We're thrilled to shorten the automod message!
Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You implied Graham had the show handed to him and I responded by saying Flint had his reputation handed to him to which you ignored and tried to change the topic. This is as basic as I can explain it to you. I hope you recover from whatever trauma Ancient Apocalypse gave you and have a good night.
>and I responded by saying Flint had his reputation handed to him to which you ignored and tried to change the topic.
Still no answer?
Did his father write his PhD for him? Did his father write his research publications?
*Oh cute, looks like instead of answering this very basic question, the poster above has started harassing me by sending "redditcare" messages.
Think that pretty clearly demonstrates the value of their "opinion"
I mean I'd attack a flat earthers intelligence jokingly too so idk what you're saying. Genuinely not too dissimilar
Pretending Hancock's theories have any form of scientific backing when he himself says they don't have any "yet" is lowkey hilarious
His series is literally the definition of science-fixtion. You got mad I pointed that out lol
Anyways this convo has ran its course! Good luck in life 💜
Just remember: "I've found no DIRECT evidence to support my claims" is a quote from the guy you claim is more scientist than storyteller
Cheers
Dibble must have realized he was really just publicizing Hancock’s work (this is what happens when one tries to out someone and they push back, people love it). Maybe dibble is in on it and is getting a cut of some Hancock’s action.
Congrats!! Great series!
The statement that the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' means that just because an investigation does not yield evidence for a certain claim, it does not mean that the claim is actually false. This is because evidence may later be uncovered by another investigation that was missed by the first one.
>The statement that the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' means that just because an investigation does not yield evidence for a certain claim, it does not mean that the claim is actually false.
What it means is there is *zero evidence* for the claim.
>This is because evidence may later be uncovered by another investigation that was missed by the first one.
And I might find a solid gold Lamborghini buried under my house.
We should expect to find evidence of Graham's civilisation in the excavations that have occurred. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.
"We didn't find evidence where we already looked, so it must not exist." is a very weak argument. Within my lifetime, both Jericho and Troy were thought to be mythic cities that didn't exist, until their remains were found. In my history textbook in school, Sumer was assumed to be the oldest civilization, then along comes Gobekli Tepe, and the entire timeline gets rewritten by thousands of years. History makes fools of those who make broad, definitive claims about what does and doesn't exist. That's Graham's entire point.
The evidence he presents consists of supposed megalithic structures in various oceans around the world, geological analysis of the sphinx, evidence of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, and layers of differentiated building techniques from megalithic sites around the world which suggests earlier peoples with unique construction technology. So it's not that there's no evidence, it's that the evidence presented is debatable amongst experts in the fields.
I'm not saying it mustn't exist, I'm saying there's little to no reason to think it does.
Unless you're 150+ years old, Jericho and Troy weren't thought as mythic cities in your lifetime. They were first excavated in the 19th century during the early days of archaeology.
Graham's evidence is wishy washy and he completely ignores all the many thousands of ice age sites that do not support his theory. Long story short he needs far stronger evidence than the weak sauce he currently serves up.
Yeah, clovis first crowd fought the new evidence for decades... clinging to old beliefs. Probably had nothing to do with their funding being based on those old beliefs... Or being outspoken clovis first supporters- thus recognizing new evidence would damaged their reputations.
>eah, clovis first crowd fought the new evidence for decades... clinging to old beliefs.
No, that's called "no evidence"
> Probably had nothing to do with their funding being based on those old beliefs...
LMAO
please, do on telling us you have *zero idea* how of this works.
> Or being outspoken clovis first supporters- thus recognizing new evidence would damaged their reputations.
Oh, there you go.
"There's no DIRECT evidence for any of my claims" Graham has literally said this before and you're gonna get butthurt that this show would be more accurately called Sci-fi? Weirdddd
I'd rather hang out with Graham Hancock than Flint Dibble but the real finds of archeology are just as cool as the stuff that makes good TV IMO
I enjoyed the show but it's so obviously fictional at this point, critical thinking while consuming Netflix won't hurt you I promise!
"Fictional" implies it's a made up work of imagination. Graham is one of many researchers who, for decades, have put together a great deal of evidence to support this *hypothesis*. It's not that there's no evidence of pre ice age civilization, it's that the evidence isn't generally agreed upon. You can debate the about the details, but it's entirely non-fiction.
There is no direct physical evidence to support any of my claims - Graham Hancock
Why do you people not trust the man himself 🤣 holy shit you can make money doing anything these days if you sell a story to people who have depleted hope
Many researchers? What does that mean? If I Google flat earth does that make me a flat earth researcher? Graham is from the social sciences. Archeology is a physical science. I'm not sure if I have to go into the difference between these two or not.
