5 ms·
He does make persuasive arguments about existence of human civilization during younger dryas period (Gobekli Tepe happens to be one of his major evidence for th
by nafey 6y ago
He does make persuasive arguments about existence of human civilization during younger dryas period (Gobekli Tepe happens to be one of his major evidence for this) but he tends to emphasise or deemphasise their sophistication depending on the kind of audience he is talking to. This is where he loses me. He tries to make much more reasonable claims when he is on mainstream shows like JRE, but he tends to get a lot more hyperbolic when speaking to his core audience.
- ColanR 6y agoThat sounds like the difference between saying what can be easily defended to a potentially critical audience, vs. saying what you're less sure of to a receptive audience.
- sebastialonso 6y agoTo me, the alarms sound way before that. You can change the tune of your idea if you need to persuade people, while at the same time being honest about it. What I don't like about Hancock is that he uses Gobekli Tepe as a prop: we don't know the whole story/history about it, but he will gladfully use it to support his claims, without actually producing evidence that furthers our knowledge on what Gobekli was! I can surely entertain the idea of lost civilizations, but that doesn't imply I validate the dishonest handling of unknowns as "evidence". This is what pseudoscience and con men do to appear respectable.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoYou can manipulate your knowledge as though it were an object, but you cannot manipulate your ignorance.