期刊：Journal of Academic Ethics

网址：https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09555-2

文章标题：Data vs. Derision: The Ethics of Language in Scientific Publication. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis as a Case Study

期刊同行评审的审稿人需要用数据讲话，期刊同行评审的审稿人不能在不给任何令人信服的证据的基础上对作者进行嘲笑 ---- 科学出版中的语言伦理，以Younger Dryas Impact假说为例

作者：James Lawrence Powell

Open access 开放阅读文章

Published: 17 August 2024

Abstract

Throughout the history of science, novel ideas that diverge from mainstream thought have often been met with condemnation, derision, and ad hominem attacks. These reactions have sometimes led to the premature rejection of such ideas, only for them to be later revived and even accepted as the prevailing paradigm. While robust debate is essential in science, the use of derogatory language is unethical, for it discourages research on existing hypotheses, deters funders, corrupts the scientific record, and delays or prevents the advancement of science. In this article, I discuss the case of unethical language repeatedly used against proponents of the hypothesis that an extraterrestrial impact event triggered the Younger Dryas cool period.

摘要

在整个科学史上，偏离主流思想的新颖思想经常遭到谴责、嘲笑和人身攻击。这些问题经常会导致颠覆性创新思想胎死于萌芽时期，使得这些覆性创新思想只是在更晚的时候复活而成为主流思想。提供令人信服证据的辩论在科学中是必不可少的，然而给不出令人信服证据的基于贬损性语言的评审结论在科学出版领域是不道德的。这种不道德的评审阻碍了对现有思想的进一步深入研究，阻止了新思想提出者得到项目资助，败坏了科学的声誉，延误或阻止了科学的进步。对外星物体撞击事件引发早期干旱低温假说的期刊评审意见中，不道德的评审屡见不鲜。

Introduction

Truzzi (1987) revived an older term, pseudoskepticism, to refer to “negative hypotheses”: assertions that some theory or claim is false without the asserter assuming the burden of providing falsifying evidence. True skepticism, he argued, “properly refers to doubt rather than denial—nonbelief rather than belief.” He noted that critics who adopt a negative rather than an agnostic stance, yet still call themselves “skeptics,” are actually pseudoskeptics, gaining a false advantage by usurping that label. Any scientist is likely to know of examples where doubt about a hypothesis becomes transformed into a confident assertion of its falsity.

引言

Truzzi（1987）使一个较早的术语“伪质疑”重活，用来指代“否定假设”：不承担提供证伪证据的责任而断言某个理论或主张是错误。真正的怀疑是怀疑而不是否认——怀疑与相信不同，怀疑仅仅是不相信。持否定观点的批评家实际仅仅能称之为是持怀疑的立场。尽管这些人通常被称为“怀疑者”，但实际上是伪怀疑者。因为对概念的篡改而使用了“怀疑”的虚假标签。任何科学家都知道这样的例子：对一个假设的怀疑转变成断言这个假设是错误。

Cabbolet (2016) observes that “pseudoskepticism is not aimed at finding out the truth, but at discrediting someone’s research.” He describes several “tell-tale” signs of pseudoskepticism, including ad hominem attacks, where a critic focuses on alleged personal failings of an author rather than addressing the argument in question. Scientific societies and journals generally proscribe ad hominem attacks for reasons that Sagan (1995) explained: “Science requires an almost complete openness to all ideas. Ad hominem arguments— arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you—are irrelevant….” Ad hominem accusations are not harmless: they “may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims (Barnes et al., 2018).” Brown et al. (2018) recommend that “individuals engaging in ad hominem attacks in scientific discourse should be subject to censure.”

Cabbolet（2016）发现，“伪怀疑论者的目的不是找出真相，而是诋毁某人的研究。”他描述了认定伪怀疑的几个迹象，包括人身攻击，批评家把注意力集中在作者所谓的个人缺点上，而不是针对有问题的论点。科学协会和期刊通常禁止人身攻击。Sagan（1995）说：“科学要求对所有思想完全开放。人身攻击的论点——关于不同意你的人的个性的评论——是无关的....”。人身攻击并非无害。人身攻击与基于科学的批评具有相同程度的影响（Barnes et al., 2018）。”Brown等人（2018）认为“在科学评判中进行人身攻击的个人应该受到谴责。”

Another sign of pseudoskepticism, according to Cabbolet (2016), is the description of a targeted work as despicable, using “belittling phrases and strong pejoratives,” giving the criticism “a vitriolic or even libelous tone.” A third indicator is the use of non-specific com­ments: vague, all-encompassing accusations addressed at a hypothesis as a whole, without sufficiently backing them up in the body of the criticism. A fourth indicator is suppression (Martin, 2010). Proper skepticism challenges only the evidence and arguments. Pseudo­skepticism, on the other hand, crosses the line by seeking to suppress dissenting voices. A fifth is known as “raising the goalposts”: the practice of changing the criteria or standards for evaluating success or proving a point after the original criteria have been met.

