Graham Hancock is literally just making up stories and saying "wouldn't it be cool if this happened" with absolutely zero evidence. The guy can't understand why archeologist don't like his theories, but he doesn't have theories, he has fiction stories.
And archeologists limit their picture of the past to the evidences they have at a given point in time, although they know what they have is a very limited and degraded record of what actually happened.
See for instance the argument put forth by Hancock about network of ancient "highways" connecting cities in the amazon. Nonsense until lidar expose them:
"Hey archaeologists - here's a cool thing that doesn't fit with your timeline. Here are some ideas that could explain what's going on, but they're just ideas don't lynch me!"
The archaeological establishment: "Lynch this fucker!"
I would usually say, you first, since you made the outrageous claim he "provides no evidence at all".
But this might be fun... You do know the difference between evidence and proof though, right?
I'll go look at the most recent article on his website [0], and we'll see if there's evidence presented, or if he "provides no evidence at all"...
To avoid bias - and save time, because I'm doing your research for free - I asked ChatGPT to examine whether he provided evidence or not:
...
Evidence Provided by Graham Hancock
Cultural and Archaeological Evidence:
Hancock frequently references archaeological findings and scientific studies to support his theories. For example, he discusses the discovery of ancient human remains in California dating back 130,000 years, which challenges the conventional timeline of human migration into the Americas.
Comparative Analysis:
He often draws parallels between distant cultures to suggest the existence of a lost ancient civilization. For instance, he points out similarities between the spiritual beliefs of ancient Egyptians and Native American mound builders, arguing that these cannot be mere coincidences and suggesting a shared heritage from a forgotten civilization.
Scientific Studies:
Hancock cites recent studies and technologies, such as LIDAR, which have uncovered large, ancient geoglyphs and cities in the Amazon, suggesting advanced pre-Columbian civilizations that were previously unknown.
Historical Documentation:He references historical texts and accounts from early archaeologists and explorers, such as the work of Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray in Egypt, to support his claims about the existence of older and technologically advanced civilizations.
Analysis of the Evidence
Pros:
Innovative Perspective:
Hancock provides a fresh look at ancient history by challenging established narratives, which encourages further investigation and discussion.
Detailed References: His works are often well-documented with footnotes and references to scientific studies, which lend a certain level of credibility to his arguments.
Cons:
Interpretation of Evidence: Critics argue that Hancock often selectively interprets evidence to fit his theories, sometimes ignoring data that contradicts his views .
Speculative Nature: Some of his conclusions are speculative and not universally accepted by the academic community, relying heavily on what some consider circumstantial evidence.
Conclusion
While Graham Hancock does provide evidence to support his claims, the validity and interpretation of this evidence are often contested. His approach is not always balanced, as he openly admits to focusing on evidence that supports his alternative historical narratives. Readers must critically evaluate his claims and consider the broader academic consensus when interpreting his work.
...
Summarizing: At least 4 different types of evidence are regularly laid out. Benefits to his approach include encouraging fresh investigation and discussion, and the cons are acknowledged by Hancock himself.
I'm no Hancock fanboy - I've seen one show of his. But I've seen the way he gets attacked and it's so often so dumb. It reminds me of how people attack Assange and Snowden, or RMS, or Jared Diamond: surprisingly emotional, personal, venomous, and more often than not completely made up (as in this case).
I'm not a native English speaker so some nuances are lost. But I can concede that he does have something you could call evidence, for his conjectures.
Will you concede that he has no proof, only conjectures and that big archelogy are not out to get him? I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure, let me know what you think. https://youtu.be/IeIj_rNYhCU
I don't need to, because I never claimed he had proof, and neither did he. He is always very upfront about that fact.
> and that big archelogy are not out to get him
But they are. Look at all the comments in this thread accusing him of things he isn't doing; putting words in his mouth; completely inventing beliefs that he doesn't actually hold - where did all that come from?
> I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure
... A 2 hour video nitpicking a Joe Rogan interview? I'll pass, sorry bud. Maybe if I get really bored later, but I hope to have better things to do.
