Thanks for your thoughts. It takes guts to share opinions that take on a very popular team. Team science always wins in the end. Eventually
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Thanks so much! It's not so much about going against the flow, I just want the science out there!
@annw7843
11 ай бұрын
This video was very well articulated. From my point of view there are a few factors that go into the approach taken. 1) The rising star team has been trying to be as open access as possible, and are trying to navigate modernization of the academic publishing process. 2) Needs for funding: The rising star team is huge, and with political issues in South Africa, the team likely assumed (and I’m guessing that they’re correct) that the only way to continue getting funding would be by remaining at the forefront of public consciousness. 3) Content being shared: beyond claiming evidence of dug burials, everything else published was merely observational. The team likely thought observational material is safe to publish without peer review, and publishing earlier helps avoid information leeks that may occur due to the size of the team and due to being a very well know project at this point, and helps with the funding issue outlined in (2). 4) Most of the claims beyond observational claims have been made by Lee in interviews or speaking engagements. Lee already has a well known reputation for getting a little ahead of himself sometimes. All in all, from an outsider point of view I’m not actually sure how bad the impact on project reputation is. The rising star team is good at taking credible scientific criticism and using it to further their own studies. I’m sure there are continuing publications being worked on that haven’t come out due to being in the peer review process currently. The biggest hit is maybe Lee’s own reputation, but he’s had a reputation for getting ahead of himself, publicly for years now. I really do think most of the publicity junket functioned to gain more funding for the project. Which is dubiously ethical, but also unsurprising considering how fair weather funding can be.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
To everyone saying that I personally have a problem with what’s going on you guys do realize I didn’t write this paper right? I’m just reporting on it.
@stickmanblubbles4489
11 ай бұрын
Ignore them.
@dreamerliteraryproductions9423
11 ай бұрын
Thank you for summarizing the content of the paper for us!
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@yorkshirepudding9860
11 ай бұрын
Please will you keep us updated on this subject. I appreciate your insight and for those of us outside of academia, this can all be a bit dense without help.
@TaylorDekar
11 ай бұрын
This is how science works. Great video!
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
It does!
@ToumaitheMioceneApe
11 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for this video Seth. It was very informative and useful. What really got me about the Homo naledi claims was the supposed engravings vs it just being elephant skin dolomite. I didn’t have many opinions the burials or fire, but the engravings seemed too far, especially with such a more likely scenario.
@charlesjmouse
11 ай бұрын
Indeed. This is why the scientific process in combination with proper peer review is so important. The narrative as received is, 'Here's a new group of pretty primitive if recent-ish hominins who seemingly engaged in deliberate burial, fire use, and art!' Astounding though all that my be, given the seeming evidence and how it has been presented one would have to be a real contrarian to disagree with most of that. But then 'we' have seen only one presentation of the 'evidence', only from the perspective of one group. This is not a matter of honesty but that even the best of us can be dead wrong. Be that through honest mistakes, insufficient evidence, misinterpretation, or underappreciated personal biases. Add all those possibilities to 'receiving the story' from only one source that may be 'guilty' of any or all of the above and no matter how compelling you just cannot form a reasonable conclusion.
@jerrycratsenberg989
11 ай бұрын
Good job! Thank you for sharing!
@JiminiCrikkit
11 ай бұрын
Well done for getting out such a well articulated covering of the issues. From an enthusiasts viewpoint, without knowing the work of Lee Berger but having followed the Homo Naledi discovery from early on it does certainly seems like he got carried away. It always seemed very odd to me that almost in the same sentence Lee would often mention that there has been no-one down these caves for so long (how can you really know that unless its physically blocked off?) and yet he states often it is a very well known cave system and has been known about for a long time. Where I come from if you know that many people know the location of a cave in a an area then it is safe to say that many people have visited said cave... That's so obvious to me.
@sonjavandenende9586
11 ай бұрын
It's unlikely but not impossible that a randomly fallen rock might resemble a tool enough for a naledi to pick it up off the cave floor and place it near a body. That foggy musing aside, thanks for this thoughtful vid. I share the misgivings and concern about the rush to media ahead of the science.