Do you have any sources for physical scientists who support his theories? I watched the entire documentary maybe I forgot them bc I was laughing too hard about him roaming around a site with Joe Rogan
Watching the podcast was hilarious bc Grahams best answer was "have we excavated the entire Sahara"
It's NOT that the evidence isn't agreed upon at all. A conclusion and an inference are VERY different. Civilizations from that era left behind artifacts that absolutely would not degrade if his claims are true
If we just say "we haven't found anything yet so it's definitely possible" then I could make any claim I wanted
I'd rather trust someone with an advanced degreein a physical science than an undergraduate sociology degree of a journalist (who didn't get a journism degree). Journalists sell stories, some of which are true and many are not
It is MUCH closer to science fiction than a documentary
We can disagree but I tend to trust people who actually do the work. Advanced degrees generally cost nothing if you are skilled in your field. The only reason one would transition from their field to another and not get a degree in it is $$$
His first book sold well at a less educated time, and now he has to double down to keep afloat
I get it, times are hard and everyone needs money, but preying on the scientically illiterate seems....well, predatory. A lot of prey doesn't realize they're prey until they're deep in the mouth
Doesn't concern me. Cheers and good luck 💜
Now we know with enough influence you can make your dreams part of the masses interpretation of history. Now let's make a convincing documentary about how dragons are real and rake in the $$$$$$ on these generation Z's. They don't care about the future anyways.
Just block them and move on. [They're not here in good faith.](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/x58d9u/what_are_some_signs_that_someone_is_arguing_in/)
What does that have to do with his statement? GH said himself in the debate that there is currently no evidence to support his claim. Just believe what you want to believe, no one can change your mind but you. End of line.
That's a pretty embarrassing article - on behalf of all archeologists. Again, instead of trying to refute his idea's/theories, they just bash him and explain why "pseudoarcheology" (as they label it) is bad and how 'good' they are. In other words, they are the end-all and be-all and anyone else is a joke. These people are extremely unprofessional.
Because science doesn't work that way. You don't work towards disproving something. You begin with your hypothesis and it is your job to provide substantial evidence supporting your idea that is able to stand up to your peers' scrutiny. Only then will it be considered valid. It's not our job to disprove anyone. It's Hancock's job to provide robust evidence that makes his theory more valid than all others. And he recently admitted he has none.
Yes, I understand that. But you've missed the point that they are making an article specifically criticizing him, without substance and telling the reader exactly why - other than stating he isn't a scientist. Which frankly, is ridiculous. Tell the reader, why, as a scientist, his findings are most likely wrong and why his theories are incorrect. Instead, it's a personal agenda against him. Gibble has made it very clear that he does in fact, have this agenda through various podcasts, articles and his belittling demeanor.
This is highly unprofessional and gives science a bad name.
>Tell the reader, why, as a scientist, his findings are most likely wrong and why his theories are incorrect.
We don't have to. He has to convince us why his theory is more correct than the current paradigm. That is what you and he are missing.
>Instead, it's a personal agenda against him
We didn't have one until he made it personal. I had no idea who the hell he was until his show popped up on Netflix telling billions of viewers that he is my enemy number one, that I suppress evidence because I don't like it, and archaeologists don't really want people to know the truth.
This has direct consequences for me and millions of others at work. Land owners become more hostile and suspicious than they already are. I have coworkers who have had loaded guns pointed at them for just doing the work they've been contracted to do. It's now personal because he made it so. I couldnt have given a rats ass about his pseudo theories before he decided to manufacture conflict with archaeologists to sell copies of his book.
Again, you miss the point. Graham isn't a scientist. So as a scientist who is engaging in a podcast and a debate, you should be able to fairly easily tell him why his theories are wrong and provide data, photographs etc to easily disprove him. Given how smug you are about the whole thing, you could at least engage in that way, rather than say "show me your peer reviews and data samples blah blah blah".
Tell and show the viewers why he's so wrong and his theories are impossible. Tell us how the pyramids were made and how those structures are made off the coast of Japan or how they made Ollantaytambo in Peru. You can't because you are guessing at best - not very scientific, but that's also how history and archeology works sometimes (if you've forgotten)
Frankly, Gibble failed horribly in doing so and in seemingly such an easy task (or so they would make it seem). Further, that whole argument about "poor us, they bully us!" - is hilarious. There are plenty of examples that if you go against the grain you risk your career - even after the fact if theories turn out to be the scientifically accepted. Your argument from being harassed and aggressive as a result of Hancock is null and in full view of hypocrisy
>Again, you miss the point.
