Top all-time · #25712
Martin Sweatman
Personal blog · martinsweatman.blogspot.comhistoryscience
Martin Sweatman writes Prehistory Decoded, a personal blog at martinsweatman.blogspot.com about history and science. Since 2023, 3 different Hacker News readers have linked it 3 times. It is still writing: the last post was on 2026-07-01, and you can follow it by feed.
Too few sampled comments (3) to say how often HN recommends it.?
Why HN links it
HN commenters cite Martin Sweatman's blog as a source on a lunisolar calendar paper and link to a post on scientific bias and how science gets misunderstood. One calls that post an excellent discussion.
Summarised by Claude from a sample of 3 HN comments that link here. Each comment is marked recommending, critical or neutral (citing without judging); how this works.
What Hacker News says?
I guess not, but they are mentioned in the acknowledgements and references of the paper. > In Section 8.2, text written in italic font expresses ideas originally communicated by Dr John Gordon (Gordon 2021). Also on the author's blog: https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calend... Not sure who John Gordon is, and that's got to be an incredibly common name even among doctors.
Comment linking /2024/06/lunisolar-calendar-paper-accepted-for.html
on “Ancient calendar, recently discovered, may document a long-ago disaster”A little more reading.. "All extinct mammals dated in this study have last occurrence dates older than 13.00 ka, with a modeled extirpation time estimate across all taxa of 13.07 to 12.89 ka [using the Gaussian-Resampled Inverse-Weighted McInerney (GRIMW) extinction estimator" Even tighter bound than my comment and still a tight fit around 12900. Figure 1 in their paper shows this as well. In other news, there was r…
Comment linking /2023/08/debunking-holliday-et-als-comprehensive.html
on “Ancient Fires Drove Large Mammals Extinct, Study Suggests”As with most things human, 'correction' can take a long time. Just one example: we're still constantly reading "Relativity shown to be right again." Baked-in biases and a kind of 'worshipfullness' of big Names like Newton (and misunderstanding what science can 'prove')[0] are all part of the stew. [0]Excellant discussion here: https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-scientific-m... Aristotle's ideas ruled th…
Comment linking /2023/07/the-scientific-method-and-statistical.html
on “Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn’t”