@carriekelly4186
9 ай бұрын
Also thank you for the whole update and insights on the situation. I know zero about paleoanthropology so...i am a human being though..we make mistakes,get excited,do more work,learn..im not worried one way or the other what the outcomes are Just so long as it isnt a Piltdown man situation im sure it wont be the end of the world for anyone
@LoriDeMarco
11 ай бұрын
I felt it was irresponsible to compare the stone “tool” to known tools. Again, you can’t make comparisons because they fit your narrative.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Very!
@anthonygrootelaar
5 ай бұрын
Here"s my theory. A Naledi troop living/sheltering in the cave attacked by another group of Hominid using fire. In the ensuing fight all the full-grown Naledi males defending the troop are killed, dragged way, chopped up and eaten. The rest are all driven back into cave by fire/smoke, and in trying to escape came to slowly perish in the deep dark recesses of the cave. This scenario covers many of the facts to date, and reminds me of a comment Berger made years ago that the site reminded him of a grave yard ..the site containing only young or very old skeletons
@danbrownellfuzzy3010
6 ай бұрын
Naledi journeying to the treacherous dark recesses of a cave without fire seems unreasonable. Predation must be considered. This animal, extinct or extant, would appear to have had an exclusive appetite, and eat without typical trauma. The scales seem to balance in favor of HN getting there on their own volition.....a hobbyist of 40 years does opine
@Betsy.Ross76
5 ай бұрын
It was a bone pit. The bones had snail markings. Snails can't live any further than the front of the cave. It's just remains from scavengers washed into the back of that cave from natural flooding. Just such a stretch.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
5 ай бұрын
That’s a new one?
@holdthetruthhostage
4 ай бұрын
Bro I'm contacting you because my problem is why are we not trying to bring any of them back
@worldofpaleoanthropology
4 ай бұрын
who said we arnt? Don’t you know, deep in our labs that’s exactly what we are doing?
@holdthetruthhostage
4 ай бұрын
@@worldofpaleoanthropology gonna contact you we need to collab on a stream because I think we are afraid of bringing back those that could surpass us, no scientist speaks about that
@worldofpaleoanthropology
3 ай бұрын
Dude…..ahahaha
@robmclean5587
10 ай бұрын
I watched you praising his work not long ago and saying how good the Netflix special was. Seams your opinion is subject to change. No offence intended but you did not have this opinion when you interviewed Lee himself
@worldofpaleoanthropology
10 ай бұрын
Opinions change based on new evidence. That is how science works. If we all stuck to the same ideas we would make it no where. We would be in the Stone Age!
@worldofpaleoanthropology
10 ай бұрын
And I’m reporting on news, explain how I’m even sharing my views?
@jonni2317
11 ай бұрын
why do you think dr berger chose to release everything in this way, he knows better, its not like this is first dig. it feels like he was more interested in showmanship than the science. the thing that bothers me about the most about this is that there are people who will use this like they use piltdown man, to try and say that the scientific method doesnt work, am i making sense?
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Because it conceited with the release of the Netflix documentary
@jonni2317
11 ай бұрын
@@worldofpaleoanthropology its such a cool find, it dosent need help being interesting imo. sorry for being a pain
@clownmeat792
11 ай бұрын
Evidence with no legs is just a pile of shit in my opinion.
@terrywallace5181
7 ай бұрын
His great sin was to broke social norms.
@Coenie007
9 ай бұрын
I dont agree with a lot of your thoughts. Please go to a cave where you have to go through 17 cm small entrances and 100 plus meters from any light without using any fire 200 years ago and that would make no sense. Forget what we think of what burials are. These people invented their own way of keeping their loved ones from rotting in the open. The markings against the wall could not be water markings. No water went through these caves for millions of years and why only markings at entrances. Like our exit signs now.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
9 ай бұрын
Oh i didnt know you were there? Its nice that you disagree, but your points gave already been argued and have been disproven.
@Funckle73
10 ай бұрын
He’s too dreamy to watch and pay attention to his words!! Damn !
@Funckle73
10 ай бұрын
😭😘
@Per-x5i
10 ай бұрын
Why do you everywhere on the net promot ”no evidence” when they say ”not enough evidence”? They can claim ”not enough” forever. Does that mean that they are right? Why didn’t you ask this qritical questions to Lee Berger in your interview 4 month ago?
@worldofpaleoanthropology
10 ай бұрын
Because the peer reviews were not out yet, and all we had was his analysis. I’m not making my own analysis here. I’m reporting on what’s going on in academia. Please don’t confuse the two.