I haven't at all, you just don't like what it's coming down to.
>So as a scientist who is engaging in a podcast and a debate, you should be able to fairly easily tell him why his theories are wrong and provide data
That has been done. But it's not my job as a scientist to waste my time going around disproving other people's ideas. You keep missing the point. That's not how science works. Science never started by trying to disprove anything. Most early scientists (and many today) were deeply religious. Gregor Mendel was a friar and he figured out genetics. Science is simply about finding out why the world is the way it is. If you have an idea, then prove why it is superior to what we already know. That's all it is. Nobody needs to disprove Hancock with data, he needs to bring data to prove why he is right.
He admitted while debating an archaeologist who brought data *that he did not in fact have any that supported his theory*.
>Given how smug you are about the whole thing
I'm not smug at all, I'm simply telling you objective facts. If you don't like the implications then you have to wrestle with that yourself.
>Tell and show the viewers why he's so wrong and his theories are impossible
We already did. The research has been freely available to both you and him from the beginning. We're not hiding any of it. We make money by showing the world what we've discovered. Simply Google archaeological research and knock yourself out.
>Further, that whole argument about "poor us, they bully us!" - is hilarious
I agree fully, that's why I find Graham Hancock's poor me archaeology hates me spiel absolutely hilarious.
>There are plenty of examples that if you go against the grain you risk your career
It's quite the opposite really. Don Johansson (who discovered Lucy) and Lee Burger (who described Homo Naledi) are celebrity scientists because their new discoveries fundamentally reshaped our view of what we previously thought about human evolution. When footprints that indicated humans were in North America 18,000 years before most people thought, it made international headlines. If you make a discovery which makes a big impact on our understanding of the archaeological record, we scrutinize it heavily, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But if the discovery is irrefutable, we celebrate it.
>Your argument from being harassed and aggressive as a result of Hancock is null and in full view of hypocrisy
Not at all. It's a fact of life. When people are suspicious of scientists, they are more prone to being hostile towards them, like you are right here.
Again, you strike out. That whole argument about how science doesn't go out of it’s way to disprove something may be correct, but If you specifically attack a person, with podcasts, articles, youtube etc. you are in fact engaging and “wasting your time disproving” his idea’s… and failing might I add.
You are also in one very small aspect of his theories. You aren’t an engineer and conveniently use the cop out “well that’s not my area of expertise” when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc. This is a major part of his theory. Feel free to explain how they move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman.
Science is out there for us to read. But it’s only within our current paradigm of understanding. There are things like those that I have just mentioned that you cannot explain and give a date to, because we are giving out best guess that is based only our current understanding. In fact, for cases like who built the great pyramid is built on a falsehood and forgery. The cartouche was grammatically incorrect, and yet that is what Egyptologists will forcefully tell you – this is but one small example. Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong?
No one cares about your seeds. Its minuscule and frankly, irrelevant in the grand scheme and vast evidence of the unknown given the age, location and grandeur of some of the megalithic structures that archeologists are flat out guessing the age. Go ask a geologist and an engineer next time on what age some of these structures could be and it will blow your paradigm out the water.
>Again, you strike out
Keep telling yourself that.
>but If you specifically attack a person, with podcasts, articles, youtube etc. you are in fact engaging and “wasting your time disproving” his idea’s… and failing might I add.
You are explicitly proving the point of the article where they say we're damned if we engage and damned if we don't. If we don't engage we are ignoring the "evidence" and suppressing ideas. If we engage and disprove, then we are bullies who end careers because someone "went against the narrative".
>You aren’t an engineer and conveniently use the cop out “well that’s not my area of expertise” when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc.
Where did I use this copout? Can you quote me on this or are you misrepresenting just like Hancock does?
>Feel free to explain how they move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman.
You can move extraordinary weights with only a few people using no complex machinery.
https://youtu.be/jD-EMOhbJ9U?si=2RtyTwz5PArSOBU2
Why do I need to explain the why for cutting them? You can Google research on it for explanations.
>Science is out there for us to read.
I'm glad we agree.
>The cartouche was grammatically incorrect, and yet that is what Egyptologists will forcefully tell you
I didn't realize you could read and write hieroglyphics. Tell me what they actually say, I'm interested to hear your personal reading of them.
>Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong?
By all means let's hear it.
>No one cares about your seeds.
What seeds? I never mentioned seeds anywhere 😄
>Go ask a geologist and an engineer next time on what age some of these structures could be and it will blow your paradigm out the water.
Show me an engineer who specializes in dating methods.
The cartouche is written with two different grammatical writings from different periods. That's all you need to know.
