Anthropology
Related: About this forumH. naledi has shaken up the way that paleoanthropology goes about the business of doing science
If the history of paleoanthropology shows us anything, its that controversy over a new fossil hominin species is nothing new. In fact, most newly discovered hominin species have undergone periods of serious scrutiny, particularly because discoveries force scientists to rethink evolutionary relationships. For the past hundred years, paleoanthropologists have bandied about insults, in addition to hypotheses, as they discussed fossil hominins in academic and public circles.
The H. naledi brouhaha, however, offers a curiously new type of challenge for paleoanthropology. Instead of shaking up the hominin evolutionary tree, H. naledi has shaken up the way that paleoanthropology goes about the business of doing science.
Traditionally, fossils have been studied and published in a very top-down way, where small teams of senior experts spend years (even decades) studying fossil hominins before publishing their discoveries in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. This means the fossils are carefully scrutinized, measured, compared, and analyzed before they reach a public audience. The peer-review process of such top-tier journalslike Science or Natureforms a well-established social system of checks and balances, ensuring that research credibility is attached to published discoveries.
The H. naledi project has championed an opposite view of how data should be collected and distributed. Bergers team found, excavated, studied, and published the Rising Star Caves cache of more than 1,550 fossils in just two years. The project has relied on the expertise of many young, early career researchers. In addition, the project published scans of the fossils themselves in eLife in September 2015, an open-access journal with a shorter peer-review process.
http://daily.jstor.org/homo-naledi-and-paradigm-shift/
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If this is a huge shakeup of paleoanthropology, perhaps paleoanthropology needed a shakeup.
I understand the criticism about not being able to date the fossils, but that may take years, because they liteally don't know how to do it. In the meantime, who knows what other researchers may pursue from having had this level of detail available?
This isn't a few bones. It was a huge find of a clearly distinct species, and a very startling find. I think there was nothing at all inappropriate about publishing what they did publish, when they did publish it.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)old, white European men, did not want a shake-up.
I think it was great the way the find was presented to the public.
And I think more people probably know about the find and got interested in anthropology bec. of the way it was presented.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)But I also think that a find this frankly weird and paradigm-busting is great for current paleoanthropologists. I also believe it was correct to publish because getting more minds at work on the problem may assist in dating. Plus, the paradigm having been busted will change the way other paleoanthropologists go about their work. It may cause other fossil finds to be reexamined or reinterpreted, which is really why some people are squawking.
The only valid criticism of premature publication really is, to my mind, that the conclusions drawn are premature and that further fieldwork will change them. This doesn't apply here - there is no question of what they found. Putting this find in perspective may take another 50 years of research into early homind species. But the find won't change. It won't change at all.
The thing about this discovery is that it is astonishingly rare to find such a huge collection of well-preserved skeletal fossils.
Paleoanthropology is in an incredibly exciting ferment right now. The Dmansi fossils, the Hobbits, the Denisovians, the DNA findings in Spain (among the most interesting, IMO), and now the Red Deer Cave people.
The consensus is gone. It won't be coming back.