根据Cabbolet（2016）的说法，伪怀疑的另一个标志是将评述作品描述为卑劣、使用“轻蔑的词语和强烈的贬义词”、给出 “刻薄甚至诽谤” 批评。第三个指标不是使用具体到位的评论，而是针对一个假设使用模糊的、包罗万象的指控，不能正对被评论对象的主体论证中提出评论以充分支持他们的批评。第四个指标是压制(马丁,2010)。真正的怀疑只针对证据和论点。伪怀疑越界了，它们试图压制不同的声音。第五是所谓的“提高指标”：改变评判成功的标准或当原评判指标被满足，他们就新创建一个让你满足不了的标准。

The Younger Dryas 早期干旱

…

Impacts, Mega-Tsunami, and Other Extraordinary Claims (2008)

撞击、特大海啸和其他特殊主张（2008年）

The first response to Firestone et al. (2007) came from Pinter and Ishman (2008), who argued—without evidence—that the alleged impact markers were terrestrial. The authors criticized Firestone et al. for not having settled on the nature of the impactor, despite the fact that Firestone et al., as quoted above, had proposed a comet strike. Pinter and Ishman described the hypothesis as “a Frankenstein monster, incompatible with any single impactor or any known impact event.” This unethical tactic treated as despicable a hypothesis intro­duced in a prestigious journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by two dozen respected authors. It would have been good practice for Pinter and Ishman, writing so soon after the original publication, to call for further study of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH). Instead, they concluded with a series of ad hominem attacks seemingly aimed at shutting down further research.

对Firestone等人（2007）的第一个回应来自Pinter和Ishman(2008)，他们在没有证据的情况下认为所谓的撞击标志是地球上的。作者批评Firestone等人没有确定撞击物的性质，尽管上文引用的Firestone等人提出了彗星撞击。Pinter和Ishman将Younger Dryas Impact假设定义为一个Frankenstein怪物，与任何单一的撞击物或任何已知的撞击事件都不相同。” 这种将由24位受人尊敬的作者在著名杂志《美国国家科学院院刊》上提出的假说视为卑鄙的假设的不道德的策略。对于Pinter和Ishman来说，这是一个很好的实践，在原始出版物发表后不久就写信呼吁Younger Dryas Impact假说（YDIH）需要进一步核实。他们以一系列人身攻击结束，旨在阻止进一步的研究。

Both the 12.9-ka impact and the Holocene megatsunami [an unrelated hypothesis] appear to be spectacular explanations on long fishing expeditions for shreds of sup­port. Both stories have played out primarily in the popular press, highlighting how successful impact events can be in attracting attention. The desire for such attention is understandable in an environment where science and scientific funding are increas­ingly competitive. The National Science Foundation now emphasizes ‘transforma­tive’ research, and few events are as transformative as an impact. In an era when evolution, geologic deep time, and global warming are under assault, this type of ‘science by press release’ and spectacular stories to explain unspectacular evidence consume the finite commodity of scientific credibility

12.9 ka的撞击和全新世的大海啸（一个不相关的假设）似乎都是通过长期的捕鱼考察来寻找证据的推测解释。这两个故事主要是在大众媒体上发生的，以便说明撞击事件成功吸引公众注意力。在一个科学和科学资助竞争日益激烈的环境中，这种联系是可以被认同的。国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation）现在强调的是“变革性”研究，而几乎没有什么事情能像一项撞击那样具有变革性。在一个进化论、地质深部和全球变暖受到攻击的时代，这种“新闻发布的科学”和用惊人的故事来解释平淡无奇的证据，消耗了有限的科学可信度

This statement implied that Firestone et al. (2007) first invented the hypothesis and then sought evidence to support it; that the evidence was unconvincing; that the hypothesis was first announced in a press release; that the authors had chosen the topic because funding was available; and that merely entertaining the YDIH reduces scientific credibility in the eyes of the public. None of these claims is true.