I'll leave you with this: We have bone flutes that are 50,000 years old that use a pentatonic scale. Reconstructions of the Divje Baba flute can be seen played on YouTube (2 mins long, not 2 hours).
You can claim those perfectly circular, perfectly placed holes are animal bites, but there's other examples confirmed to be >30k years old, also using a perfect pentatonic scale. If you understand how music works, you know that's insane.
You could play modern pop songs on these flutes. Saying that there isn't any chance of an advanced civilization older than 10k years just doesn't seem credible to me, and the insistence from 'big archaeology' that it's impossible is not to their credit.
So no proof, only conjectures? Sounds like he shouldn't act like he is correct and everyone else is wrong.
I guess I am big archaeology then, somehow.
Having a very hard time understanding how a bone flute equates humans having forgotten advanced technology in the past. I don't think anyone here disagree that modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and have made artifacts like this in their spare time and created bespoke tools to create them that have been lost.
Conjecture, yes. Conjectures drive inquiry and investigation, especially when linked with evidence. They serve as starting points for scientific research and exploration.
Ignoring interesting conjectures despite the evidence is a foolish, and a mainstream historical pastime. If we let that be an end of it, we wouldn't understand evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, or heliocentrism.
Someone always puts the idea out first, lays out their evidence, gets roundly mocked by people who feel threatened... And years later, building on their work, someone finds proof of the idea (or, tbf, sometimes disproves it in an interesting way).
> I guess I am big archaeology then, somehow
I really have no idea why you would say this. Are you feeling personally attacked here or something? Have you forgotten that you are the one that first brought up this term?
> Having a very hard time understanding how a bone flute equates humans having forgotten advanced technology in the past.
Then you don't understand music, technology, humans, or Hancock's argument. Creating such an instrument requires a massive degree of understanding. It suggests symbolic thought, cultural sophistication, planning, and multi-generational knowledge sharing. And it demonstrates that 'modern humans' were not the only game in town, because the Divje Babe flute likely wasn't made by homo sapiens, but by neanderthals.
> I don't think anyone here disagree that modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years
Lol... Now most people would agree, but not long ago you'd have been treated just as Hancock is for suggesting so.
And again, the flute was probably made by Neanderthals.
For centuries, the archaeological establishment, influenced by outdated notions such as phrenology, underestimated Neanderthal cognitive abilities and cultural sophistication. Suggesting they were smart enough to make a flute would get you ridiculed by 'big anthropology'.
... I read 20 minutes of the transcript of that YouTube transcript you suggested, and it's really bad. Woeful stuff.
It's an obvious smear job: Someone could make a 1 hour video detailing the rhetorical bs Professor Miano uses in that 20 minutes. It's all there - hypocrisy, projection, ad hominems, insinuations, gish galloping, straw-man arguments, appeals to authority. Honestly how do people fall for this stuff?
He spends the first 3 minutes attacking Hancock's character, then says "I'm sure he's a nice guy, I'm only attacking his rhetoric". He then says a bunch of stuff that Hancock supposedly does, without any reference to evidence whatsoever. He does everything that he accuses Hancock of doing, without a hint of self awareness.
It feels like an elaborate prank on his audience, and I'd believe it was; if only for the fact that I know people do this all the time when they feel their worldview/career is threatened.
For a final time, I hope - Hancock is clear and upfront that he is making conjecture (with evidence). He doesn't claim to have proof. He delineates between evidence and conjecture, and no one in this thread has provided a counter example - only put words in his mouth. Watch for that in your video: look at the first 20 minutes and make a note every time Miano tells us what Hancock thinks or does without any reference to actual fact. You might be surprised.
Opinions are like buttholes Hikikomori - everyone has one.
> Flat earth theories also have evidence
So you're not just confused about the difference between evidence and proof, but also the difference between evidence and disproved claims. How fun! Everything that doesn't have direct proof and mainstream consensus is now on the same level as the flat earth theory, amazing!
> psuedoarcheology grifters
Hancock disagrees with the archaeologocial community on like, one point. Maybe two.
His 'grift' is to write interesting books about a very intriguing idea - wow, what a huckster piece of shit.
