Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#2You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent)
So I'd bet against it.
The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence contradicting it -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-austra...
It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#3I'll note that one of the co-authors, Ben Marwick, has been very active in elevating reproducible computing practices in research. My understanding is that there's code and data available for this research.
Also, here's a short bit about reproducibility from Marwick that is worth a read for anyone in academia: http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-w...
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#4You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) So I'd bet against it. The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence contradicting it - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-austra... It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent)
> So I'd bet against it.
That argument would seem to imply that all published research is wrong
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#5You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) So I'd bet against it. The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence contradicting it - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-austra... It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) > So I'd bet against it. That argument would seem to imply that all published research is wrong
Most research(I'd guess) doesn't contradict other research/theory, it tells of discovery.
No one has proven there's no 9th planet for instance. No one's proven drug X doesn't help with disease Y.
Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)
Of course conformity with theory is also a problem, we think it's 50,000 years so we make our study on X (aka DNA) conform with this.
But both articles are HN worthy and one is wrong. So if you're not skeptical then there's a problem with your world view.
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#6You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) So I'd bet against it. The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence contradicting it - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-austra... It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent)
Reproducing studies and publishing the results is a hallmark of science so I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to.
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an extent) > So I'd bet against it. That argument would seem to imply that all published research is wrong
Most research(I'd guess) doesn't contradict other research/theory, it tells of discovery. No one has proven there's no 9th planet for instance. No one's proven drug X doesn't help with disease Y. Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link) Of course conformity with theory is also a problem, we think it's 50,000 years so we make our study on X (aka DNA) conform with this. But both articles…
Perhaps the 65000 years people didn't leave any descendants. Or perhaps that DNA research wasn't definitive.
You say there are multiple things that contradict it. What are the others? It can't be evidence of people being there at more recent times -- that doesn't contradict evidence that they were there earlier.
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#8I'll note that one of the co-authors, Ben Marwick, has been very active in elevating reproducible computing practices in research. My understanding is that there's code and data available for this research. Also, here's a short bit about reproducibility from Marwick that is worth a read for anyone in academia: http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-w...
[deleted]
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#9I prefer the version published in The Conversation [1] by the researches themselves. It contains more details including one part left out of the NYTimes version: that the work was done with the approval of the Aboriginal people who control the site:
"To make new research possible, a landmark agreement was reached between the University of Queensland (and associated researchers) and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation representing the Mirarr traditional owners of the site.
The agreement gave ultimate control over the excavation to the Mirarr senior custodians, with oversight of the excavation and curation of the material. The Mirarr were interested to support new research into the age of the site and to know more about the early evidence of technologies thought to be present there."
[1] [ https://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a... ]
Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years
#10I'll note that one of the co-authors, Ben Marwick, has been very active in elevating reproducible computing practices in research. My understanding is that there's code and data available for this research. Also, here's a short bit about reproducibility from Marwick that is worth a read for anyone in academia: http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-w...
[deleted]