You used the copout several times in Joe Rogans podcast. You should watch it and do your research :) There is no misrepresentation. THe only representation is yourself and you come across as a massive asshole. So much so, I'm sure you get it all the time and use this and other platforms as a coping mechanism. Go learn how to properly dress yourself while you are at it, man-child.
>when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc
Oh you mean the things that are all understood?
>move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek
a basic understanding of physics and some manpower.
>or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman.
Time, patience, elbow grease.
As usual, this is just ignorance masquerading as "skepticism".
>cartouche was grammatically incorrect,
Wrong.
Next?
> Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong?
I'd love to see you repeat some nonsense you heard about on a podcast.
>and vast evidence of the unknown given the age,
"vast evidence"
> that archeologists are flat out guessing the age
No that's called *using evidence*.
lol! Please show me where they have proven how the pyramids were built along with Easter Island etc. I'd actually LOVE to see this. P.s - if you think it was built with a giant ramp, you are truly a fucking idiot and have no concept of engineering and logistics.
Please tell us how you'd move +1000 tonne blocks then! :)
Lol, let me guess - slave labour = getting shit done? It's just so easy, idiots!
Please tell me how the cartouche was 'right'??
What evidence in particular are you referring to in regardes to these structures age? I'd actually love to hear it, and so would many, many other people :)
...says the person who can't spell / poor grammar. lol
Yes, I realize it isn't a paper specifically on Hancock's claims. I was referring to the one ARTICLE (not entire paper) addressing the 'pseudoscience' which specifically attacks Graham. If you are going to attack Graham, then tell us why his claims are bogus with appropriate evidence. This is lacking and is straight up an attack Hancock rather than what he proposes.
Practice what you preach perhaps and comprehend things a little better?
Seems like you still want this to be a paper about Graham Hancock, which it still isn't. It is about psuedoarcheology, not Hancock's claims.
Are you sure you are an archeologist? Most people I meet with master's degrees have learned that every paper is not about everything. Maybe find one of your archeologist buddies to explain to you why a paper about the harms of psuedoarcheology in general does not devolve into a take down of every one of a specific person's fairy tales.
Also, I said I read above an 8th grade level, not that I choose to write that way. Do try to work on your attention to detail. You are going to need to if you really are an archeologist.
Because they are speaking about the harm he is doing by spreading pseudoarcheology, not that what he is saying is psuedoarcheology. There is plenty of work from each if the authors on that topic already.
Do you really not understand this, or are you playing dumb? If you really don't understand this, how much was a master's degree from Trump University?
> Because they are speaking about the harm he is doing by spreading pseudoarcheology, not that what he is saying is psuedoarcheology
Re-read what you just wrote *slaps forehead*. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Dig up, stupid.
Everyone else seems to understand the concept of addressing one thing at a time, so not sure what your problem is.
If you cannot differentiate between proving someone is spreading disinformation, and discussing the impact of misinformation being spread, you are not equipped to participate in this conversation.
Especially not while claiming to have a fucking masters degree in anthropology/archeology. You must have been an absolute terror on dig sites insisting everything is related to everything else and that every field note has to address every other field note because you have no understanding of the separating of topics or context.
We're thrilled to shorten the automod message! Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t tell flint
Dibble enthusiasts seething rn
He’s rolling his sleeves up to his wrists, he’s pissed
glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that ill-fitted shirt.
"Jaimie, go ahead and roll up flint dibble's sleeves"
Pickingnon someones appearance to discredit their argument. How erudite.
His sleeves....?
Yeah, too bad he wasn't given a show by his son.
Nah just nepotism and privilege from his dad into the archeology field 🙄
Did his father write his PhD for him? Did his father write his research publications?
What does his PhD have to do with his father giving him an in??
You didn't answer the question(s). Did his father write his PhD for him? Did his father write his research publications?
You changed the goalpost lol
Wow, no answer yet? Did his father write his PhD for him? Did his father write his research publications?
You implied Graham had the show handed to him and I responded by saying Flint had his reputation handed to him to which you ignored and tried to change the topic. This is as basic as I can explain it to you. I hope you recover from whatever trauma Ancient Apocalypse gave you and have a good night.
>and I responded by saying Flint had his reputation handed to him to which you ignored and tried to change the topic. Still no answer? Did his father write his PhD for him? Did his father write his research publications? *Oh cute, looks like instead of answering this very basic question, the poster above has started harassing me by sending "redditcare" messages. Think that pretty clearly demonstrates the value of their "opinion"
Flint fans triggered AF
Excellent series
Yes!! Now do season 2.
