Thread 16754653

Crackpot.

Its incredibly funny how much an author/joutnalist makes archeologists seethe by being much more well known an selling a lot more books than any of them.

>>16754653 (OP)
He's based but archeology is a humanity, not a science, so kindly get the fuck off this board.

>>16754653 (OP)
he will be proven largely correct in the next 50-100 years. screen cap this post

Thank you Gobleki Tepe man. I like the reminder that "the world" didnt begin 6000 years ago.

>>16754797
Eat pills.

Like most alt-sci retards he accuses serious researchers of dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy while himself being dogmatically married to his own pet theory.
Any explanation of why he's obviously wrong is met with accusations of closed mindedness and he had zero self-awareness of the irony there.

He's held with esteem by the conspiritard crowd because they're exactly as retarded as he is.

>>16754836
Muah!

>>16754653 (OP)
His eyes look asymmetrical but it's from the lenses. Mine do the same thing. I recently got contacts and was relieved to confirm the teutonic perfection of my visage because I look like a stroke victim in glasses.

>>16754843
According to that fedora guy he debated on Joe Rogan, he is obviously wrong because his evidence doesn't fall into a rigid convention of what constitutes acceptable evidence.

>>16755264
His "evidence" basically amounts to "this mountain kinda looks like a pyramid therefore it must be both the largest and oldest pyramid ever discovered and not just a mountain." Then there's the Sphinx shit: "water damage on the Sphinx, therefore global flood."

He'll take a fairly interesting find then pull shit out of his ass to make it something it is not.

>>16754782
Replying for historic screencap

>>16754843
You are absolutely right

Doesn’t matter how crazy he is when he’s pissing off people even more insufferable.

Why the fuck does it piss archaeologists off that the Sphinx may have been under water at some point in the past?

Most humans invest their entire lives in a field that destined to be proven wrong. It’s causing a lot of ass pain. Remember blue fish caves.

>>16754653 (OP)
>Just excavate the Sahara bro

someone post the sleeve

>>16755264
ah yes, the Im wearing my fedora indoors guy hat is only known for lying on a rogan podcast with the famous hancock
perfect example of why archeologists are so butthurt about this

>>16755290
You can snarkily dismiss any theory
>this rock looks weird it must have come from the sky
>coasts look alike must be the continents moving
>you get sick because of tiny bugs you breathe in
>the patient died because you didn't wash your hands
>these bones look weird must be because my grandma was a monkey
>the world wasn't created last thursday so it must have been a million bajillion years ago
>if you boil water by spinning a magnet really fast you can make sand think

>>16754653 (OP)
Is he crazy and/or a cynical grifter?
yes
Is he crazier/more cynical than the anthropologist/archeologists claiming every Tepe/bronze age site was a femicommunist utopia?
no
Does branding his schizo speculation "dangerous" while giving the left wing schizo speculation a pass poison the well of public trust?
yes

>>16756617
The difference is Graham genuinely doesn't have any evidence backing his "theory." He sincerely thinks "water erosion on the sphinx" is enough to say "it must at least twice as old as generally accepted in order for it to coincide with the end of the Younger Dryas."

>>16756672
Who the hell is calling Graham's speculation dangerous? Kek.

>>16756722
Again, it's a specious argument which you can apply to any new nascent theory that doesn't neatly fit the current scientific paradigm, which, when applied retroactively to the history of science, makes all the progress we've made impossible to replicate
If he is wrong then his enterprise will fail, and if he isn't then the evidence will present itself until the next generation of smartasses like you will take it as a self evident truth, simple as

>>16754653 (OP)
idiot who got a netflix documentary

>>16754653 (OP)
Idiot, fraud, and only got a documentary funded because his nephew works at Netflix. Nepotism at its finest.

>>16756733
I could apply your reasoning to literally anything.
Whiskey cures cancer. If I'm wrong, then my enterprise will fail, and if I'm not then the evidence will present itself until the next generation of smartasses like you will take it as a self evident truth, simple as.

The problem is the enterprise seldom "fails." You'll find people on this board still latching to aether theory. People get dogmatically stuck on a theory with no evidence to support it and they become cash cows for charlatans selling books/documentaries.
There's nothing wrong with Mr. Hancock entertaining a niche hypothesis. That's commendable. It's when he latches onto his spurious evidence as conclusive proof of his ideas while simultaneously decrying the "current paradigm" as closed minded that he becomes a laughing stock.

>>16756778
>the "current paradigm"
Everyone in every field are as retarded and ignorant about their own fields as M.D.'s were during covid.

Utterly lost charlatans who dont even understand what "science" is.

>>16756778
>I could apply your reasoning to literally anything
Yes, that's why specious arguments are pointless and gay, I'm glad you finally recognize that
You're still doing your snarky appeal to ridicule thing that wouldn't have gotten us out of the dark ages
We progress the best when crazy people go look for evidence for their improbable ideas on field, rather than by staying within the confines of what intellectuals declare we're allowed to theorize from their chairs

>>16756849
Yeah, maybe read the rest of my post.
The crazies were never the ones making progress. The ones making progress were the people who could actually provide evidence for their newfangled ideas.

