Comments on: Much-Hyped Primate Fossil “Ida” Probably Isn’t Our Ancestor http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/10/21/much-hyped-primate-fossil-ida-probably-isnt-our-ancestor/ 80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day\'s most compelling topics. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:55:37 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Argo http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/10/21/much-hyped-primate-fossil-ida-probably-isnt-our-ancestor/comment-page-1/#comment-60736 Argo Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:45:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=4648#comment-60736 It seems clear that the Ida story is one of an attempt to substitute media hype for scientific integrity. There is an established process by which scientific claims are presented to peer-reviewed journals and ultimately accepted or not by the scientific community based on the available evidence and subsequent attempts at corroborating that evidence. It's inherently a slow process. Immediate media enthusiasm for an extravagant claim is no substitute. On the one hand this kind of thing tends to diminish the perception of science and scientists because it looks like the same kind of shallow hype used by some informercial snake-oil salesmen. On the other hand, the backlash by the scientific community shows that checks and balances do exist to help ensure that the truth ultimately prevails. My initial concern was that evolution deniers might jump on this as an example of scientists trying to bend their interpretation of evidence to conform to what they want to find. However, what it really shows is just the opposite: the scientific community holds a high standard of evidence for any claim regardless of whether or not it supports a given theory. It seems clear that the Ida story is one of an attempt to substitute media hype for scientific integrity. There is an established process by which scientific claims are presented to peer-reviewed journals and ultimately accepted or not by the scientific community based on the available evidence and subsequent attempts at corroborating that evidence. It’s inherently a slow process. Immediate media enthusiasm for an extravagant claim is no substitute.

On the one hand this kind of thing tends to diminish the perception of science and scientists because it looks like the same kind of shallow hype used by some informercial snake-oil salesmen. On the other hand, the backlash by the scientific community shows that checks and balances do exist to help ensure that the truth ultimately prevails.

My initial concern was that evolution deniers might jump on this as an example of scientists trying to bend their interpretation of evidence to conform to what they want to find. However, what it really shows is just the opposite: the scientific community holds a high standard of evidence for any claim regardless of whether or not it supports a given theory.

]]>