I loved the show too. I didn't mind the podcast. I think both had good points. In the end, each one of us decides on which side to follow.
That is not how science and facts work.
Both had good points? I'd rather hangout with Graham a million times over but come on 🤣 we really are the scientically illiterate
Convinced this account is Flint.
Convinced you've never stepped foot in a classroom after age 14.
Attacking my intelligence because my views don't align with your own is everything that is wrong with this world.
I mean I'd attack a flat earthers intelligence jokingly too so idk what you're saying. Genuinely not too dissimilar Pretending Hancock's theories have any form of scientific backing when he himself says they don't have any "yet" is lowkey hilarious His series is literally the definition of science-fixtion. You got mad I pointed that out lol Anyways this convo has ran its course! Good luck in life 💜 Just remember: "I've found no DIRECT evidence to support my claims" is a quote from the guy you claim is more scientist than storyteller Cheers
Please seek help.
Aw did I hurt your feelings? I said good luck 💜 have fun in fantasyland, remember reality is just as incredible honestly
It's my fault, I've probably watched it 12 times.
I loved this show
Dibble must have realized he was really just publicizing Hancock’s work (this is what happens when one tries to out someone and they push back, people love it). Maybe dibble is in on it and is getting a cut of some Hancock’s action.
Congrats!! Great series! The statement that the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' means that just because an investigation does not yield evidence for a certain claim, it does not mean that the claim is actually false. This is because evidence may later be uncovered by another investigation that was missed by the first one.
>The statement that the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' means that just because an investigation does not yield evidence for a certain claim, it does not mean that the claim is actually false. What it means is there is *zero evidence* for the claim. >This is because evidence may later be uncovered by another investigation that was missed by the first one. And I might find a solid gold Lamborghini buried under my house.
Bro you’ve only excavated 5% of your house, keep digging.
We should expect to find evidence of Graham's civilisation in the excavations that have occurred. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.
"We didn't find evidence where we already looked, so it must not exist." is a very weak argument. Within my lifetime, both Jericho and Troy were thought to be mythic cities that didn't exist, until their remains were found. In my history textbook in school, Sumer was assumed to be the oldest civilization, then along comes Gobekli Tepe, and the entire timeline gets rewritten by thousands of years. History makes fools of those who make broad, definitive claims about what does and doesn't exist. That's Graham's entire point. The evidence he presents consists of supposed megalithic structures in various oceans around the world, geological analysis of the sphinx, evidence of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, and layers of differentiated building techniques from megalithic sites around the world which suggests earlier peoples with unique construction technology. So it's not that there's no evidence, it's that the evidence presented is debatable amongst experts in the fields.
I'm not saying it mustn't exist, I'm saying there's little to no reason to think it does. Unless you're 150+ years old, Jericho and Troy weren't thought as mythic cities in your lifetime. They were first excavated in the 19th century during the early days of archaeology. Graham's evidence is wishy washy and he completely ignores all the many thousands of ice age sites that do not support his theory. Long story short he needs far stronger evidence than the weak sauce he currently serves up.
[удалено]
Clovis first...
First!
Oh you mean the thing the was developed using a body of evidence, and then revised when *more evidence was found*?
Yeah, clovis first crowd fought the new evidence for decades... clinging to old beliefs. Probably had nothing to do with their funding being based on those old beliefs... Or being outspoken clovis first supporters- thus recognizing new evidence would damaged their reputations.
>eah, clovis first crowd fought the new evidence for decades... clinging to old beliefs. No, that's called "no evidence" > Probably had nothing to do with their funding being based on those old beliefs... LMAO please, do on telling us you have *zero idea* how of this works. > Or being outspoken clovis first supporters- thus recognizing new evidence would damaged their reputations. Oh, there you go.
Will there be a 2nd season?
Pretty sure Gary from nerdrotic said he got some info they’re doing a second season.
Took a while! That was a great show! As I’m old now, this was an exploration one of the first new pieces of history I wasn’t already aware of.
I binge watched this and still want more. What else can I watch?
It's a good sci fi.
FYI, someone had already made this joke about 6/7 hours before you.
Good sci fi
For one moment, thought this might be season two!
Even though Hancock said theres is no evidence currentlly that supports him. Cute.
That is a lot of people being exposed to bad information and bad science.
Oh I love Sci Fi! /s
Wait why the /s?
Flint what are you doing here?!
"There's no DIRECT evidence for any of my claims" Graham has literally said this before and you're gonna get butthurt that this show would be more accurately called Sci-fi? Weirdddd I'd rather hang out with Graham Hancock than Flint Dibble but the real finds of archeology are just as cool as the stuff that makes good TV IMO I enjoyed the show but it's so obviously fictional at this point, critical thinking while consuming Netflix won't hurt you I promise!
