Posted: Nov 27, 2022 8:44 pm
by Spearthrower
I am still nowhere near at a point of understanding here. The implications seem stunning - the kind of breathless headline you'd find in a science article in a non-scientific magazine or newspaper - but it really is an example of 'if true, this changes everything' - yet the paper itself seems to have produced relatively little impact with very few citations. I can't find out why barely anyone is talking about it... because barely anyone is talking about it! Usually, you'd expect to see treatments of this from public palaeoanthropologists within days, but even nearly a year later, few seem to have considered it worth discussing, at best merely reporting it. The best answers from those who have attempted some kind of treatment of it are really concerned mostly with methodology, not suggesting that this specific dating is mistaken, but rather suggesting that the contradictions between different dating techniques regarding this site are currently irresoluble, and something like a double-blind analysis needs to be performed to begin assessing the accuracy and error bars produced by the different techniques.