这句话暗示了Firestone et al.（2007）首先提出了假设，然后寻找证据来支持它；证据不令人信服；假设是首先在新闻发布会上宣布；作者选择这个主题是因为可以获得研究资金;而支持YDIH会降低科学的公众可信度。这些说法都不对。

The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: A Requiem (2011)

Pinter et al. (2011) escalated to more strongly dismissive language. By this time, evidence that many would regard as stemming from an extraterrestrial impact had been replicated at a number of YD boundary sites. The abstract of their article ended:

Pinter et al.（2011）升级为更强烈的轻蔑语言。到这个时候，许多人会认为是外星撞击造成的证据，在若干YD地点出现。他们文章的摘要是这样结尾的：

Throughout the arc of this hypothesis, recognized and expected impact markers were

not found, leading to proposed YD impactors and impact processes that were novel,

self-contradictory, rapidly changing, and sometimes defying the laws of physics. The YD impact hypothesis provides a cautionary tale for researchers, the scientific com­munity, the press, and the broader public.

在这个假设的整个过程中，公认的和预期的碰撞标志并未发现，导致提出的YD碰撞体和碰撞过程是新颖的；自相矛盾，瞬息万变，甚至时常违背物理定律。YD碰撞假说为研究人员、科学界、新闻界和广大公众提供了一个警世故事。

Pinter et al. did not explain exactly how the hypothesis is self-contradictory nor how it vio­lates the laws of physics. Moreover, novel hypotheses that change as new evidence comes to light should be welcomed, not condemned. The last sentence, like the quotation above from Pinter and Ishman (2008), seems intended to warn scientists against researching the YDIH and can therefore be considered an attempt at suppression.

Pinter等人并没有确切地解释这个假设是如何自相矛盾的，也没有解释它是如何违背物理定律。此外，随着新证据的出现，新的假设也会发生变化，这应该是被欢迎光明，而不是被谴责。最后一句话，就像上面引用Pinter和Ishman(2008) 的，似乎意在警告科学家不要研究YDIH，因此可以被认为是对不同观点的压制。

In their last paragraph, Pinter et al. (2011) escalate to even more abusive language:

Many scientists are unaware of the surprising number of hypotheses that have gone badly astray, often after widespread initial interest and support [15–17]. Character­istics of these wayward hypotheses include claims that are spectacular, data that are subjective or at the limit of precise measurement, and criticisms met with ad hoc excuses and/or shifts in the original claims (after [15]). We suggest that much can be gained by stepping back and looking at the broader lessons for the earth sciences, impact science, archeology, and other affected fields.

在他们的最后一段，Pinter et al.（2011）升级到更加辱骂的语言：

许多科学家都没有意识到已经存在的惊人数量的假设严重误入歧途，往往在广泛的最初兴趣和支持之后[15-17]。这些任性的假设的特征，包括主观臆想的主张、主观的数据的或在有限的精确测量，和人身攻击批评或改变原始假设（在[15]之后）。我们认为可以退后一步，看看地球科学、碰撞科学、考古学和其他受影响的领域更广泛的教训，。

Citations [15–17] in Pinter et al. (2011) refer to three books on pseudoscience titled, respec­tively, Pathological Science; The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception, and Human Frailty; and Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Gratzer, 2001; Langmuir & Hall, 1989; Park, 2002). These books use as examples of pseudoscience UFOs, cold fusion, perpetual energy and motion, extrasensory perception, eugenics, the “Jewish Physics” of the Nazis, homeopathy, the works of Deepak Chopra, animal magnetism, and more. It could not have been more clear that Pinter et al. (2011) were labeling the YDIH as pseudoscience, without coming right out and saying so. Opponents would do that in the next article we review.