Being on the fringe does not make you a crackpot. Being dogmatically aligned with a particular fringe idea and refusing to budge on evidence to the contrary is what does it.

>>16756900
What you're saying is fine and it's what everyone believes in theory, but in practice they never do that, all fringe evidence is automatically discarded as crackpot ideas because it is fringe, in a self fulfilling prophecy
Individuals hyperfixated on bringing an unlikely idea to its ultimate conclusion despite infringing upon common consensus is part and parcel of normal scientific/empirical process. Properly done science should seek to fail often
It's the scientific institution, made of nagging complainers like you, that shouldn't get too attached to the common dogma, and stifle down eccentricity, only to then complain that all low hanging fruits have been picked up and all that's left is incremental improvements of current theories

Part of what I said in >>16756617 were actual rebuttals against nowadays self evident science
The evidence for them didn't fall from the sky, wasn't aggregated in one day, and didn't lead to the correct theory straight away. It was collected in spite of naysayers, not thanks to them

And note that I don't have a stake in Hancock's theory in particular, I'm just sick of this pseudoskeptic/antiscientific mindset that's so prevalent today

>>16756938
>all fringe evidence is automatically discarded as crackpot ideas because it is fringe
Untrue. Even Galileo, who is perhaps the poster child of someone persecuted for pushing against established orthodoxy, wasn't persecuted for heliocentrism.
The Inquisition stated that he could publish his work only as "entertaining a possibility" and not as "established fact." Because by that time it was not established fact. Galileo responded by publishing his work as established fact and making direct remarks against the Pope while doing so.
I repeat: even the fucking Roman Inquisition gave Galileo permission to publish his findings as a possibility.

>Properly done science should seek to fail often
Yes. But Hancock does not accept when his premises fail. He doubled down on his proposed date for the creation of Hiawatha Crater even after radiometric dating showed it to be on the order of millions, not thousands, of years old.

>The evidence for them didn't fall from the sky, wasn't aggregated in one day, and didn't lead to the correct theory straight away. It was collected in spite of naysayers, not thanks to them
I'm not criticizing him for having proposed his ideas. I'm criticizing him for not budging in the face of direct evidence against his model.

>>16756965
I don't care about what the fucking Roman Inquisition did to your go-to historical strawman, I'm talking about actual instances of "fringe crackpot" ideas that turned out to be correct that were initially mocked and ridiculed by the post-Renaissance scientific institution: meteors, tectonic plates, and washing your fucking hands before operating on patients

>Yes. But Hancock does not accept when his premises fail.
And that's fine, it's the institution that shouldn't be dogmatic, not the individual
It's dogmatic individuals that make discoveries by being accidentally right
It's dogmatic institutions that stifle innovation
Dogmatic individuals don't have the power to stifle innovation, they are harmless kooks at worst and unappreciated geniuses at best. The risk calculus is clear here, ignore them and let them do their thing
A dogmatic institution that shuts down everything and closes every door at the first sign of failure (e.g. to conform to consensus) is not allowing science to fail often, quite the contrary

And since you mentioned "the fucking Roman Inquisition", let me add another thing:
Creating "muh innocent mavericks who get persecuted for speaking truth to power" isn't the only, or even the primary, risk of stifling eccentricity in science
The real risk is transforming the scientific institution into an ineffective simulacrum of what it should be, one that is unable to do innovate and do its actual job. To a certain degree, we're already there. It's time to let loose for a bit to correct the overcorrection

>>16756981
>>16756981
>meteors, tectonic plates, and washing your fucking hands before operating on patients
There was never concerted effort by the scientific institutions to decry any of these. Germ theory, or some form of it, was an active area of debate since the ancient Greeks.
People literally watched rocks fall from the sky in ancient times, I don't even know what you're on about with that one.
Plate tectonics had a lot of loud critics, but it gained a lot of influential supporters even during Wegener's day. The issue at hand was he couldn't come up with any reasonable mechanism for how these plates would move around which is a perfectly valid reason to disregard a theory over.

This romanticized notion people have that science is pushed forward by strongheaded rebels in the face of some monolithic institution is nothing short of a fantasy. Disputes and disagreements happen. Sometimes they get bitter. But people aren't being shut out of the scientific process for rejection of the status quo apart from directly political issues.

>it's the institution that shouldn't be dogmatic
And "the institution" isn't being dogmatic. Hancock proposed a particular crater as a cause of the Younger Dryas event and they didn't just poopoo him outright. They investigated it.

This entire narrative is bullshit that hacks like Hancock leverage to avoid addressing the massive flaws in their models.

>>16757017
I don't know what to tell you other than enjoy your incremental and ever more infinitesimal progress on the same theories for the rest of eternity

>>16757019
And I don't know what to tell you other than you bought into a historically illiterate fantasy.

Stop shilling this narcissistic fraud

>>16757017
Look at what he says, not how he says it, you daft cunt.
He's dealing with retards. He has to act like that.
Too much "religious implement" and "they were hunter gatherers" and you start needing shitpost tier "hey look at this obvious thing."

>>16754653 (OP)
Literally right about everything and an asteroid impact in greenland about 10-15,000 years ago proves it