New York Times Magazine reveals Boslough tried to end the YDIH

 


The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) featured on the New York Times Magazine this week.

The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won’t Die - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The article is well balanced, giving both sides of the story. The most interesting thing I learned was that Mark Boslough, long-time antagonist of the YDIH, has tried to end research into the YDIH.

Apparently, and this is confirmed by those who should know, he wrote to all the editors of journals that ever have published pro-YDIH papers, lobbying them to retract those papers.

I don't know of any scientist that would even think of doing this, yet alone actually carry it out. While it is quite normal to seek a retraction if there is good evidence of some kind of scientific malpractice, such as plagiarism or tampered results, it is not ethical to seek a retraction because you disagree with the science or if requests for samples have been denied. This is because writing to all the editors could bias the scientific process, which is forbidden. The proper way to deal with this is to submit your own paper that focusses exclusively on the science in a respectful way. 

But Holliday et al. can't even do that. Despite not carrying out any new investigations, they disrespectfully include accusations of pseudoscience along with entire sections of ad hominem argument in their paper, which is normally proscribed.

See, for example, Elsevier's own policy on publishing (Elsevier publish Earth-Science Reviews in which Holliday et al. was published);

"For all these reasons and more, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journals. This includes all parties treating each other with respect and dignity and without discrimination, harassment, bullying or retaliation."

Publishing ethics | Elsevier policy

Fortunately, it seems Boslough's letters did not result in any retractions. Nevertheless, they could still have biased the independence of journal editors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Debunking YouTube's archaeoastronomy skeptics

Image
                                    Image from Scijinks.gov Some YouTube commentators, like Milo Rossi of MiniMinuteman and Stefan Milo, have made ignorant comments about the astronomical interpretation of Gobekli Tepe and Pillar 43. Below, I make the scientific case for this interpretation. Q: What is science? A: Science attempts to create consistent models of reality. Q: What is a good model? A: One that has a lot of explaining power relative to its inputs. This is also known as Occam's razor, parsimony, and model efficiency. Q: How do we measure the 'explaining power'? A: There are many ways, but the best is to use statistical methods, including hypothesis testing. Examples of statistics in science Suppose 100 pills given to a random sample of people, of which 50 are placebos. Suppose all those taking the pill are dead by the next day, but none of those taking the placebo are dead. Conclusion: the pill is deadly. The hypothesis “The pill is deadly” is made a posteriori
Read more

Holliday et al.'s (2023) Gish Gallop: timing of the Younger-Dryas onset and Greenland platinum spike

Image
The location of several Greenland ice cores, from Steffensen et al. (2008). Over the next few months/year I'll post a regular series of blog posts that deconstruct Holliday et al.'s (2023) (henceforth, just Holliday et al.) "comprehensive refutation" of the YDIH. Some common themes will become apparent. Essentially, there are no refutation arguments at all in it, so their title is misleading. Remember, the meaning of 'refute' is to 'disprove', but there are no arguments in Holliday et al. that disprove the YDIH. It's also worth looking up the  'Gish gallop' fallacy, because that is what is happening here. Holliday et al.'s paper might be extremely long, but it is lacking in serious arguments, and there are certainly no refutations. First up in this blog post is the timing of the YD climate change (specifically its onset) and the Greenland platinum spike. The relevant sections of Holliday et al. are 3.3 and 5.1. My comments are in itali
Read more

Gobekli Tepe's Pillars

Image
Significance: Gobekli Tepe (GT) probably represents the origin of civilisation for most of the world today. Most of us are connected to it in some way, through language and religion (proto-Nostratic), or genetics at least. The Pillars: GT is famous for its anomalous megalithic pillars, and especially the symbols carved on them. Most people think these symbols are telling an important story - they are not just random pictures of animals. Klauss Schmidt, who discovered GT and led its excavation, until his death in 2014, certainly thought so. It follows that the only way we will ever be able to properly understand Gobekli Tepe, and therefore the origin of civilisation, is through reading its pillars. Deutsche Archaeological Institute : the DAI operates the Gobekli Tepe dig. Despite the immense significance of the site, they continue to have a casual disregard for the information encoded on its pillars. Over 60 pillars have been uncovered, but only around 20 are documented by the DAI. Alt
Read more