@Per-x5i
10 ай бұрын
@@worldofpaleoanthropologyyou sceeming out everywhere about ”no eveidence” that is not just reporting it is an agenda of shaming
@worldofpaleoanthropology
10 ай бұрын
It’s in the title of the response paper buster
@togodamnus
10 ай бұрын
The declarative assertions that so called art work and 'symbolism' can be attributed to specific hominins during mid-late paleolithic by dating alone is a persistent flaw common to this field (paleoanthropology). Especially regarding H neanderthalensis. The earliest ventures of H sapiens into Asia and Eurasia unknown, yet many insist it's all resolved and understood, its a chronic tendency. Dr Berger may have laid it on thick to inspire others to be curious and will clarify the many obvious questions. The fossils alone are enough to give hard elbow to prior conventional wisdom. Still alot of work to do for sure, super neat in any case. It's good to hear Seth being cautious and skeptical for once, but it seems at odds with his previous attitudes and speculations. There are many decent debates that are worth while. Dr Berger does good work and scores good specimens and sites to re-search. It's all good.
@richb2229
4 ай бұрын
Peer review means establishment. It’s not about the evidence in a vacuum, but it follows the established (humans are superior), narrative. Much of what is presented here (in a pit or hollow) is incorrect and is false and biased. Lee said tool shaped rock, so the argument again must this is falsified. Even a natural flake could be used as a tool in the hand of a hominid. However, given the timeframe tool usage is expected, rather than suspect. Fire could be drawn into the cave but they would be scattered, not concentrated. Fire would have to have been used that deep into the cave for light.
@JorgeTurenne
11 ай бұрын
You talk about methodolgy, and as an objective point of view, but it is a power structure. Funcionallism is obsolete since the publication of Habermas's, Critic, not yet refused. The replication concept, does not either aplies to case studies, and so on
@donclay3511
11 ай бұрын
Isn't a peer reviewed paper just what you were saying that the Naledi team needed to do? Doesn't that mean that other scientists have reviewed the findings before the paper was released? The team has made all the information available to every one. So other scientists could be evaluating along with the Naledi team. There is no one "way that science is done". The object is to arrive at a verified solution based on the evidence available at the time. That occurs after everyone has reviewed all the data. It has nothing to do with if the public has looked at the data or not. If the team horded all the data for years, then allowed scientists outside their team to look at the data, then released to the public, isn't that a much longer period of time? There is so little data at the present time even if you include the big find of Neanderthals in Spain and Homo Naledi now, it's still scattered data. Scientists are releasing peer reviewed data all the time and conclusions are drawn from that. Then on the next find, years later, those conclusions are wiped out because more data has been discovered. Taking all that time to do science in isolation just lengthened the process Wouldn't it be faster if the team that made the find, made the data available as they found it. That would put the whole process of evaluating the find in parallel. If you think that the public would be mislead by the scientists, it wouldn't be the first time. At one point, all the scientists said that the earth was flat. Then later all but one of the scientists said that the sun revolved around the earth. There was only one because all the others that agreed with the one were burned at the stake. The one was so popular that they couldn't burn him. They put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. The current status of Paleontology is like the proverbial blind men evaluating an elephant. Science said that at one time a member of the homo genus had to have a big brain. Now they've found 3 different small brained species that match all or at least most of the other requirements to be a member of the homo genus. So having a big brain doesn't appear to be a main qualification to be in the homo genus. So "science" has to add the latest data to all the rest, adjust the hypothesis and say "Based on the current evidence, our adjusted hypothesis is ....." There shouldn't be anything cast in stone at this point. As an aside, I'd like to point out that there are a large number of very small brained humans that are exceedingly smart. Didn't anyone notice before? And there's a large number of big brained humans that qualify for a Darwin award on a yearly basis. Jes sayin ...
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Peer review means that the data has been made available to scientists and they have been given the chance to look at the data. That did not occur.
@donclay3511
11 ай бұрын
All the data was released to the web including stl's of the fossils and pictures of the cave. Plus they advertised where the data was and invited scientists via KZitem to access the data. They brought in a boat load of young archeologists to examine the fossils in South Africa. They indicated almost from the start that they were going to do that and explained the reasons why they were doing that. AFIK no scientist outside their in house group didn't comment on it except in a sprinkling of KZitem videos.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
That’s not what peer review is. The public has nothing to do with peer review. It invokes peers, other scientists. Not random people on KZitem.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
Is Lee a personal friend of yours? Why do you find the need to support him so strongly?