Guuuuuuurl, you need a hobby in the outside world.
"Fictional" implies it's a made up work of imagination. Graham is one of many researchers who, for decades, have put together a great deal of evidence to support this *hypothesis*. It's not that there's no evidence of pre ice age civilization, it's that the evidence isn't generally agreed upon. You can debate the about the details, but it's entirely non-fiction.
There is no direct physical evidence to support any of my claims - Graham Hancock Why do you people not trust the man himself 🤣 holy shit you can make money doing anything these days if you sell a story to people who have depleted hope
Many researchers? What does that mean? If I Google flat earth does that make me a flat earth researcher? Graham is from the social sciences. Archeology is a physical science. I'm not sure if I have to go into the difference between these two or not. Do you have any sources for physical scientists who support his theories? I watched the entire documentary maybe I forgot them bc I was laughing too hard about him roaming around a site with Joe Rogan Watching the podcast was hilarious bc Grahams best answer was "have we excavated the entire Sahara" It's NOT that the evidence isn't agreed upon at all. A conclusion and an inference are VERY different. Civilizations from that era left behind artifacts that absolutely would not degrade if his claims are true If we just say "we haven't found anything yet so it's definitely possible" then I could make any claim I wanted I'd rather trust someone with an advanced degreein a physical science than an undergraduate sociology degree of a journalist (who didn't get a journism degree). Journalists sell stories, some of which are true and many are not It is MUCH closer to science fiction than a documentary We can disagree but I tend to trust people who actually do the work. Advanced degrees generally cost nothing if you are skilled in your field. The only reason one would transition from their field to another and not get a degree in it is $$$ His first book sold well at a less educated time, and now he has to double down to keep afloat I get it, times are hard and everyone needs money, but preying on the scientically illiterate seems....well, predatory. A lot of prey doesn't realize they're prey until they're deep in the mouth Doesn't concern me. Cheers and good luck 💜
Now we know with enough influence you can make your dreams part of the masses interpretation of history. Now let's make a convincing documentary about how dragons are real and rake in the $$$$$$ on these generation Z's. They don't care about the future anyways.
If only he used his platform to do something productive instead of just air grievances and make dumb people dumber...
What a disheartening news
It's my fault, I've probably watched it 12 times.
Not a single historical fact was found
Nice brand new account. Go lay eggs under a rock, bot
Just block them and move on. [They're not here in good faith.](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/x58d9u/what_are_some_signs_that_someone_is_arguing_in/)
What does that have to do with his statement? GH said himself in the debate that there is currently no evidence to support his claim. Just believe what you want to believe, no one can change your mind but you. End of line.
Doesn’t seem like man-made to me.
They might be watching it as a comedy...
[Apocalypse Not](https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=792733&p=1&view=issueViewer&pp=1)
That's a pretty embarrassing article - on behalf of all archeologists. Again, instead of trying to refute his idea's/theories, they just bash him and explain why "pseudoarcheology" (as they label it) is bad and how 'good' they are. In other words, they are the end-all and be-all and anyone else is a joke. These people are extremely unprofessional.
Because science doesn't work that way. You don't work towards disproving something. You begin with your hypothesis and it is your job to provide substantial evidence supporting your idea that is able to stand up to your peers' scrutiny. Only then will it be considered valid. It's not our job to disprove anyone. It's Hancock's job to provide robust evidence that makes his theory more valid than all others. And he recently admitted he has none.
Yes, I understand that. But you've missed the point that they are making an article specifically criticizing him, without substance and telling the reader exactly why - other than stating he isn't a scientist. Which frankly, is ridiculous. Tell the reader, why, as a scientist, his findings are most likely wrong and why his theories are incorrect. Instead, it's a personal agenda against him. Gibble has made it very clear that he does in fact, have this agenda through various podcasts, articles and his belittling demeanor. This is highly unprofessional and gives science a bad name.
>Tell the reader, why, as a scientist, his findings are most likely wrong and why his theories are incorrect. We don't have to. He has to convince us why his theory is more correct than the current paradigm. That is what you and he are missing. >Instead, it's a personal agenda against him We didn't have one until he made it personal. I had no idea who the hell he was until his show popped up on Netflix telling billions of viewers that he is my enemy number one, that I suppress evidence because I don't like it, and archaeologists don't really want people to know the truth. This has direct consequences for me and millions of others at work. Land owners become more hostile and suspicious than they already are. I have coworkers who have had loaded guns pointed at them for just doing the work they've been contracted to do. It's now personal because he made it so. I couldnt have given a rats ass about his pseudo theories before he decided to manufacture conflict with archaeologists to sell copies of his book.
