[dopu]

The relevant peer-reviewed preprint, from eLife [0]. It is worth reading the peer reviews (spoiler: they're brutal) [1].

[0]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106 [1]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106/reviews#t...

[contravariant]

> An analysis also needs to start by testing a null hypothesis, not deciding on the conclusion and setting out to "prove" it.

> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.

> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.

I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.

[koheripbal]

Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding.

The original paper is just garbage

[dilawar]

Kudos to eLife for pioneering publishing peer review along with paper.

[pmckenna]

Appreciate the note to check peer reviews, it certainly does cast these findings in a new light.

[zeroCalories]

Tried reading the paper and it was surprisingly hard to understand, probably because I don't know anything about the field. That said, I think the critiques make sense. Still, both the peer review and the response in the articles seem so extreme, I wonder if there is something else going on here. Is there some political or ideological divide in this field?