Your criticism says more about you than about Hancock, Hikikomori. It's very uncool to attack people like this without bringing any actual evidence for your claims, English as a second language or no.
It's funny that you think you are different from flat earthers when most people would put you in the same category.
Neither has any proof. Both have flimsy evidence and only conjectures (Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork). Both are anti science and anti establishment and believe them to be hiding or stopping the truth from coming out to protect their sweet academic/science jobs. And both are pushed by people that make money from it, ie grifters.
They most certainly don't welcome challenges to the basic assumptions on which their teachings rest.
Professors are trying to teach a class, not engage in a debate with a student. Challenging basic principles that everyone in the class are already assumed to have accepted is usually seen as an attempt to derail the lecture.
Derailing the lecture and drawing the professor into a debate with you effectively denies the other students access to education. It’s roughly equivalent to heckling a comedian.
If you want to debate your professor, do it on your own time, in office hours. If the professor is still offended and unwilling to debate then you have reasonable grounds to complain. Most professors I’ve met absolutely love to debate outside of class.
Well, there are challenges and there are challenges.
A professor teaching about evolution will answer students' questions within reason - and students with a religious background might have heard some anti-evolution gotchas the professor will be happy to explain - like how something as complex as the eye could evolve.
But that doesn't extend to debating bible verses, allowing so many challenges that it disrupts the class, or changing the exam so you can pass it while denying evolution exists.
That you leap from "basic challenges" to anti-science fundamentalism really shows how deep-rooted this problem is. Most educated people today earnestly believe that the only ones who would disagree on basic issues with the high priests of academia are fanatics, conspiracy nuts, and quacks.
The idea that academics are on the right path has turned from something that must be continuously demonstrated to something that is assumed by default, as part of a new orthodoxy that ironically is almost indistinguishable from the religious and ideological orthodoxies that science once sought to replace.
> The idea that academics are on the right path has turned from something that must be continuously demonstrated to something that is assumed by default [...]
You're talking about a Ph.D. level investigation, not something that is usually considered at the level of an undergraduate in the US.
Most beginners lack the contextual knowledge to recognize even glaring errors. For example, I once saw a distributed application that occasionally updated a central database without any locking. Occasionally the data would get corrupted by simultaneous writes, and the original dev had no idea why.
Consider adding more context if you want to continue to write about dogma in academia. Share your own experence. At the level of generality you are writing it's impossible to engage more because we don't share the same context.
I don't know how you arrived at that interpretation of my post.
I chose evolution merely because a substantial and politically important group of Americans earnestly disagree with the academic consensus; it's an area where there has been genuine public debate; it's foundational to some academic fields; and it would believably come up in first year compulsory classes.
I might disagree with academics about whether mailing a survey to mentally competent adults counts as human experimentation that needs ethics board approval, as outside of academia people use surveys all the time. But that's hardly something an academic would refuse to discuss.
I might disagree with academics about feminism or marxism or underwater basket weaving - but that stuff's all elective, why would I have taken an elective module from a teacher I thought was full of shit?
I might disagree with the high tuition costs of universities, and the money wasted on sports, overpaid administrators, and overpriced journal subscriptions. But most academics would actively agree with me, they just can't change it.
I might disagree with details of how a course is taught, like whether Java is a good language for an introductory CS class. Or whether we really need so much math in the CS curriculum. But that's not really a fundamental belief.
I might disagree with academics because I think the moon is made of cheese, but that would be a straw man argument.
They have a couple of pretty good shots of the controller, and I don't see a wire. Also, the marketing image they include for the controller is clearly labeled as wireless.
I think by "the article" they mean the one linked at the top of this subthread, which is about the Navy and shows a sailor using a wired Xbox 360 controller.
The one used on the missing submersible does use Bluetooth.
Are most advice in self-help books not good productivity/happiness advice?
The problem with both is that people who can follow them for effect already are following them. So in practice, diet and exercise is what I call "fuck off advice": the person you give it to, should they believe it, will try and try and not see much effect, and eventually fail - but the process will take 3-6 months or more, during which they won't bother you with their problems, and at the end of it, they'll blame themselves for not being good enough, and perhaps even see you as a good person who tried to help.
