[Phithagoras]

I'll believe it when they release geochemical data for the soot and plot the locations of the "hearths" on the cave map. Where is the published peer reviewed paper associated with this announcement?

This discovery was made in 2013, in a cave that was believed by the SA caving community to be well understood. Where are the hearths they claim to have found? Why did nobody in the previous 9 years of exploration and decades of caving see this? What makes them certain these are not carbide dumps from humans in the last 50 years? [1] Or organic matter that may have fallen from roof cracks? Also, what has happened to the 1500 bone fragments they have excavated

Baboons in modern times are known to navigate caves without fire [2], the paleoanthropology community should still consider the possibility that H. Naledi had no need for light to place their dead these caves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbide_lamp [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9letjf7ZZGA

[ProjectArcturis]

Yeah, I'm very skeptical. Just the decision to announce this by press release rather than peer reviewed paper suggests there are a lot of uncomfortable questions, similar to what you raised, that the authors are trying to avoid.

[AlotOfReading]

Berger's been taking some heat on Twitter where he announced this [1]. Apparently he considers a public-interest lecture and a publicity tour equivalent to a preprint on something like SSRN. Can't say I agree, but it seems to have been effective in getting people to talk about it.

[1] https://twitter.com/LeeRberger/status/1599965297993129984?s=...

[tokai]

I mean he's kind of right. A preprint is just a badly formatted blog post published in a pdf. Until its finished and published. At least if one see peer-review journal literature as the gold standard of scientific discourse. Maybe this Berger thing has more to it, but scientists can (and maybe even should) talk about their ongoing research before there is a paper behind it.

[AlotOfReading]

It's not the public awareness stuff that I'm concerned about. That's just a necessary fact of life that I've also been involved with on my own digs.

I'm personally simply skeptical that the research conditions necessary to make a Netflix special (premiering in May-June apparently) are also conducive to high quality academic work.

Publishing a preprint goes partway to addressing that by showing everyone where their results will fit into the existing literature and strengthen the published paper by hearing / addressing public criticisms before they actually publish.

[wolverine876]

> he's kind of right. A preprint is just a badly formatted blog post published in a pdf. Until its finished and published

No, it has empirical data, most importantly, and also methods, analysis, conclusions, citations. It's nothing like a blog post, or another way of looking it it - it is an extraordinary blog post.

[tokai]

Oh yeah all those things have never been seen in a blog post. But you are missing the point.

[wolverine876]

Twitter - that's become the perfect venue for this kind of thing, but not in the way Berger imagines.

> he considers a public-interest lecture and a publicity tour equivalent to a preprint on something like SSRN

There's all the difference in the world: A preprint has empirical data (not to mention an hypothesis, methods, analysis, conclusion).

> it seems to have been effective in getting people to talk about it

That has nothing to do with science. No scientific advance is connected to the public talking about it.

[m0llusk]

Being skeptical makes sense. Abandoning science is less of an obvious step. This consists primarily of some initial observations and speculations being shared. These could potentially lead to a testable hypothesis which could then in time lead to a published peer reviewed paper. Initial observations and speculations never lead directly to published peer reviewed papers in the short term because those require work to prepare and verify. That you are responding to some initial observations and speculations with demands for a published peer review paper indicates that you lack interest and understanding in the actual work of science. If you really are not engaged then maybe it would make more sense to allow others to investigate findings to see if they are truly interesting and perhaps could lead to robust results.

[lend000]

If any skeptic here likes nature documentaries, I'd recommend "Our Great National Parks" on Netflix. I found it unique in that it documented exceptionally intelligent and complex behavior by a number of animals we don't normally consider as being intelligent. For example, tool use by mongooses (cracking a snail shell with a rock) and a monkey riding a deer for fun, as well as frequent cooperation between species.

I don't find it so difficult to believe that a slightly larger encephalization quotient than our nearest competitors (chimps) could lead to an ability to control fire.

[Phithagoras]

I love nature documentaries, I'll have a look at that one!

I agree, lots of animals use tools in one way or another. Starting or even just controlling a chemical reaction does seem like a big step above mechanical methods though. I wouldn't really be that surprised overall if we eventually discover that H. Naledi or other hominids had some control of fire. I will be surprised if the Dinaledi site turns out to be the first evidence of it

[blincoln]

> a monkey riding a deer for fun

I used to have a neighbour with a goat and chickens, and at least one of the chickens would ride around on the goat's back. There are a decent number of YouTube videos of other chickens riding goats, so it seems fairly common.

[jjtheblunt]

> we don't normally consider as being intelligent

I'm curious what "we" you refer to, because I've seen years of articles about tool use and play and intelligence across all sorts of mammals and birds.

[stubish]

> the possibility that H. Naledi had no need for light to place their dead

There are also sources of light other than fire, such as bio-luminescence.

[Phithagoras]

Are there many bioluminescent creatures in North-Central South Africa?

[stubish]

One million years ago, I don't know. Also bio-luminescent fungi are a possibility.