4 ms·

Thanks for the response. Would it be correct though to say the channel does not reflect mainstream academic views? The creator of the YouTube channel describes

Thanks for the response. Would it be correct though to say the channel does not reflect mainstream academic views? The creator of the YouTube channel describes himself on his Facebook profile as a geologist with an interest in Neolithic sites, but he does not appear to be an archaeologist, anthropologist, or any sort of professional historian: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MattSibsonAuthor/about/ https://www.facebook.com/pg/MattSibsonAuthor/about/ > Ancient history writer, geologist, currently re-writing the history of the Stonehenge landscape with new interpretations of Neolithic monuments. While amateurs are capable of good work, and scientific consensus can change, eccentric ideas are more often wrong than right. Matt Sibson may mean well, but I would not consider his YouTube channel a reliable source given that the videos appear to diverge from the scientific establishment on a wide range of topics.

Alex3917 8y ago
> I would not consider his YouTube channel a reliable source I mean that's like saying Star Wars isn't a reliable source; you're judging something on the basis of something it isn't meant to be in the first place. Like when something like this tomb is discovered then he'll report what the discovery is. And when someone proposes a possible location for Atlantis, he'll report what that person is proposing. But saying that his channel is unreliable become mainstream academics don't think Atlantis existed is disingenuous.
- vatueil 8y ago
  Is the Ancient Architects channel supposed to be a fictional work, as Star Wars is? As far as I can tell from your comments and the videos I've checked, the channel presents itself as a factual source. If I am wrong, that would be a relief. The channel doesn't appear to be reporting fringe theories only for the sake of debunking them, à la Snopes. Rather, at least some of the videos seem to support the alternative hypotheses they present. For example, this video was linked in your reply to another thread in this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqPZ3NqVFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqPZ3NqVFk > Conspiracy: Silencing the Discovery of Egypt’s Lost Labyrinth | Ancient Architects The most common theory among mainstream archaeologists is that the labyrinth at Hawara described in some ancient accounts refers to a mortuary temple that has since been largely dismantled, as evidenced by the remaining foundations. The video mentions the mainstream theory, but dismisses it in favor of the idea that evidence confirming the labyrinth still exists underground is being covered up. Regarding Atlantis, I'm not sure how Ancient Architects's coverage of the topic supports the idea that it's a reliable source. The channel reports claims of Atlantis's existence very credulously, and even when it disagrees with certain specifics it instead presents its own theories regarding Atlantis or other lost ancient civilizations the YouTuber believes existed. These proposals tend to go against current scientific understanding, to say the least. You could treat the channel as entertainment, I suppose, but I would not approve of it as an educational resource.
- albedoa 8y ago
  > I mean that's like saying Star Wars isn't a reliable source; you're judging something on the basis of something it isn't meant to be in the first place. You described the channel as "pretty good at covering the latest ancient history news". It is being judged in part on the description that you gave. Unless you also describe Star Wars as pretty good ancient space news, then your comparison is extremely weak.

Alex3917 8y ago

> I would not consider his YouTube channel a reliable source I mean that's like saying Star Wars isn't a reliable source; you're judging something on the basis of something it isn't meant to be in the first place. Like when something like this tomb is discovered then he'll report what the discovery is. And when someone proposes a possible location for Atlantis, he'll report what that person is proposing. But saying that his channel is unreliable become mainstream academics don't think Atlantis existed is disingenuous.

vatueil 8y ago
Is the Ancient Architects channel supposed to be a fictional work, as Star Wars is? As far as I can tell from your comments and the videos I've checked, the channel presents itself as a factual source. If I am wrong, that would be a relief. The channel doesn't appear to be reporting fringe theories only for the sake of debunking them, à la Snopes. Rather, at least some of the videos seem to support the alternative hypotheses they present. For example, this video was linked in your reply to another thread in this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqPZ3NqVFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqPZ3NqVFk > Conspiracy: Silencing the Discovery of Egypt’s Lost Labyrinth | Ancient Architects The most common theory among mainstream archaeologists is that the labyrinth at Hawara described in some ancient accounts refers to a mortuary temple that has since been largely dismantled, as evidenced by the remaining foundations. The video mentions the mainstream theory, but dismisses it in favor of the idea that evidence confirming the labyrinth still exists underground is being covered up. Regarding Atlantis, I'm not sure how Ancient Architects's coverage of the topic supports the idea that it's a reliable source. The channel reports claims of Atlantis's existence very credulously, and even when it disagrees with certain specifics it instead presents its own theories regarding Atlantis or other lost ancient civilizations the YouTuber believes existed. These proposals tend to go against current scientific understanding, to say the least. You could treat the channel as entertainment, I suppose, but I would not approve of it as an educational resource.
albedoa 8y ago
> I mean that's like saying Star Wars isn't a reliable source; you're judging something on the basis of something it isn't meant to be in the first place. You described the channel as "pretty good at covering the latest ancient history news". It is being judged in part on the description that you gave. Unless you also describe Star Wars as pretty good ancient space news, then your comparison is extremely weak.