9 ms·
Given how fast the discovery dates of different technologies are being pushed back across the globe, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the ideas that Graham Ha
by Alex3917 9y ago
Given how fast the discovery dates of different technologies are being pushed back across the globe, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the ideas that Graham Hancock has popularized about advanced civilizations existing before the ice age get validated within the next few decades. Even in the five years since he was banned from TED, a ton of new research has come out about Gobekli Tepe, the Younger Dryas impact theory, etc.
- rbobby 9y agoI had to look up who Graham Hancock is. The wikipedia article on him is less than complementary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock)... I wouldn't put any stock in his "theories" whatsoever.
- Alex3917 9y agoI mean if the Wikipedia article said otherwise then my comment wouldn’t really have been worth writing.
- Baeocystin 9y agoNot referring to Graham Hancock per se (I hadn't heard of him before this post) but when it comes to articles about people with even a hint of controversy around them, I would trust Wikipedia about as far as I could throw one of their server racks. It is always a good idea to at least check the talk page in addition to whatever is on the initial page.
- stareatgoats 9y agoHancock doesn't enjoy much reputation in the scientific community, with good reason: science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true, Hancock is more about letting the imagination fly, based on cherry-picking something here and there. It doesn't mean that his theory about a 'mother-culture' will eventually prove totally incorrect, but there is ample reason to remain skeptical as long as there is no "smoking gun" so to speak. One good reason to await solid evidence (if such a reason might at all be needed) is that the idea of an ancient, superior culture has been used in ideology before: the Atlantis story was one of the cornerstones of the Nazi mythology [0], but of course without the archaeological evidence to back it up. No need to repeat past mistakes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology
- eikenberry 9y ago> science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true No, science is about what we can formulate testable predictions. It can be completely unreasonable, yet still be science. Many major breakthroughs have been from unreasonable ideas.
- woodandsteel 9y agoLike many words in the English language, the term "reasonable" has more than one meaning. I think the OP was using it for a meaning that fits your explanation of science.
- agapon 9y agoI am not sure if this (very correct) definition of science applies to sciences that study what happened in the past.
- cygx 9y agoHypothesis: Troy existed Prediction: There's a buried city in Asia Minor Test: Go there and dig it up
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dragandj 9y agoThat prediction could be right even if that hypothesis was wrong. Hypothesis 2: City X different than Troy existed is equally well made more plausible by digging a city up in Asia Minor.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- colordrops 9y agoI think you are getting caught in the weeds. The point is that historical science is still evidence based.
- knodi 9y agoProblem with Hancock's theories is that there isn't tangible evidence to back it up. At this point its all imagination.