4 ms·
He tries to stay consistent with the evidence, as he understands it. Speculations are better than suppressing evidence inconsistent with your narrative.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
He 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.