Pinter et al.（2011）文中的引文[15-17]参考了三本关于伪科学的书，分别是《病理科学》；科学缺乏症：妄想、自欺与人性的脆弱；《巫术科学：从愚蠢到欺诈的道路》(格雷泽，2001；Langmuir & Hall, 1989；公园,2002)。这些书以飞碟、冷聚变、永动机、超感官感知气功、优生学、纳粹的“犹太物理学”、中医疗法、Deepak Chopra的作品、动物磁学等伪科学的例正。Pinter等人（2011）而没有直接说出来，但是实际上他将YDIH标记为伪科学。反对者会我们的在另一篇文章中这么认为。

Comprehensive Refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (2023)

对Younger Dryas Impact 假说的所谓全面驳斥（2023）

Holliday et al. (2023) announced in an article of nearly 100,000 words their “comprehensive refutation” of the YDIH. The abstract concluded: “Evidence and arguments purported to support the YDIH involve flawed methodologies, inappropriate assumptions, questionable conclusions, misstatements of fact, misleading information, unsupported claims, irrepro­ducible observations, logical fallacies, and selected omission of contrary information” (Ital­ics added). By this time, however, dozens of articles from scores of authors had appeared in peer-reviewed journals describing evidence from four continents for an extraterrestrial event at the YD boundary.

Holliday et al.（2023）在一篇近10万字的文章中宣称了他们对YDIH （Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis）的“全面反驳”。摘要的结论是：“旨在支持YDIH的证据和论点使用了有缺陷的方法、不适当的假设、可疑的结论、对事实错误表述、使用误导性信息、没有论据支持的主张、不可重复的结果、逻辑谬误以及有选择地遗漏相反的信息”（本文作者追加的斜体）。然而，同时，数位作者的多篇文章已经在同行评议的期刊上发表了来自四大洲的证据，证明YDIH。

The body of Holliday et al. (2023) contains the sentence: “Claiming evidence where none exists and providing misleading citations may be accidental, but when conducted repeatedly, it becomes negligent and undermines scientific advancement as well as the cred­ibility of science itself.” The U.S. National Science Foundation (2002) says that research misconduct is “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism,” defining fabrication as “making up data or results and recording or reporting them,” while falsification includes “changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.” The charge by Holliday et al. (2023) of “selected omission of contrary information” could be construed as an accusation of falsification, while “claiming evidence where none exists” and “irreproducible observations“ could be construed as an accusation of fabrica­tion. Together, these statements amount to an accusation of research misconduct by YDIH proponents, the most serious charge in science. However, Holliday et al. (2023) provide no evidence whatsoever to support their claim. If Holliday et al. (2023) do have evidence to back up this allegation of scientific misconduct, they should report it in proper academic and governmental venues.

Holliday等人（2023）的文章中包含了这样的句子：“在不存在证据的情况下声称证据并提供误导性引用可能是偶然的，但如果反复进行，就会成为故意疏忽，破坏科学进步以及科学本身的可信度。”美国国家科学基金会（2002）将研究不端行为定义为“捏造、伪造或抄袭”，将捏造定义为“编造数据或结果并记录或报告”，而伪造则包括“更改或故意遗漏数据或结果，使研究不能被准确地反映在研究报告中”。Holliday等人（2023）对“选择性遗漏相反信息”的指控可以解释为是伪造的指控，而“声称在不存在的证据”和“不可复制的观察结果”可以解释为是捏造的指控。这些声明加在一起，相当于是对YDIH支持者的研究不当行为的指控，这是科学界最严重的指控。然而，Holliday等人（2023）没有提供任何证据来支持他们的说法。如果Holliday等人（2023）确实有证据支持这种科学不端行为的指控，他们应该在适当的学术和政府场所报告。

In several places, Holliday et al. (2023) use the term “pseudoscience” in relation to the YDIH, titling one section, “More pseudoscience (fringe) evidence and conjecture.” Else­where they write, “The YDIH evolved directly from pseudoscience,” and “Although the [Firestone et al., 2007] paper did not contain all the pseudoscience of its predecessors….” Another section is titled, “Pseudoarchaeological Divined Date of the Impact Event.” Accu­sations of pseudoscience should not appear in a peer-reviewed article without solid and clear evidence to back them up.

Holliday等人（2023）在多处使用了“伪科学”一词来描述YDIH，其中一节的标题是“更多的伪科学证据和猜想”。在其它地方，他们写道，“YDIH直接从伪科学演变而来，”和“尽管[Firestone等人，2007]论文没其前辈的所有伪科学....”。另一部分的标题是“撞击事件的伪考古占卜日期”。没有确凿和明确的证据支持，伪科学的指控不应该出现在同行评议的文章中。

Holliday et al. (2023) also make repeated ad hominem attacks on proponents of the YDIH. For example, Sect. 15 of their article, titled “Unparalleled promotion of the YDIH outside of scientific literature,” is largely ad hominem, comprising remarks aimed at indi­vidual, named proponents of the YDIH rather than at the hypothesis itself. Examples from this section include:

Holliday等人（2023）也对YDIH的支持者进行了反复的人身攻击。例如，他们文章的第15节，标题为“没有科学文献支持的YDIH”，主要是人身攻击，包括针对倡导YDIH的个人，而不是理论假设本身。该节选摘：

The principal YDIH authors created and ran websites to promote the YDIH and other fringe science outside the constraint of peer review, raise money, and engage in per­sonal attacks on skeptics.

