Prehistory Decoded

Image from O'Keefe et al. (2023). Overall Summary In previous blog posts I critiqued several sections of Holliday et al.'s (2023) review of the YDIH, highlighting its many errors. No refutation arguments were encountered at all. In fact, the main disagreements all seem to concern matters of interpretation, for example radiocarbon evidence. This is normal in science, and not a reason to claim "refutation". Here I list the major errors encountered only in some of the sections of Holliday et al. I reviewed in this blog. Many of these points were made already by YDIH proponents in earlier papers, so it baffles me that they have been ignored by Holliday et al.. The remainder of Holliday et al. contains many more errors than in this list. 1.      Holliday et al. frequently avoid addressing valid tests of the YDIH by falsely claiming such tests represent circular reasoning. If valid tests like these are routinely rejected, then their viewpoint becomes a self-fulfilling proph

Jim Powell has just published a paper in the Journal of Academic Ethics called "Data vs Derision: the ethics of scientific publishing. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis as a case study". In it, he labels Holliday et al. and others as "pseudoskeptics", with good reason. He lists the criteria for identifying pseudoskeptics and then shows that Holliday et al. and others fit this description. Importantly, this paper has been peer reviewed by experts in academic ethics. Data vs. Derision: The Ethics of Language in Scientific Publication. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis as a Case Study | Journal of Academic Ethics (springer.com)