) "use imagination to fill in the gaps" in ways that can be put to the test, "which is wonderful".

cryptonector 2y ago

The evidence for the YDIH is quite strong. But as usual science only makes progress one obituary at a time. Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit. It's an exercise in producing and testing hypothesis. For sciences that study the past it's harder to test because you can't build a test, but you can still check that a hypothesis is consistent with all the data available so far and any future new finds about the past. In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). Before sonar evidence showed that the continents must move, geologists would say that the tectonics theory was debunked (using whatever the appropriate term was then). Well here we are now saying the exact opposite. The only thing we can say with certainty right now is that we don't have consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas at this time. To say that the YDIH is debunked is not true and not helpful.

jschveibinz 2y ago
"Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit." May your words echo in the hallways of this forum!
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Don't hold your breath. HN is full of people with credentials, and people with credentials tend to push credentialism, and that means deferring to the experts on other fields so that others will defer to one in one's field of expertise. Mike Shapiro at Sun was fond of telling us that "we're not specialists -- we're generalists who can specialize as needed". I think that is a good attitude in general. It doesn't mean we get to weigh in on things we know nothing about, but it does mean we get to do critical thinking and that we can self-educate in order to form opinions when necessary.
  - wkearney99 2y ago
    And sensibility to recognize when having (let alone voicing) an opinion isn't necessary.
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). In that case, how do can we tell that's what happened?
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Antonio Zamora is a scientist studying this who writes papers and posts videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora https://www.youtube.com/@Antonio_Zamora and he does a good job of showing how the Carolina bays point towards the impact location, and what not. I'm not going to summarize it all here, but the point is that there is some, and perhaps enough evidence to go on.