New paper: Rebuttal of Holliday et al.’s comprehensive Gish gallop of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

A new paper has been accepted for publication in Airbursts and Cratering Impacts. Abstract below. The full paper will appear online, open access, in a few weeks.

Rebuttal of Holliday et al.’s comprehensive Gish gallop of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Martin B. Sweatman1*, James L. Powell2, Allen West3.

1. Martin B. Sweatman, Institute of Materials and Processes, School of Engineering, King’s Buildings, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FB, UK.

2. James L. Powell, University of Southern California, 3716 S. Hope St, Los Angeles, CA, 90007-4344, USA. Retired.

3. Allen West, Comet Research Group, 2204 Lakewood Drive, Prescott, AZ 86301, USA.

*Corresponding author: martin.sweatman@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

In an article comprising some 96,000 words, Holliday et al. (2023) (HEA) claim to have “comprehensively refuted” the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH), even though it has been corroborated by scores of articles in dozens of peer-reviewed journals based on the discovery of some combination of synchronous nanodiamonds, exotic microspherules and platinum enrichment at more than 50 Younger Dryas boundary sites on five continents. No hypothesis or theory is immune from criticism, but to “comprehensively refute” one so well established should require dispositive falsifying evidence. However, HEA provide no new evidence of their own and many of their arguments are based on faulty reasoning. Their remaining differences of opinion do not lend themselves to the falsification of an active hypothesis supported by an abundance of reproducible evidence, which now includes shocked quartz which is generally accepted to be produced only by cosmic impacts. Their article can therefore be called a Gish gallop; a long series of weak or flawed arguments designed to overwhelm an opponent. Since HEA’s claims are too many to respond to individually, we instead have selected portions of their article for critical analysis. By providing strong line-by-line counterarguments to their text we crucially show that they demonstrate a poor understanding of the logic required to test the YDIH and a poor understanding of uncertainty in experimental data analysis, and these problems infect many aspects of their review. We also show that they repeatedly distort the facts and make misleading claims or derisory remarks. In summary, their approach is a corruption of the scientific method. In fact, the YDIH remains in a very strong position and probably represents a second example to go along with the Alvarez Theory of an extraterrestrial event that affected life on Earth. A hypothesis with such potential should not be so casually dismissed and instead should continue to be the subject of research.

The Scientific Method. From Wikipedia.