I'm not assuming either claim is bogus or legit. I'm saying trying to divine the legitimacy of a study without much context beyond a handful of "Alice says X but Bob says Y" is a fool's errand. On any "X/not X" topic one side is probably going to be correct, but not necessarily for any good reason.
we have an overcomplicated, never seen before, explanation involving a short structure of two short logs joined together for an unknown purpose that nobody could explain. Too short to be a building, too big to be a tool (Is this a 1mx1m house, a prehistoric walmart? a doll house? the earliest proof of a christian cross in the planet?) The structure somehow managed to survive for an awful lot of time, and was dated by a strange indirect method. If the sand is old, the wood is old (and the people sunbathing in the beach is also old).
This is explanation 1.
I proposed a much more simple explanation, that explains the notches, and also the position of the pieces, and also why the logs didn't root; and also a reasonable purpose for this structure that does not depend on extraordinary claims. This particular structure can be also easily replicated today
This is explanation 2
One of this explanations can be published on Nature. One is more probable than the other. One, or none, of this explanations are correct
I keep seeing people claiming that explanation 1 is correct "because experts are right, because they are experts (and know better)". A circular reasoning known in logic as fallacy of appeal to authority. Check the definition if you think that is used here incorrectly.
Nope, this is not an acceptable proof of anything
"You can't be right because, who do you think that you are, jackass?" is also an equally ludicrous response. Sorry If I broke your little Indiana Jones heart. Who do you assume that I am is not relevant. (LOL, you don't even know me).
I see the experts proposing that as there is a notch, it must be an imaginary rope, glue or whatever to join the logs, to support their narrative. My explanation does not rely on hypothetical proofs like an imaginary rope (that lets admit it, nobody has found)
Chop marks on firewood are expected, but don't imply necessarily "Tell Nature that they were trying to build a boudoir".
The fallacy of appeal to authority (or argument from authority) is referring to cases where the authority status is unrelated to the field of the argument. It is not a fallacy to assign higher credence to a statement of an expert in the relevant field relative to outsider with no relevant expertise.
I once read an article relating to farming practices which evoked from me reaction similar to yours, those smartypants archeologists are surely imagining entire worlds on the basis of small piece of insignificant broken metal. I read the entire paper just to prove myself I was right, and reading the forensic methods used for corroborating the thesis was very effective humbling lesson
if the original claim is assumed bogus, why is the HN dismissal assumed true?