3 ms·

Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA https:/

Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA

nobody9999 4y ago
>Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. Perhaps I'm missing something, but why (and why should we care) is an archaeologist challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist. Thank you. My mistake. And so, why (and why should we care) is a writer focused on history/archaeology challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
    - qaz_plm 4y ago
      JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        >JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience Thanks! So a history writer and an anthropologist are going to debate the value of the "Joe Rogan Experience?" Doesn't seem all that interesting to me. Hopefully others will find it so.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Graham Hancock is largely known for putting pseudoscientific nonsense on TV and claiming Atlantis is real, and got a Netflix doc this year with more of the same. Archaeologists are mad at him because he keeps making stuff up and claiming they're hiding the truth. JR likes him because he's been hit on the head too many times and believes anything anyone tells him.
eesmith 4y ago
If creationists have taught me anything, it's that debates 1) are largely won by rhetorical style, not correctness of the underlying concepts, and 2) promote the impression that both viewpoints have roughly equal validity. https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/debate-me-bro-debate-challenges-by-science-deniers-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://scienceba... > it’s such a classic tactic of science deniers to demand a “debate” and then to accuse science advocates of cowardice if they decline. ... > Common “live public debate” formats favor science deniers because they are not bound by science or even the truth. They are free to Gish gallop to their heart’s content; that is, to “baffle them with a torrent of BS” that includes obscure studies, bad studies, studies that don’t support their points, and even irrelevant information that superficially to nonexperts appears to support their arguments. Unless a scientist or science communicator is not only very skilled at dealing with this technique but also very familiar with the deep well of studies ranging from the highly dubious to the good studies misrepresented by the science denier, it is easy to fall into the trap of trying to swat down each gallop in turn and have no time left to make an argument for science. Such “debates” also value glibness, rhetorical skill, and the debater’s charisma far more than facts, logic, reason, and science. ... > “live public debates” are meant for one thing and one thing only: To sway public opinion to a viewpoint not supported by science, in the process elevating pseudoscience or the unproven to the same plane as the scientific consensus as a scientifically viable “alternative”.

Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA

nobody9999 4y ago

>Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. Perhaps I'm missing something, but why (and why should we care) is an archaeologist challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?

LarryMullins 4y ago
FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist. Thank you. My mistake. And so, why (and why should we care) is a writer focused on history/archaeology challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
  - qaz_plm 4y ago
    JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience Thanks! So a history writer and an anthropologist are going to debate the value of the "Joe Rogan Experience?" Doesn't seem all that interesting to me. Hopefully others will find it so.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Graham Hancock is largely known for putting pseudoscientific nonsense on TV and claiming Atlantis is real, and got a Netflix doc this year with more of the same. Archaeologists are mad at him because he keeps making stuff up and claiming they're hiding the truth. JR likes him because he's been hit on the head too many times and believes anything anyone tells him.

eesmith 4y ago

If creationists have taught me anything, it's that debates 1) are largely won by rhetorical style, not correctness of the underlying concepts, and 2) promote the impression that both viewpoints have roughly equal validity. https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/debate-me-bro-debate-challenges-by-science-deniers-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://scienceba... > it’s such a classic tactic of science deniers to demand a “debate” and then to accuse science advocates of cowardice if they decline. ... > Common “live public debate” formats favor science deniers because they are not bound by science or even the truth. They are free to Gish gallop to their heart’s content; that is, to “baffle them with a torrent of BS” that includes obscure studies, bad studies, studies that don’t support their points, and even irrelevant information that superficially to nonexperts appears to support their arguments. Unless a scientist or science communicator is not only very skilled at dealing with this technique but also very familiar with the deep well of studies ranging from the highly dubious to the good studies misrepresented by the science denier, it is easy to fall into the trap of trying to swat down each gallop in turn and have no time left to make an argument for science. Such “debates” also value glibness, rhetorical skill, and the debater’s charisma far more than facts, logic, reason, and science. ... > “live public debates” are meant for one thing and one thing only: To sway public opinion to a viewpoint not supported by science, in the process elevating pseudoscience or the unproven to the same plane as the scientific consensus as a scientifically viable “alternative”.