7 ms·

The relevant peer-reviewed preprint, from eLife [0]. It is worth reading the peer reviews (spoiler: they're brutal) [1]. [0]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewe

• pmckenna 3y ago
  Appreciate the note to check peer reviews, it certainly does cast these findings in a new light.
• contravariant 3y ago
  > An analysis also needs to start by testing a null hypothesis, not deciding on the conclusion and setting out to "prove" it. > I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be. > the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship. I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.
  • koheripbal 3y ago
    Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding. The original paper is just garbage
• zeroCalories 3y ago
  Tried reading the paper and it was surprisingly hard to understand, probably because I don't know anything about the field. That said, I think the critiques make sense. Still, both the peer review and the response in the articles seem so extreme, I wonder if there is something else going on here. Is there some political or ideological divide in this field?
• dilawar 3y ago
  Kudos to eLife for pioneering publishing peer review along with paper.