Sweatman, in preparing his review of the YDIH, which has the appearance of being independent, interacted with webmasters of one of these sites and used their resources.

Powell fails to disclose his self-published book Deadly Voyager (Powell, 2020), which promotes the YDIH.

Popular press books have been written to promote the YDIH by scientists/academics. However, disclosure of conflict of interest (either potential or the appearance of) is lacking in YDIH publications in the scientific literature.

YDIH的主要作者创建并运营网站，在同行评议的约束之外推广YDIH和其他边缘科学，筹集资金，并对怀疑YDIH的人进行人身攻击。

Sweatman似乎是独立的评审人, 在准备评审YDIH的过程中，与网站的网站管理员进行了互动，并使用了他们的资源。

鲍威尔没有告诉读者他自费出版的宣传YDIH的书《致命的旅行者》（Powell, 2020）。

由科学家和学者撰写的宣传YDIH的通俗报刊书籍。然而，在YDIH的出版物中缺乏对利益冲突的披露。

Scientists are often advised to build support for their work and for science itself through a range of media channels, including blogs and books. However, Holliday et al. (2023) take aim at those trying to explain the YDIH to the lay public. These ad hominem attacks appear to be another form of suppression intended to discourage further attempts to explain science to the general public.

科学家经常被建议通过包括博客和书籍在内的一系列媒体渠道宣传他们的工作和科学。然而，Holliday等人（2023）瞄准了那些试图向公众解释YDIH的人。这些人身攻击是另一种形式的压制，旨在阻止进一步向公众宣传科学的尝试。

Other examples of ad hominem attacks and derisory language include:

The book [Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes] is based on fanciful speculation and dem­onstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of the archaeological and stratigraphic data discussed … and was described by Morrison (2010) as “pseudoscience.”

Authors common to YDIH-proponent papers … appear confused and lacking in credibility.

人身攻击和嘲弄语言的其他例子包括：

《宇宙大灾难的循环》这本书是建立在异想天开的推测基础上的，表明作者对所讨论的考古学和地层学数据明显缺乏理解……莫里森（2010）将其描述为“伪科学”。

支持ydih的论文中的作者……似乎都概念混淆，缺乏可信度。

Powell (2022, p. 14) concludes, “The simplest explanation is again that Firestone et al. sampled the YDB at Topper while Surovell et al. did not.” The condescending argument about procedural errors is an after-the-fact explanation of inconvenient data.

Powell（2022，第14页）总结道：“最简单的解释还是Firestone等人在Topper取样了YDB，而Surovell等人没有。”关于对于程序错误的指控是对不令人信服的数据的事后解释。

Most of this alleged evidence disappeared from the current YDIH literature with no comment, but its highly speculative nature certainly reflects on the credibility of the authors that were involved.

大多数这些所谓的证据从目前的YDIH文献中消失了，没有任何评论，但大量推测的特质肯定反映了所涉及作者的可信度。

In an example of raising the goalposts, in their conclusions Holliday et al. (2023) write, “We await a full summary discussion that offers a coherent hypothesis and deals with the many contradictions that have been fully outlined since 2008.” But Wolbach et al. (2018) provided a coherent summary and the key impact evidence has been replicated repeatedly.

一个提高标准例子，Holliday等人（2023）的结论：“我们等待一个完整的总结讨论，提供一个前后一致的假设，并修复自2008年以来已经充分概述的许多矛盾。”但Wolbach等人（2018）已经提供了一个一致的总结，关键的撞击证据被反复映证。

Conclusions 结论

The language used by YDIH opponents, especially Holliday et al. (2023), crosses the line into pseudoskepticism. I have provided examples of the expected signals of pseudoskep­ticism in their articles, including ad hominem arguments, strong pejoratives, vague and unsubstantiated accusations of scientific misconduct, attempted suppression, and raising the goalposts.

