3 ms·

But that's not news. It's known in academia, you are just not in academia, not at any level where it would matter. > Speculating on what was happening doesn't

But that's not news. It's known in academia, you are just not in academia, not at any level where it would matter. > Speculating on what was happening doesn't seem like something beyond the pale of reasonable discourse. No, yes it is entirely unreasonable in a world wide publicity stunt if all you have is a napkin calculation and no hard evidence of your own.

kodyo 4y ago
Do academics feel like it's important to bring the normies up to speed on what they know or don't know? It seems like a good opportunity for an enterprising establishment figure to step up and explain why the Hancock idea is wrong. Preferably with an argument that's better than "he's not an archaeologist plus he's probably racist because that's what I'm afraid of being called so that's what I'll call him." I'd watch that.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Actually, yes they do, in large part. The problem is that the people who produce the documentaries don't want to make "let's talk about modern archaeology" documentaries--they think lay audiences won't lap it up, and so instead want to shift everything to "crusader against orthodox archaeology" (which usually means something akin to Hancock or Ancient Aliens) instead.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  They have on many, many occasions. Here's an example: the Nov 2019 special edition of the SAA magazine [1] is dedicated almost entirely to debunking some of Hancock's claims in a recent book and explaining why they're so problematic in context. The reason you're probably not aware of things like this is that public awareness of the discussion is very one-sided. People like Hancock are fantastic at getting their narrative into the public consciousness. Good academics (almost inherently) are not. [1] http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462 http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Considering that it wasn't until the last 15 years or so when those in "Academia" finally started letting go of the long-since discredited "Clovis First" theory, people have have reason to be skeptical. As some other posts have pointed out, the fact is that much of our understanding of the distant past is speculation. We have fragments of history that archeologists are left to make their best guesses about. There are many different guesses and narratives about human pre-history that can be spun from the same set of these fragments that are all equally plausible. That isn't to say that Hancock doesn't make guesses and assertions that are unsupported (he does), but it is to say that the guesses and assertions made by academics are no more credibly or valid than guesses and assertions made by anyone who else who has a firm grasp of the available evidence and good reasoning skills.
015a 4y ago
And here, I think, we landed on a core piece of the matter. That there are some "ineffable truths" reserved and locked away in the High Tower of Academia. Oh, you're not An Academic? Ha, moron. We know the truth, how dare you question it? Guess What? Graham also isn't in academia. Yet, he's been talking about this for 30 years, gained a following, and now has a Netflix special. The ball is in your court. If you want to talk about failures, let's not focus on Graham. Let's focus on this High Tower of Academia. Why the hell doesn't the accepted side of the theory have a Netflix Special? What happened to PBS? Our public schools are a disaster. Published research seems to be more of a contest to see who can use the most complex, flowery, unintelligible language in the Race for Academic Recognition. THIS is why Academia lost this one. We're on HackerNews, so here it is: You're an engineer with a brilliant idea; but you can't market it. What's the point of the idea? Ideas are nothing without marketing. Its the same fucking thing. If there's Truth out there, scientific truth, it doesn't mean shit unless its communicated intelligibly and repeatably. Academia has institutionally FAILED at this. But, hey, tenure must be nice. My favorite part about Ancient Apocalypse isn't really anything about the Ancient Apocalypse. Its the fact that Graham spends minutes in every episode saying "mainstream academia hates this, they hate me" and if you have no context you might hear that and think "wow he's being dramatic"; but he's not! Every single reaction I've seen to this show has been one of absolute vitriolic derision. There's startlingly little attempt to educate, present accepted facts, criticize his presentation. Its just "he's racist, this is a crackpot show, fuck netflix for showing this." Its like we just assume, despite a failing educational system, that people should just know he's wrong; and you're dumb for thinking he's right. His theories are out there; YouTube is free; shoot him the fuck down. I want to see it.
- posterboy 4y ago
  > Oh you are not an accademic? I haven't said that. But how is a legitimate significant inquiry. How dare you (what's that even mean?) How do you expect people change their mind after they said obv bs, tl;dr the first time they saw the original? I haven't. > Its like we just assume, despite a failing educational system, that people should just know he's wrong; Yeah, no they don't expect that, when they complain the first time, but they are hoping to give a hint. Hancock hasn't asked the right question (which can be worth more than a correct answer, according to saying).

