3 ms·

Those ridiculous fringe theories is how science has marched forward for centuries. Unfortunately, it seems we're losing our capacity for it as a species.

notahacker 3y ago
Its almost the exact opposite tbh. We got far more out of Newton doing boring uncontroversial recording and measuring than we ever did from his obsession with heretical interpretations of the Bible. If we're losing our capacity to be gullible enough to take Graham Hancock seriously (and I'm not sure we are) it certainly doesn't seem to have held back scientific progress relative to historic norms.
- seanw444 3y ago
  What claims of Graham's are hard to take seriously?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    The burden of proof is really more on you to explain why it's so hard to take the entire field of archaeology except Graham Hancock seriously...
    - seanw444 3y ago
      I was really just curious. Your "no you" is disappointing.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    See Miniminuteman's "I watched ancient apocalypse so you don't have to" detailed critique (in 4 parts) starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A .
- darkerside 3y ago
  I guess I wasn't there so we can't settle he debate, but this smacks to me of cherry picking and survivorship bias. For every one of Newton's careful measurements, which I actually imagine he was mocked or dismissed for at the time, I'm sure there are just as many examples of unexpected outcomes, like manned flight, geocentrism, or evolution. Likely many more that seem expected and commonplace today, because they proved true, that we can't even recognize in retrospect.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    We don't need to imagine that Newton was marked or dismissed for Principia at the time because we can take note of the actual history where he wound up surrounded by a circle of admirers (some of them famous in their own right) and president of the Royal Society (he had the good sense to keep the unorthodox part of his religious beliefs to himself). Although imagining something that fits a more exciting narrative than the actual historic record is kind of appropriate for a Graham Hancock subthread ;) The cherry picking actually works the other way - for every great discovery that was universally derided by scientists (which isn't most great discoveries, not even ones that were controversial like natural selection) there are dozens of silly ideas based on complete misunderstandings and mountebanks painting themselves as brave challengers of the orthodoxy to an audience that doesn't really understand the orthodoxy.
    - darkerside 3y ago
      The takeaway is that both happen. Sometimes established science is right, and sometimes it's not. I don't mean to dismiss iterative discovery, but paradigm shifts have always required a leap of imagination. I guess you'll have to imagine (or not, your choice) what it was like to be Newton before the wild success of his works. There was a time where his ideas were not established science, and he didn't know how they would be received. https://www.sciography.com/Isaac-Newton.htm https://www.sciography.com/Isaac-Newton.htm > Newton said he was reluctant to publish his calculus at the time for fear of being mocked. You seem to have a pretty established idea of what is right, and I think I've gotten my idea across at this point, so you can take or leave it. Cheers.

notahacker 3y ago

Its almost the exact opposite tbh. We got far more out of Newton doing boring uncontroversial recording and measuring than we ever did from his obsession with heretical interpretations of the Bible. If we're losing our capacity to be gullible enough to take Graham Hancock seriously (and I'm not sure we are) it certainly doesn't seem to have held back scientific progress relative to historic norms.

seanw444 3y ago
What claims of Graham's are hard to take seriously?
- notahacker 3y ago
  The burden of proof is really more on you to explain why it's so hard to take the entire field of archaeology except Graham Hancock seriously...
  - seanw444 3y ago
    I was really just curious. Your "no you" is disappointing.
- eesmith 3y ago
  See Miniminuteman's "I watched ancient apocalypse so you don't have to" detailed critique (in 4 parts) starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A .
darkerside 3y ago
I guess I wasn't there so we can't settle he debate, but this smacks to me of cherry picking and survivorship bias. For every one of Newton's careful measurements, which I actually imagine he was mocked or dismissed for at the time, I'm sure there are just as many examples of unexpected outcomes, like manned flight, geocentrism, or evolution. Likely many more that seem expected and commonplace today, because they proved true, that we can't even recognize in retrospect.
- notahacker 3y ago
  We don't need to imagine that Newton was marked or dismissed for Principia at the time because we can take note of the actual history where he wound up surrounded by a circle of admirers (some of them famous in their own right) and president of the Royal Society (he had the good sense to keep the unorthodox part of his religious beliefs to himself). Although imagining something that fits a more exciting narrative than the actual historic record is kind of appropriate for a Graham Hancock subthread ;) The cherry picking actually works the other way - for every great discovery that was universally derided by scientists (which isn't most great discoveries, not even ones that were controversial like natural selection) there are dozens of silly ideas based on complete misunderstandings and mountebanks painting themselves as brave challengers of the orthodoxy to an audience that doesn't really understand the orthodoxy.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    The takeaway is that both happen. Sometimes established science is right, and sometimes it's not. I don't mean to dismiss iterative discovery, but paradigm shifts have always required a leap of imagination. I guess you'll have to imagine (or not, your choice) what it was like to be Newton before the wild success of his works. There was a time where his ideas were not established science, and he didn't know how they would be received. https://www.sciography.com/Isaac-Newton.htm https://www.sciography.com/Isaac-Newton.htm > Newton said he was reluctant to publish his calculus at the time for fear of being mocked. You seem to have a pretty established idea of what is right, and I think I've gotten my idea across at this point, so you can take or leave it. Cheers.