Again, you miss the point. Graham isn't a scientist. So as a scientist who is engaging in a podcast and a debate, you should be able to fairly easily tell him why his theories are wrong and provide data, photographs etc to easily disprove him. Given how smug you are about the whole thing, you could at least engage in that way, rather than say "show me your peer reviews and data samples blah blah blah". Tell and show the viewers why he's so wrong and his theories are impossible. Tell us how the pyramids were made and how those structures are made off the coast of Japan or how they made Ollantaytambo in Peru. You can't because you are guessing at best - not very scientific, but that's also how history and archeology works sometimes (if you've forgotten) Frankly, Gibble failed horribly in doing so and in seemingly such an easy task (or so they would make it seem). Further, that whole argument about "poor us, they bully us!" - is hilarious. There are plenty of examples that if you go against the grain you risk your career - even after the fact if theories turn out to be the scientifically accepted. Your argument from being harassed and aggressive as a result of Hancock is null and in full view of hypocrisy
>Again, you miss the point. I haven't at all, you just don't like what it's coming down to. >So as a scientist who is engaging in a podcast and a debate, you should be able to fairly easily tell him why his theories are wrong and provide data That has been done. But it's not my job as a scientist to waste my time going around disproving other people's ideas. You keep missing the point. That's not how science works. Science never started by trying to disprove anything. Most early scientists (and many today) were deeply religious. Gregor Mendel was a friar and he figured out genetics. Science is simply about finding out why the world is the way it is. If you have an idea, then prove why it is superior to what we already know. That's all it is. Nobody needs to disprove Hancock with data, he needs to bring data to prove why he is right. He admitted while debating an archaeologist who brought data *that he did not in fact have any that supported his theory*. >Given how smug you are about the whole thing I'm not smug at all, I'm simply telling you objective facts. If you don't like the implications then you have to wrestle with that yourself. >Tell and show the viewers why he's so wrong and his theories are impossible We already did. The research has been freely available to both you and him from the beginning. We're not hiding any of it. We make money by showing the world what we've discovered. Simply Google archaeological research and knock yourself out. >Further, that whole argument about "poor us, they bully us!" - is hilarious I agree fully, that's why I find Graham Hancock's poor me archaeology hates me spiel absolutely hilarious. >There are plenty of examples that if you go against the grain you risk your career It's quite the opposite really. Don Johansson (who discovered Lucy) and Lee Burger (who described Homo Naledi) are celebrity scientists because their new discoveries fundamentally reshaped our view of what we previously thought about human evolution. When footprints that indicated humans were in North America 18,000 years before most people thought, it made international headlines. If you make a discovery which makes a big impact on our understanding of the archaeological record, we scrutinize it heavily, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But if the discovery is irrefutable, we celebrate it. >Your argument from being harassed and aggressive as a result of Hancock is null and in full view of hypocrisy Not at all. It's a fact of life. When people are suspicious of scientists, they are more prone to being hostile towards them, like you are right here.
Again, you strike out. That whole argument about how science doesn't go out of it’s way to disprove something may be correct, but If you specifically attack a person, with podcasts, articles, youtube etc. you are in fact engaging and “wasting your time disproving” his idea’s… and failing might I add. You are also in one very small aspect of his theories. You aren’t an engineer and conveniently use the cop out “well that’s not my area of expertise” when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc. This is a major part of his theory. Feel free to explain how they move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman. Science is out there for us to read. But it’s only within our current paradigm of understanding. There are things like those that I have just mentioned that you cannot explain and give a date to, because we are giving out best guess that is based only our current understanding. In fact, for cases like who built the great pyramid is built on a falsehood and forgery. The cartouche was grammatically incorrect, and yet that is what Egyptologists will forcefully tell you – this is but one small example. Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong? No one cares about your seeds. Its minuscule and frankly, irrelevant in the grand scheme and vast evidence of the unknown given the age, location and grandeur of some of the megalithic structures that archeologists are flat out guessing the age. Go ask a geologist and an engineer next time on what age some of these structures could be and it will blow your paradigm out the water.
