4 ms·
I have seen exactly what he complains about, many times. Most recently, the very first reaction was to label him racist. Then he was "dangerous" to The Childre
by moloch-hai 4y ago
I have seen exactly what he complains about, many times.
Most recently, the very first reaction was to label him racist. Then he was "dangerous" to The Children.
The fact is, he is wrong in his interpretations, but they are based on evidence. Instead of calling him "dangerous", why not engage with the evidence? Among few places I have seen that done is the "Scientists Against Myths" YT channel, https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos. It is rather off-putting: they forget they are addressing the audience, not the promoters of bad interpretations. You have to endure that to get to the end, each time.
On the other side, we have Ancient Architecture, with a relentlessly empirical bent: https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos
Shows like Graham Hancock's evoke wonder that seems beyond scientists to match. That feeling of wonder is where the next generation of scientists comes from.
It is critically important that scientists say when they don't know something. They should seek out opportunities to mention them, instead of trying to cover them up. Hancock has been right, and historical consensus dead wrong, too many times. He was an early promoter of humans in the Americas before 15kya, and of the comet strike in North America, near (maybe after) the start of the Younger Dryas cold spell, that wiped out mammoths, mastodons, horses, camels, dire wolves, cheetahs, giant beavers, giant sloths, and the Clovis culture; and about megalithic construction dating that far back. There are lessons here on science's ability, and often failure, to self-correct. All of these had evidence "scientists" rejected outright, not because of anything about the evidence, but just because.
There is plenty of evidence that stone bowls were "turned" to grind them into shape, but the first depictions of it we know of show up thousands of years later. What is the history of "turning"? Somebody might make progress on the question someday, but only if they know there is much unknown.
- over_bridge 4y agoThe thing that drives me nuts about him and his show can be found in episode 1. He does some scanning of the temple and finds three underground chambers. He cites them as evidence and speculates that they might prove him right and they are a mere 10 meters below him. And then he leaves. What?! This is your whole life's work and reputation on the line and you aren't digging 10m to check? It might take a few days but that's nothing. If it's illegal, will he risk nothing for his conviction? He makes the speculation, seeds doubt and then follows through with nothing again and again. It's the same as those tv psychics. The whole episode we watch as they get closer to a burial site and then right when they are staring out the car window at some woods with dramatic music, the credits roll. Nothing found again! The first 80% of the episode is fascinating as he shows us these amazing sites. Then inevitably comes the wild speculation disconnected from anything actually shown. Such a frustrating end to every episode. Wake me up when you find something.
- moloch-hai 4y agoI didn't try watching it. I would find plenty to object to. But at least he is asking the questions. Nobody else takes us around to all these sites. I wish someone would take him aside and explain that Earth's rotational precession has nothing to do with solar system orbital dynamics.
- dmix 4y agoThere's usually some legitimate value in fringes. Even when 95%+ of the fringe can be baseless, total conspiracy tier stuff, but calling 100% of it 'misinformation' and creating a culture of banning/discrediting it out-right and finding weak excuses (ie, accusations racist-by-association because others who are in the fringe happen to be racist, like the current western modus operandi) is dangerous and anti-progress.
- Nursie 4y ago> Shows like Graham Hancock's evoke wonder that seems beyond scientists to match. Because it's not factual? If you aren't constrained by evidence you can evoke whatever wonder you feel like.
- moloch-hai 4y agoHe tries to stay consistent with the evidence, as he understands it. Speculations are better than suppressing evidence inconsistent with your narrative.
- Nursie 4y agoI think that's a pretty serious accusation to make about historians and archaeologists in general, in the context of a discussion of someone who hasn't added to the field, and indeed produces pseudoscientific crap for Netflix. He may try to stay consistent with the evidence as he understands it in which case it becomes clear he doesn't understand it. So no, I don't find it inspirational or evocative, any more than I have found talks by psychics, ufologists or homeopaths evocative. They all imagine their beliefs are evidenced...
- moloch-hai 4y agoAn accusation richly deserved. Maybe you are unaware of how people were treated when they brought evidence for pre-Clovis Americans? We need not mention Zahi Hawass. Our expectations for Netflix shows is low. Our expectations for behavior of historians should be higher. Making this be about Hancock would be a mistake.