That thread doesn't describe any actual holes -- i.e., nothing which definitely refutes the researchers' claims -- it's just a lot of generic "I don't think science should be done this way" stone-throwing.
Which, okay, there's a conversation to be had there, but don't mistake it as weakening the importance of the find.
It's possible that the New Yorker has another Jonah Lehrer writing for them. It's possible that this author has conspired with a paleontologist to craft a total fabrication and describe mammal burrows that don't actually exist. It's possible that several other paleontologists are all participating in this fabrication, with the certain knowledge that it will destroy their careers and their reputation before very long.
Or, alternatively, this particular paleontologist happened to be in the right place at the right time, and because of some past experiences, has developed an unconventional approach to handling his discoveries. Other researchers are participating, cautiously at first, and then getting excited by what they find. And, even if the working hypothesis -- that this site is a record of the last hours of the Cretaceous period -- turns out to be false for some reason, everyone is still working in good faith on what will turn out to be a monumentally important find anyway.
It's a tough call, but I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment. Time will tell, I suppose.
I stopped reading and started skimming at the complaint that DePalma dresses like Indiana Jones. Good. It would behoove many professions to dress well again. I hope this age of slob ends soon.
And what's with the indigenous people non-sequitur? There were no people, indigenous or elsewhere, 60 million years ago.
I stopped reading and started skimming at the complaint that DePalma dresses like Indiana Jones
That's a shame, it's actually a good article. However, how would you dress if you had to spend hours a day on your belly under the desert sun? Perhaps it's just a practical way to dress and the journalist was just exercising some artistic license?
And the twitter thread is what is good and should be read.
The piece in the NewYorker makes it look like DePalma's work makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of the extinction of the dinosaurs, while the twitter thread (and https://twitter.com/SteveBrusatte/status/1111669545285107714 cited therein) point out that the actual paper published about the discovery doesn't even mention dinosaours and that DePalma is just acting as "a pulp novel caricature of a paleontologist" following the established script of "Go to the press, get your fame, let the academics argue while the public goes 'Wowwww'". All the while violating the embargo on the paper.
the "actual" paper hasn't been published yet, if you read the article you would see that most of the details have been secret. also this article does mention dinosaurs on two accounts, perhaps the first feathers ever found at hell's creater were found at this digsite as well as the hipbone of another dinosaur
The complaint in that tweet was not in itself about the clothing style, but about DePalma's whole public behaviour that clearly tries to put media impact above scientific method.
You are being intellectually lazy and superficial by not reading the whole tweet and just discarding the argument at the first instant you see something that grates you if taken out of context.
I think they should have a bit of fun among themselves even if just how one dress. I did note one of the girls dressed d. park in one of the news. So be her.
Important to note that the initial paper is not even out yet. It is supposed to be a foundation paper that does not focus on dinosaurs. It doesn't seem like this Twitter thread shows any true holes and I don't think the poster is a researcher.
The writer of the twitter thread is Brian Switek, who has written several books on dinosaurs. You can do your own search based on his name to see his credentials.
In any case, Neil Shubin, the discoverer of Tiktaalik, has posted this comment [1], in which he takes issue with the way the New Yorker article broke an embargo.
