7 ms·
He starts off the series discussing his lack of scientific credentials, journalist background, etc., and presents the whole thing as his theory. How can that p
by nverno 4y ago
He starts off the series discussing his lack of scientific credentials, journalist background, etc., and presents the whole thing as his theory. How can that possible be construed as a 'deceptive cloak of veracity'? Let the man have his theories- I thought some of it was pretty interesting, although his raging against academia was exhausting enough to make it unwatchable after a point.
- colordrops 4y agoThey've been going after him pretty hard, calling him all kinds of names, so his defensiveness is somewhat understandable.
- nverno 4y agoI understand why he's defensive, but I found the excessive discussion of it in the series to be petty and negative- detracting from the exciting, mystical vibe of the rest of it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- yongjik 4y agoHancock has been publishing since 1990s. If someone was publishing made-up theories in my professional field for thirty years (and becoming a globally known celebrity, sort of), then I'd also be pretty cranky about that.
- nradov 4y agoAll hypotheses are initially made up to an extent. Can you point out specific ways that Hancock's main hypotheses fail to match the available evidence? His claims are falsifiable, so people who care can go ahead and do the science to falsify them. Whether Hancock is a celebrity is neither here nor there. Proper science is supposed to be above personal attacks.
- Hikikomori 4y agoYou usually start with an observation, Hancock starts with the conclusion and works backwards.
- nradov 4y agoThat seems like a deflection. What specifically in Hancock's interpretation does not align with the known facts? I don't particularly care about him one way or another, but if you want to criticize him then please present some actual evidence.
- kodyo 4y agoThat's a lie that sounds smart.
- spaceman_2020 4y agoI’ve watched enough of Hancock to know that he starts with an observation: xyz physical structure doesn’t align with our accepted view of history, and then tries to find a conclusion.
- sintaxi 4y agoYou should be more angry if people within your professional field still claim the pyramids were built as tombs by people wearing sandals and loincloths with bronze and copper tools.
- Hikikomori 4y agoWhat were they built with then?
- zozbot234 4y agoSome people think they were built by slaves, and were intended for storing grain.
- whatshisface 4y agoIf they were intended for storing grain they did a pretty bad job making space for it...
- sintaxi 4y agoWe don't know.
- jhbadger 4y agoWe absolutely know they were tombs. We can read Ancient Egyptian you know. There are texts on the walls dealing with how the person entombed there will deal with being judged in the afterlife. The idea that that the pyramids were mysterious in purpose only made sense prior to the mid 19th century before we could read the hieroglyphs.
- moloch-hai 4y agoThere are, in fact, no such inscriptions in any of the Giza pyramids, and no remnant of funerary apparatus was found in any of them, never mind a mummy. (Other looted Egyptian crypts were found full of trash; looters don't clean up after themselves.) The only writing found inside was not funerary. There are funerary temples lousy with inscriptions outside, but anybody can build those anytime. Crypts elsewhere are scribbled throughout. We still know very little about the pyramids, so cannot contradict speculation. The official story / timeline is just one such.
- ngcc_hk 4y agoAs long as he tried to base on fact he can do what academics not do, think … talk … . But is he?
- rnd0 4y ago> his raging against academia was exhausting enough to make it unwatchable after a point. For me, that point was somewhere in the first episode. Sorry, after watching Van Daniken (sp?) and the Ancient Aliens crew use misinformation and "asking the question" type fallacies to basically ruin widespread understanding of history all I can say is "fuck that guy in particular".
- UncleMeat 4y ago> I thought some of it was pretty interesting That's why. Laypeople lack almost all the tools necessarily to evaluate research and slick presentation, even when couched with "I'm not an expert - make up your own mind" can be quite effective and completely misleading people. I think there is a big problem with people not not having any understanding of how much work it actually takes to become an expert. The narrative of "outsider dabbles in some field and makes a big breakthrough" feels reasonable. How hard could it really be to break into one of these fields? This sets them up to be misled.
- colordrops 4y agoYou say this as if most TV isn't gross misrepresentations of reality. At least Hancock provides a disclaimer.
- slackfan 4y agoI really do hope you are ready to give up the right to theorize on any subject if you are not an expert. That includes: whether a job is bullshit or not, whether the calories you ate are good for you or not, and whether C++ is the right tool for the job or not. Sorry citizen, you are simply not a credential expert in these fields, enjoy your fine and labor camp.
- UncleMeat 4y agoMy strategy in all fields where I am not an expert is to go talk to some experts and ask them to synthesize the expert consensus for me. For academic fields this is usually university faculty. For something like software design this would be a mentor with decades and decades of experience. Yeah, I think this is the right way to do it. "I'm just explaining my weird theory" is not a good approach to fields that you know little about.
- slackfan 4y agoOne man's "experts" are another's "spreaders of dangerous disinformation".