4 ms·

Graham Hancock is an utter charlatan who willfully manipulates and mispresents the truth for profit. There are so many gaping holes in his theories he purposef

Graham Hancock is an utter charlatan who willfully manipulates and mispresents the truth for profit. There are so many gaping holes in his theories he purposefully ignores because addressing them would require him to completely discard his profitable pseudo-scientific nonsense. I get it though, I too went down the rabbit hole of the whole "Lost ancient civilizations" thing, but the deeper I got, the more I realized the whole notion is utterly missing any kind of real scientific underpinnings. YouTuber / archaeologist Stefan Milo made this pretty comprehensively damming rebuttal video to Hancock's so called "Theories" that does a far better job explaining the specifics than I ever could, and I highly recommend watching it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTkDkSbO-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTkDkSbO-4

dilippkumar 5y ago
> YouTuber / archaeologist Stefan Milo made this pretty comprehensively damming rebuttal video to Hancock's so called "Theories" that does a far better job explaining the specifics... I just finished watching the video and unfortunately I don't buy it at all. Now Graham Hancock is clearly peddling some hard-to-believe theories, but this rebuttal video doesn't do much to refute him. He takes the weakest possible interpretation of Graham's work and asks "where is the evidenc?" in multiple ways. I think the same rebuttal would be stronger if he addressed why the track record of archeologists so far have been very credible and that they have a history of testing out falsifiable theories by looking for negative results. For example "we don't expect to find any evidence for human activity below this depth in this region - and look, we didn't find anything". Graham's argument rests heavily on archeologists not doing a good job and the easiest way to dismiss him is to show otherwise. This is easy to do with Physicists looking for particles that would poke holes into the standard model for example. I'd love to see a solid rebuttal for Hancock's theories that doesn't rest upon "consensus among archeologists" without showing why the same archeologists are credible.

dilippkumar 5y ago

> YouTuber / archaeologist Stefan Milo made this pretty comprehensively damming rebuttal video to Hancock's so called "Theories" that does a far better job explaining the specifics... I just finished watching the video and unfortunately I don't buy it at all. Now Graham Hancock is clearly peddling some hard-to-believe theories, but this rebuttal video doesn't do much to refute him. He takes the weakest possible interpretation of Graham's work and asks "where is the evidenc?" in multiple ways. I think the same rebuttal would be stronger if he addressed why the track record of archeologists so far have been very credible and that they have a history of testing out falsifiable theories by looking for negative results. For example "we don't expect to find any evidence for human activity below this depth in this region - and look, we didn't find anything". Graham's argument rests heavily on archeologists not doing a good job and the easiest way to dismiss him is to show otherwise. This is easy to do with Physicists looking for particles that would poke holes into the standard model for example. I'd love to see a solid rebuttal for Hancock's theories that doesn't rest upon "consensus among archeologists" without showing why the same archeologists are credible.