@donclay3511
11 ай бұрын
@@worldofpaleoanthropology He is not a personal friend of mine. I did buy off on his methodology for several reasons. It gets the information out a lot sooner to everyone including scientists and, in particular, young scientists. I don't buy into the argument that the public will be misled. Even if they use the old methodology, the public could be misled by the results because there is so little data available. Look how long the Neanderthals were misunderstood. Look at the initial reception of the Hobbits on the island of Flores. Because they released all the data early, scientists other than the Naledi team had plenty of time to examine the data. They have indicated a hypothesis. It is out there for other scientist to weigh in with their dos centavos. The other thing is that I thought you said that paper was peer reviewed and I thought that it did meet your standard for a peer reviewed paper. Anyway, I didn't mean it as a personal attack. Just throwing out my uno centavo.
@tjwhite1963
11 ай бұрын
Given that Professor Lee Berger has (perhaps understandably) lately become everyone's favorite punching bag du jour, I'm strongly suspecting a case of animus here, a case of academic politics, an attempt to get in a dig at Dr. Berger (no pun meant).
@togodamnus
10 ай бұрын
Chimp style hostile opportunism, let Dr Berger finish the investigation and it may shed light on the facts and details. All the Shanidar flowers and hash tags not withstanding lol
@eatanaustralopith_3379
8 ай бұрын
Absolutely wrong. Preprints are perfectly normal and accepted within all branches of science. All scientists publish them routinely I would wager they make up half or more of all papers. So what if Berger moved fast. He has always been completely open, transparent and accessible. He wants his work to be the same. The fossils are there for any academic to inspect and review. Which brings me to your whiny complaining. You want it you got it. Here it is peer review. There was nothing stopping anyone from doing it before. That was always going to happen and will continue to. Love him or hate him unconventional, unorthodox, a maverick yes. But those are the qualities that make up most great scientists. That's not to say I'm sold on burial or fire. But certainly can't be ruled out. But the smear campaign from the dogmatic backwards thinking elitist science community who think science should be closed and scientists should hoard their academic gold is mind boggling. Monkeys playing their neverending monkey game of monkey see monkey do.
@worldofpaleoanthropology
8 ай бұрын
Omg your lack of understanding is hilarious. When you can tell you’re not in the field. 😂
@worldofpaleoanthropology
8 ай бұрын
Who are you, and what are your credentials?
@worldofpaleoanthropology
8 ай бұрын
Well?
@eatanaustralopith_3379
8 ай бұрын
My lack of understanding? Go ahead set the record straight. And no I'm not in the field. I'm in astronomy. But I do recognize monkey see monkey do. Not saying you're part of that at all. But is everyone a to blind to see a science ruled by widespread elitist mentality. Can't people see what's happening? I see traditionalists terrified of change, the internet, open access, and progress. So they have to attack what seems to be the luckiest man in the game who keeps getting all the good finds and refuses to play by there rules! Just a little jealousy. And you didn't speak to my point about preprints. Do you think they are irrelevant? Or is it just that it wasn't described in a peer review? I personally would have and would prefer to see it. But who is to say that must be a rule? Do you have any idea how many newly discovered astrophysical phenomena were described in preprints and are cited to this day within the scientific literature? By the way as often happens the tone of my original post was lost in translation. I didn't mean for it to sound like a personal attack, it was in jest, I was just poking fun. But I would like to hear what you think.
@eatanaustralopith_3379
8 ай бұрын
From and insiders perspective what is the situation with the fossils? Is Berger and S. Africa being truthful about all the openness and transparency or is that all BS? Have others been able to see the fossils? I have been assuming so.
@jacquelinetappan9376
11 ай бұрын
I found Dr. Lee's presentation very compelling. That you wish to discredit his findings requires me to ask for your credentials. Aha.. therein lies the rub... !
@worldofpaleoanthropology
11 ай бұрын
I didn’t write the paper. I’m reporting on a paper written by multiple EXPERTS in the field.
@tjwhite1963
11 ай бұрын
@worldofpaleoanthropology True enough, but even "Experts" can sometimes be wrong. Even a plurality of "experts". I don't think the jury has reached a final verdict on these questions yet. This is merely *one* "peer-reviewed" paper.
Пікірлер: 96