← Home ← Back to /x/

Thread 41462259

12 posts 4 images /x/
Anonymous No.41462259 [Report] >>41462373 >>41463839 >>41463845 >>41463947
i need to clarify something because i think you retards are a bit too dim to put the pieces together

the people you take seriously...people like graham hancock and everyone who buys into the whole ice age civilization theory....those people are sitting at the kids' table

they love to complain about how scientists are too close-minded to respect their beliefs, but, once again.....

these people are sitting at the kids' table, and they're there because they don't know how to do actual science

you really don't have to have a PhD to do science, by the way....you just have to follow the scientific method. form a hypothesis, carry out an experiment, collect data, analyze the data, and draw conclusions from the data.

graham hancock doesn't follow the scientific metho, and he doesn't try to get anything past peer review. this is because he's not stupid. he knows that none of this shit is actually true, but he' s making far too much money to care. i'm sure he's been having a fucking blast lately.

so if you retards want to continue sitting at the kids table with the people who failed high school physics and are not taken seriously by anyone who knows what they're talking about.....by all means, be my guest
Anonymous No.41462332 [Report] >>41462342 >>41463306
Brave of you to post this here.
Anonymous No.41462342 [Report]
>>41462332
lol i'm so brave for posting my opinion on an anonymous message board
Anonymous No.41462373 [Report] >>41462425 >>41462978 >>41463306
>>41462259 (OP)
>attacking a mouthpiece
>not the evidence
interesting
Anonymous No.41462425 [Report]
>>41462373
>the evidence

uh.....

what evidence?

please elaborate so i can know exactly how you are wrong
Anonymous No.41462978 [Report]
>>41462373
It's the tactic employed by jeets and istaeli shills
Anonymous No.41463306 [Report]
>>41462332
Is it? I make about 20 of these posts a week.

>>41462373
Show the evidence, faggot.
Anonymous No.41463839 [Report] >>41464020
>>41462259 (OP)
>carry out an experiment

The only experiments in archeology are in a subfield where they mess around with ancient tools and whatnot. Hancock and archeologists both look at things and then speculate about them. Hancock just takes it further but neither say they know for sure how the pyramids were built, for example. It's like with speculating that 3i/Atlas is alien, there's data and it's obvious why some speculate that but you can't peer review that speculation, only data about it's movement.
Anonymous No.41463845 [Report]
>>41462259 (OP)
>kids table kids table kids table
You're so up you're ass with how smart you think you are but you aren't smart enough to not keep using the same phrase over and over.
Anonymous No.41463947 [Report]
>>41462259 (OP)
>they don't know how to do actual science(tm)
Tell us more about the pleroma republic, the monad council, the platonic conclave, the armchair utopian dream.

>carry out an experiment, collect data, analyze the data, and draw conclusions from the data
But the data can't come from channeling, else it is meds time, isn't it?
Anonymous No.41464020 [Report] >>41464441
>>41463839
OP's post only makes sense if archaeology is a hard science, but it's not.

"Archaeology is largely interpretative and subjective, unlike pure sciences, which rely heavily on quantitative data and mathematical models to test hypotheses. The field depends on analysing artefacts, structures, and cultural remains, often incomplete or degraded. This reliance on fragmentary evidence means that much archaeological interpretation is speculative, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The subjective nature of archaeology raises questions about its scientific rigour, as interpretations can vary significantly depending on the archaeologist’s perspective, cultural background, or theoretical framework...

While archaeology provides invaluable insights into human history and culture, its status as a “science” is frequently challenged due to its inherent subjectivity. The field’s heavy dependence on interpretation rather than objective data can lead to multiple, often conflicting, narratives about the past."

https://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/archaeology-a-bad-science
Anonymous No.41464441 [Report]
>>41464020
Archaeology is still using Scaliger's manual.
Hence why I throw all the platonic pleromatic monad dreaming in the recycle bin. The "schizo" is a psychonaut that dont need drugs, hence why he is hated by the academicist.

Academicfags, can you refute any of this below without resorting to the meds and source memes?
>>41451899
>>41451960