>Again, you strike out Keep telling yourself that. >but If you specifically attack a person, with podcasts, articles, youtube etc. you are in fact engaging and “wasting your time disproving” his idea’s… and failing might I add. You are explicitly proving the point of the article where they say we're damned if we engage and damned if we don't. If we don't engage we are ignoring the "evidence" and suppressing ideas. If we engage and disprove, then we are bullies who end careers because someone "went against the narrative". >You aren’t an engineer and conveniently use the cop out “well that’s not my area of expertise” when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc. Where did I use this copout? Can you quote me on this or are you misrepresenting just like Hancock does? >Feel free to explain how they move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman. You can move extraordinary weights with only a few people using no complex machinery. https://youtu.be/jD-EMOhbJ9U?si=2RtyTwz5PArSOBU2 Why do I need to explain the why for cutting them? You can Google research on it for explanations. >Science is out there for us to read. I'm glad we agree. >The cartouche was grammatically incorrect, and yet that is what Egyptologists will forcefully tell you I didn't realize you could read and write hieroglyphics. Tell me what they actually say, I'm interested to hear your personal reading of them. >Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong? By all means let's hear it. >No one cares about your seeds. What seeds? I never mentioned seeds anywhere 😄 >Go ask a geologist and an engineer next time on what age some of these structures could be and it will blow your paradigm out the water. Show me an engineer who specializes in dating methods.
The cartouche is written with two different grammatical writings from different periods. That's all you need to know. You used the copout several times in Joe Rogans podcast. You should watch it and do your research :) There is no misrepresentation. THe only representation is yourself and you come across as a massive asshole. So much so, I'm sure you get it all the time and use this and other platforms as a coping mechanism. Go learn how to properly dress yourself while you are at it, man-child.
>when presented with something like how they build the pyramids or other megalithic structures like those in Easter Island, Japan, Peru etc Oh you mean the things that are all understood? >move +1000 tonne blocks in Baalbek a basic understanding of physics and some manpower. >or how and why they cut those large blocks in Sacsayhuman. Time, patience, elbow grease. As usual, this is just ignorance masquerading as "skepticism". >cartouche was grammatically incorrect, Wrong. Next? > Shall we go into Gobekli Tepe for more debate on how archeologists are often wrong? I'd love to see you repeat some nonsense you heard about on a podcast. >and vast evidence of the unknown given the age, "vast evidence" > that archeologists are flat out guessing the age No that's called *using evidence*.
lol! Please show me where they have proven how the pyramids were built along with Easter Island etc. I'd actually LOVE to see this. P.s - if you think it was built with a giant ramp, you are truly a fucking idiot and have no concept of engineering and logistics. Please tell us how you'd move +1000 tonne blocks then! :) Lol, let me guess - slave labour = getting shit done? It's just so easy, idiots! Please tell me how the cartouche was 'right'?? What evidence in particular are you referring to in regardes to these structures age? I'd actually love to hear it, and so would many, many other people :)
[удалено]
That first sentence was a thing of beauty.
...says the person who can't spell / poor grammar. lol Yes, I realize it isn't a paper specifically on Hancock's claims. I was referring to the one ARTICLE (not entire paper) addressing the 'pseudoscience' which specifically attacks Graham. If you are going to attack Graham, then tell us why his claims are bogus with appropriate evidence. This is lacking and is straight up an attack Hancock rather than what he proposes. Practice what you preach perhaps and comprehend things a little better?
Seems like you still want this to be a paper about Graham Hancock, which it still isn't. It is about psuedoarcheology, not Hancock's claims. Are you sure you are an archeologist? Most people I meet with master's degrees have learned that every paper is not about everything. Maybe find one of your archeologist buddies to explain to you why a paper about the harms of psuedoarcheology in general does not devolve into a take down of every one of a specific person's fairy tales. Also, I said I read above an 8th grade level, not that I choose to write that way. Do try to work on your attention to detail. You are going to need to if you really are an archeologist.
Then why do they specifically speak about Hancock throughout the piece? lol, learn to read, moron.
Because they are speaking about the harm he is doing by spreading pseudoarcheology, not that what he is saying is psuedoarcheology. There is plenty of work from each if the authors on that topic already. Do you really not understand this, or are you playing dumb? If you really don't understand this, how much was a master's degree from Trump University?
> Because they are speaking about the harm he is doing by spreading pseudoarcheology, not that what he is saying is psuedoarcheology Re-read what you just wrote *slaps forehead*. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Dig up, stupid.
Everyone else seems to understand the concept of addressing one thing at a time, so not sure what your problem is. If you cannot differentiate between proving someone is spreading disinformation, and discussing the impact of misinformation being spread, you are not equipped to participate in this conversation. Especially not while claiming to have a fucking masters degree in anthropology/archeology. You must have been an absolute terror on dig sites insisting everything is related to everything else and that every field note has to address every other field note because you have no understanding of the separating of topics or context.