kodyo 4y ago

Do academics feel like it's important to bring the normies up to speed on what they know or don't know? It seems like a good opportunity for an enterprising establishment figure to step up and explain why the Hancock idea is wrong. Preferably with an argument that's better than "he's not an archaeologist plus he's probably racist because that's what I'm afraid of being called so that's what I'll call him." I'd watch that.

jcranmer 4y ago
Actually, yes they do, in large part. The problem is that the people who produce the documentaries don't want to make "let's talk about modern archaeology" documentaries--they think lay audiences won't lap it up, and so instead want to shift everything to "crusader against orthodox archaeology" (which usually means something akin to Hancock or Ancient Aliens) instead.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
They have on many, many occasions. Here's an example: the Nov 2019 special edition of the SAA magazine [1] is dedicated almost entirely to debunking some of Hancock's claims in a recent book and explaining why they're so problematic in context. The reason you're probably not aware of things like this is that public awareness of the discussion is very one-sided. People like Hancock are fantastic at getting their narrative into the public consciousness. Good academics (almost inherently) are not. [1] http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462 http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

Considering that it wasn't until the last 15 years or so when those in "Academia" finally started letting go of the long-since discredited "Clovis First" theory, people have have reason to be skeptical. As some other posts have pointed out, the fact is that much of our understanding of the distant past is speculation. We have fragments of history that archeologists are left to make their best guesses about. There are many different guesses and narratives about human pre-history that can be spun from the same set of these fragments that are all equally plausible. That isn't to say that Hancock doesn't make guesses and assertions that are unsupported (he does), but it is to say that the guesses and assertions made by academics are no more credibly or valid than guesses and assertions made by anyone who else who has a firm grasp of the available evidence and good reasoning skills.

015a 4y ago

And here, I think, we landed on a core piece of the matter. That there are some "ineffable truths" reserved and locked away in the High Tower of Academia. Oh, you're not An Academic? Ha, moron. We know the truth, how dare you question it? Guess What? Graham also isn't in academia. Yet, he's been talking about this for 30 years, gained a following, and now has a Netflix special. The ball is in your court. If you want to talk about failures, let's not focus on Graham. Let's focus on this High Tower of Academia. Why the hell doesn't the accepted side of the theory have a Netflix Special? What happened to PBS? Our public schools are a disaster. Published research seems to be more of a contest to see who can use the most complex, flowery, unintelligible language in the Race for Academic Recognition. THIS is why Academia lost this one. We're on HackerNews, so here it is: You're an engineer with a brilliant idea; but you can't market it. What's the point of the idea? Ideas are nothing without marketing. Its the same fucking thing. If there's Truth out there, scientific truth, it doesn't mean shit unless its communicated intelligibly and repeatably. Academia has institutionally FAILED at this. But, hey, tenure must be nice. My favorite part about Ancient Apocalypse isn't really anything about the Ancient Apocalypse. Its the fact that Graham spends minutes in every episode saying "mainstream academia hates this, they hate me" and if you have no context you might hear that and think "wow he's being dramatic"; but he's not! Every single reaction I've seen to this show has been one of absolute vitriolic derision. There's startlingly little attempt to educate, present accepted facts, criticize his presentation. Its just "he's racist, this is a crackpot show, fuck netflix for showing this." Its like we just assume, despite a failing educational system, that people should just know he's wrong; and you're dumb for thinking he's right. His theories are out there; YouTube is free; shoot him the fuck down. I want to see it.

posterboy 4y ago
> Oh you are not an accademic? I haven't said that. But how is a legitimate significant inquiry. How dare you (what's that even mean?) How do you expect people change their mind after they said obv bs, tl;dr the first time they saw the original? I haven't. > Its like we just assume, despite a failing educational system, that people should just know he's wrong; Yeah, no they don't expect that, when they complain the first time, but they are hoping to give a hint. Hancock hasn't asked the right question (which can be worth more than a correct answer, according to saying).