YDIH （Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis）反对者，尤其是Holliday等人（2023）使用的语言越线为伪怀疑者。我在他们的文章中具有伪怀疑者的标志，包括人身攻击，强烈的贬斥，模糊和经不起推敲的指控等科学不端行为，压制和提高标准。

Many have blamed the failure to uphold publishing standards in this and other examples as due to the process of peer review itself (Smith, 2006). Yet most studies have found, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, that “Peer review is the worst system for evaluating scientific publications, except for all those other systems that have been tried from time to time.” At the very least, we should expect editors and peer reviewers to uphold the professed eth­ics policies of the journal in question. Holliday et al. (2023) appeared in Earth-Science Reviews, published by Elsevier, as did Pinter et al. (2011), whose statement on publishing ethics reads:

许多人认为在这个和其他例子中未能坚持出版标准是由于同行评审本身的问题（Smith, 2006）。诚然，大多数研究发现，套用温斯顿·丘吉尔（Winston Churchill）的话来说，“除了那些不时被尝试过的其他制度，同行评议是评估科学出版物最糟糕的制度”。至少，我们应该期望编辑和同行评议人能够遵守期刊公开宣称的相关伦理政策。在爱思唯尔出版的《地球科学评论》（Earth-Science Reviews）上，Holliday等人（2023）发表他们对出版伦理的声明如下（Pinter等人（2011）也有类似声明）：

It is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing … This includes … treating each other with respect and dignity and without discrimination, harassment, bullying or retaliation. (Elsevier Policy, n.d.).

很重要的一点是，要为参与出版活动的各方制定道德行为标准……这包括……以尊重和尊严对待彼此，不歧视、不骚扰、不欺凌或不报复。（Elsevier Policy, n.d）。

How could such failures to follow ethics policy be avoided? Increased training in the eth­ics of science communication at the post-graduate level would surely help. Perhaps editors could also be asked to confirm in writing that an article under consideration meets the jour­nal’s ethical standards.

如何才能避免这种不遵守道德政策的情况？在研究生阶段加强科学出版伦理方面的培训肯定会有所帮助。也许还可以要求编辑以书面形式确认正在考虑的文章是否符合期刊的道德标准。

Finally, is it reasonable to proclaim that a hypothesis which remains an active subject of research has been refuted? To do so discourages research, dissuades funders, and may mislead readers as to the true state of an area of science. Moreover, we might ask: when can we be sure that a hypothesis has been refuted and should be forgotten? Popper argued that a scientific theory can never be proven because future observations could contradict it. Conversely, many great theories, including continental drift, meteorite impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming, were said to have been disproven, only to have new evidence rejuvenate them and even elevate them to the status of ruling paradigm.

最后，宣称一个仍然是活跃研究课题的假设已经被驳倒，这合理吗？这样做会阻碍研究，劝阻资助者，并可能误导读者了解科学领域的真实状况。此外，我们可能会问：我们什么时候能确定一个假设已经被驳倒，应该被遗忘？波普尔认为，科学理论永远不可能被证明，因为未来的观察可能与之相矛盾。相反，许多伟大的理论，包括大陆漂移、陨石撞击坑、人为全球变暖，据说已经被证明是错误的，但是有新的证据使它们重新焕发活力，甚至将它们提升到主流的地位。

Despite the derogatory language directed at the YDIH, and claims of its refutation, sci­entists have continued to investigate the hypothesis. After Holliday et al. (2023) appeared, peer-reviewed articles have reported new impact evidence from four YD boundary sites, including, for the first time, the presence of quartz shocked and shattered by extreme pres­sures (Moore et al., 2023, 2024). As French and Koeberl (2010) write, “Only the presence of diagnostic shock-metamorphic effects…is generally accepted as unambiguous evidence for an impact origin.”

尽管有针对YDIH （Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis）的贬损语言，以及对其反驳的主张，科学家们仍在继续研究这一假设。在Holliday等人（2023）之后，同行评议的文章报道了来自四个YD (Younger Dryas)地点的新影响证据，包括首次发现受极端压力冲击而破碎的石英（Moore等人，2023,2024）。正如French和Koeberl（2010）所写，“只有冲击变质效应的存在……才是被普遍接受的撞击起源的明确证据。”

Acknowledgments The author received no funding for this work and has no acknowledgments to make. He has published a popular book on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, the subject of the article and has no other interests to disclose and no data or code to provide.

声明

该工作作者没有获得任何基金资助。他除了出版过一本广泛流行的早期干旱撞击假说Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis的著作，没有其它信息需要公布。