5 ms·

Exactly why I listen to him. What makes you think we all want to only listen to mainstream opinions filtered by media "experts" and journalists? Also I'm absolu

Exactly why I listen to him. What makes you think we all want to only listen to mainstream opinions filtered by media "experts" and journalists? Also I'm absolutely fascinated by some of the fringe people and their ideas, particularly Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, Robert Schoch, i.e. the ancient civilization stuff. Literally nobody else in the media discusses these things with so much earnestness as Joe Rogan.

sprkwd 5y ago
> Graham Hancock Just discovered he lives in the same town as me.
cainxinth 5y ago
From the wiki pages for the people you mentioned: > Graham Bruce Hancock… promotes pseudoscientific theories… An example of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. > Mark Lehner, an American archaeologist and egyptologist, has disputed Schoch's analysis, stating, "You don't overthrow Egyptian history based on one phenomenon like a weathering profile... that is how pseudoscience is done, not real science." > Historian Ronald H. Fritze has described Schoch as a "pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific writer". Randall Carlson doesn’t have a wiki page. I hope anyone who is interested in these people is listening to them out of morbid curiosity and not because they think they are deserving of any credence whatsoever. The scientific method is not optional. If you don’t use it, you’re not a scientist. Rogan, however, appears to genuinely want to believe (and promote) these theories, whether they have any factual basis or not.
- thebigspacefuck 5y ago
  Any worse than “Ancient Aliens” on the “History” Channel?
- darkhorse13 5y ago
  Notice how I never mentioned "science" or "scientist" in my post, because I knew exactly the type of retort I would get - "Look at what Wikipedia says about these guys!". Do I believe everything Graham Hancock peddles? Absolutely not. Some of his ideas are just plain ridiculous. But do I believe that civilization first started with Mesopotamia? Again, absolutely not. There are tons of actual solid evidence out there that we go way back. And my God, everything isn't about science or the scientific method. Some of this stuff is just plain entertaining to me. Is it really so wrong to listen to these things and just have a great time thinking about crazy and out there stuff?
michaelcampbell 5y ago
> Literally nobody else in the media discusses these things with so much earnestness as Joe Rogan. You say this like it's bad.
chasing 5y ago
Always fascinating to me that being interested in fringe science and history always seems to mean listening to people who have no idea what they’re talking about instead of finding the actual fringes and edges of legitimate research and understanding. Probably because the quacks are easier to understand and simply more fun, since they’re aiming to be entertaining rather than accurate. And accuracy is, frankly, boring. Anyway, going back to reading my book about how aliens told Bill Gates how to invent computers in 1992, leading him to found Apple and help the Allies win World War 2. It’s the story the mainstream media doesn’t want you to hear.
- le-mark 5y ago
  Yes that’s all fine and dandy, but Obama did make a statement about the UAPs recently, which was remarkable in its own right. Surely claims of quackery are true 99.9% of the time but it’s that .1% that’s the kicker.
  - chasing 5y ago
    Obama said there are things in the sky we can't fully explain, to which: "no shit." He kind of jazzed it up because he was on The Late Show. So if you're claiming that Obama said aliens are visiting Earth and this validates the claims of Billy Bob Quackdoofus, well, he didn't do that. And it doesn't validate the quacks. And if it did, then why listen to the quacks at all if you have to point to someone like Obama, anyway, to prove their accuracy?
    - le-mark 5y ago
      I made no such claims of validating any quacks or quackery, as a careful reader would recognize. What is your agenda in misrepresenting what I wrote? To clarify the point; the fact that a former president commented on the UAPs at all was remarkable. To expand, even the existence and decades long cover up Area 51 and the proven things that have come from those programs (like the f-117) are examples of the .1% of “conspiracy” quackery that did happen to be true. I maintain these types of things are the gateway or hook that draw people deeper into conspiracies, but I’m no expert.

sprkwd 5y ago

> Graham Hancock Just discovered he lives in the same town as me.

cainxinth 5y ago

From the wiki pages for the people you mentioned: > Graham Bruce Hancock… promotes pseudoscientific theories… An example of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. > Mark Lehner, an American archaeologist and egyptologist, has disputed Schoch's analysis, stating, "You don't overthrow Egyptian history based on one phenomenon like a weathering profile... that is how pseudoscience is done, not real science." > Historian Ronald H. Fritze has described Schoch as a "pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific writer". Randall Carlson doesn’t have a wiki page. I hope anyone who is interested in these people is listening to them out of morbid curiosity and not because they think they are deserving of any credence whatsoever. The scientific method is not optional. If you don’t use it, you’re not a scientist. Rogan, however, appears to genuinely want to believe (and promote) these theories, whether they have any factual basis or not.

thebigspacefuck 5y ago
Any worse than “Ancient Aliens” on the “History” Channel?
darkhorse13 5y ago
Notice how I never mentioned "science" or "scientist" in my post, because I knew exactly the type of retort I would get - "Look at what Wikipedia says about these guys!". Do I believe everything Graham Hancock peddles? Absolutely not. Some of his ideas are just plain ridiculous. But do I believe that civilization first started with Mesopotamia? Again, absolutely not. There are tons of actual solid evidence out there that we go way back. And my God, everything isn't about science or the scientific method. Some of this stuff is just plain entertaining to me. Is it really so wrong to listen to these things and just have a great time thinking about crazy and out there stuff?

michaelcampbell 5y ago

> Literally nobody else in the media discusses these things with so much earnestness as Joe Rogan. You say this like it's bad.

chasing 5y ago

Always fascinating to me that being interested in fringe science and history always seems to mean listening to people who have no idea what they’re talking about instead of finding the actual fringes and edges of legitimate research and understanding. Probably because the quacks are easier to understand and simply more fun, since they’re aiming to be entertaining rather than accurate. And accuracy is, frankly, boring. Anyway, going back to reading my book about how aliens told Bill Gates how to invent computers in 1992, leading him to found Apple and help the Allies win World War 2. It’s the story the mainstream media doesn’t want you to hear.

le-mark 5y ago
Yes that’s all fine and dandy, but Obama did make a statement about the UAPs recently, which was remarkable in its own right. Surely claims of quackery are true 99.9% of the time but it’s that .1% that’s the kicker.
- chasing 5y ago
  Obama said there are things in the sky we can't fully explain, to which: "no shit." He kind of jazzed it up because he was on The Late Show. So if you're claiming that Obama said aliens are visiting Earth and this validates the claims of Billy Bob Quackdoofus, well, he didn't do that. And it doesn't validate the quacks. And if it did, then why listen to the quacks at all if you have to point to someone like Obama, anyway, to prove their accuracy?
  - le-mark 5y ago
    I made no such claims of validating any quacks or quackery, as a careful reader would recognize. What is your agenda in misrepresenting what I wrote? To clarify the point; the fact that a former president commented on the UAPs at all was remarkable. To expand, even the existence and decades long cover up Area 51 and the proven things that have come from those programs (like the f-117) are examples of the .1% of “conspiracy” quackery that did happen to be true. I maintain these types of things are the gateway or hook that draw people deeper into conspiracies, but I’m no expert.