4 ms·

That book name is... off putting, and his wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo) isn't enco

That book name is... off putting, and his wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo) isn't encouraging in a quick scan...

anonymous908213 9mo ago
It instantly destroys all credibility. Any serious theory would present itself on its own merits rather than going for the victimhood angle. When you title your book in such a way as to push the perceived victimhood to the forefront, it indicates that there is no convincing evidence and therefore the only option left to you is to play at the conspiracy angle, cursing the shadowy figures who are suppressing the "forbidden truth".
an0malous 9mo ago
Why not just watch the talk and hear his argument from himself? Wikipedia has a bias against everything outside of mainstream academia, there are activist groups like Guerrilla Skeptics that go through articles and rewrite them to undermine anything remotely fringe. It's not as objective as people like to think it is.
- drakythe 9mo ago
  Because charismatic people can make us believe just about anything, and if we think we're immune to that we just haven't met the right charismatic person. I like to do some searching when something jumps out at me, like his book name, to get some background before I invest more time into the topic.
- andrewflnr 9mo ago
  Because life is short and we have to prioritize the talks we watch. And if you've seen enough bullshit, you can smell it coming. So if someone gives strong signals that they're full of it, we don't bother.
- ecshafer 9mo ago
  The self professed skeptic community is pretty extreme. Their arguments so often go beyond occams razor that is essentially absurdism to get around anything non-material or unexplained by current science / thinking.
- w0de0 9mo ago
  Can you imagine was a useless mishmash of lies Wikipedia would be if it did not have a bias for mainstream academia!? Wither epistemology?

That book name is... off putting, and his wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo) isn't encouraging in a quick scan...

anonymous908213 9mo ago

It instantly destroys all credibility. Any serious theory would present itself on its own merits rather than going for the victimhood angle. When you title your book in such a way as to push the perceived victimhood to the forefront, it indicates that there is no convincing evidence and therefore the only option left to you is to play at the conspiracy angle, cursing the shadowy figures who are suppressing the "forbidden truth".

an0malous 9mo ago

Why not just watch the talk and hear his argument from himself? Wikipedia has a bias against everything outside of mainstream academia, there are activist groups like Guerrilla Skeptics that go through articles and rewrite them to undermine anything remotely fringe. It's not as objective as people like to think it is.

drakythe 9mo ago
Because charismatic people can make us believe just about anything, and if we think we're immune to that we just haven't met the right charismatic person. I like to do some searching when something jumps out at me, like his book name, to get some background before I invest more time into the topic.
andrewflnr 9mo ago
Because life is short and we have to prioritize the talks we watch. And if you've seen enough bullshit, you can smell it coming. So if someone gives strong signals that they're full of it, we don't bother.
ecshafer 9mo ago
The self professed skeptic community is pretty extreme. Their arguments so often go beyond occams razor that is essentially absurdism to get around anything non-material or unexplained by current science / thinking.
w0de0 9mo ago
Can you imagine was a useless mishmash of lies Wikipedia would be if it did not have a bias for mainstream academia!? Wither epistemology?