How academics can talk to pseudoarchaeology fans
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- My thoughts on the recent Joe Rogan episode with Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble.
The original podcast episode: • Joe Rogan Experience #...
Flint Dibble's followup: • More thoughts on a Los...
CORRECTION: I think I misremembered what Flint Dibble had said about shipwrecks. It doesn't affect the point I was making though.
0:00 Intro
1:18 Why call it pseudoarchaeology?
5:17 Assume good faith
10:18 Be patient if you've heard the claim before
13:29 Marvel together
17:01 Academia
24:08 It's about the evidence
30:00 Academics on CZcams
The thumbnail (not including the two persons) is based on the image "The landscape of Atlantis" by Віщун, CC BY-SA 4.0
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Weird to see so many people stanning for Graham Hancock in the comments when anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that it was refugees from the Battlestar Galactica who settled on Earth and taught primitive humans everything they know.
Lol. 😂 yes
Very funny, propaganda believer 😁
I’m neither a fan nor opposition to Graham, but aren’t you doing exactly what this video is telling you not to do? You’re being sarcastic and dismissive to Graham’s beliefs on the subject, even if they’re not following the scientific method. You’re living up to the snobby view that these pseudo-researchers have of you. Did you even take the points of this video in?
@@Ruaskillz1 well said
@Ruaskillz1 a ridiculous belief can be ridiculed without shame, especially if it's a joke by a layperson. Of course, it can only be ridiculed in a public, non-serious forum like CZcams, not serious academia or debate. Like, chill out.
Really interesting. I hadn't really thought before about how CZcams could be a way for academics to break the walls of their scholarly research being hidden behind the academic journal paywall.
Time traveler
@@cupsoup7244he’s got that good internet I guess
@@SelfEvidentpaywall is just to milk rich institutions which buy enterprise scale subscription / access. Plenty of paper authors will send you a copy of their paper for free if you're interested. The reason they publish is to follow methodological review, which is expected in all academic fields who value some rigor.
Considering that so much of this research is done with public funding, it should be freely available to the public. And we shouldn't have to write to the paper's authors to read it, no more than we have to directly ask a novelist before we check out their book from the library.
@@VesnaVK Most libraries pay a license fee or per diem every time a in-copyright book is checked out
I was not expecting this to be riveting, but somehow, it was. At this point, I would click on a 45-minute Premodernist video about a piece of stale bread.
This was a great video, but tbh now I'm really interested in his take on stale bread.
Because it's sort of interesting, the stages that bread goes through. First day you eat it fresh, then the next day it's toast, the day after it's French toast, after that it becomes bread crumbs. I've definitely read old recipes that specifically call for stale bread, but how stale is stale? Was there the same 4-5 day period (as articulated above) as there is today, or did they eat their bread staler? Or fresher? Did they have different conceptions of 'staleness', and what's the first written record of stale bread?
So many interesting corners to potentially explore!
Yes! Can we please get a history of bread video?
Yes, these videos are all like this,,,, so far.
why did youtube suggested this video just now. why not years ago. this is amazing.
Rule 1: speak politely
Rule 2: Present evidence without jargon
Rule 3: Sell your ideas instead of pushing them
Define "sell" vs "push"
@@Everson33 giving incentive for the audience to believe in it rather than being told to accept it.
@@Everson33sell means what a salesman would do to sell his product. Push means being condescending and arrogant.
I'd call it "give" instead of "sell". Lots of salespeople are quite pushy, so "sell" and "push" mean about the same.
"Give your ideas instead of pushing them."
@@felixfourcolor well said
This channel is easily one of the top 10 channels on CZcams.
immediately became one of my favorites with the time travel advice vid. one of my very few "drop-everything-and-watch" channels
well that may be your opinion, and that is good. However it is not one of the top ten according to the numbers or analytics which we the viewers have to see. And this point is tertiarily relateable to the points he also talking about. To make such a strong statement, which turns out is just your opinion, can be viewed and, or, interpreted as fact by an innocent bystander. Thereby causing the opinion to become a “pseudo fact”, in lieu of some peoples’ inability to separate strong statements of belief or opinion from empirically meaurable facts. Unfortunately,
such is life, in this life of ours, due to varying intelligence levels and critical thinking abilities across individuals in all of humanity.
@@nozrepwhat's wrong with u bro
True!
@@nozrepBeing able to tell a statement of opinion apart from a statement of fact is an important skill that you apparently lack
7:20 this is exactly why (i think) lot of people love this channel. The respect, the good faith, the way you say what you say.
That's being a good communicator.
Too many academics treat the uninformed condescendingly, and that is not productive.
Nah! Hancock is detrimental to knowledge in this age where facts are under constant attack by more and more idiots. Prior to the explosion of social media he was relatively harmless.
yup, why i just hit 'SUBSCRIBE', super chill
"Pyramids on Mars? You wrote a book about it? I assume in good faith, of course. That's so interesting. How delightful! Let's talk about it."
lmfao.
This channel is proof that you dont need flashy presentation, sound effects or animation to interest people, educate people or engage people. They can work, but they arent necessary
I agree! And actually find the flashy videos more and more distracting! It’s hard to focus when they’re constantly zooming in, slowing down the speed to be funny, weird flashing stuff. It’s so nice to have a calm video that’s just straight to the point!
Extremely important message. Try not to hold evidence like a cudgel. Approaching someone with respect is the best way of changing their mind about something. And of course changing someone's mind is kinda like asking them to change clothes in front of you. It's kinda embarrassing and doubly so if it's in front of strangers.
Nice analogy there.
I have also always said for years now that you should not aim to change someone's mind in the moment. You should present them with information and a path to find more information and then hope that years down the line they will come to understand. OR you will do the same with the information you present.
But it is almost never that someone will change their mind on the spot, and you shouldn't expect it.
That’s a great analogy. Going to try to remember that.
I feel like I'm going to misremember this analogy and end up telling someone to take their clothes off in front of me.
beautiful analogy
premodernist uploads, i click
I don't even care what the topic is, really. I click
premodernist uploads, i click and rewatch time travel video again after
@@Spillpolitietlol too true. Such a banger of a video
This dude could tell me bout how paint dried different a thousand years ago than it does now and I'd watch.
Graham Hancock was very slippery on what his theory even is. If you keep track during that Joe Rogan debate, he disavows any belief that his "civilization" had metallurgy, agriculture, empire, organized religion, that they were the ones who built the pyramids, etc. By the end of it he is only proposing that there were some people who could calculate longitude, and they built the Sphinx. He retreated almost to the point of surrender.
It's because he simply wants a civilization to exist that were 'teachers'. Göbekli Tepe is pretty important to his theory in that way. He believes there was an ancient civilization that knew some stuff that nomadic man did not (basic mathematics like pulleys/levers, calculating longitude, latitude, potentially Earth's rotation to use Stars, etc.) and that sites like Göbekli Tepe were congregations for both to come together and learn from each other, but that such a civilization was wiped out by the Younger Dryas Impact, or at least reduced in such number the remaining members had to re-enter nomadic life. Man had to 'restart' in a way.
Essentially he is stating that the invention of 'civilization' may have been earlier than current archaeology suggests, and he is attempting to find evidence of that.
@@rhedde1 How is a collection of teachers among stone age hunter/gatherers a civilization?
@@skjaldulfrThey could be, I dont see the contradiction. Having a few teachers and some hunter gatherers doesnt rule them out from being a Civilization, if we are going by the definition of the word (which is a quite broad concept, with multiple definitions)
@@skjaldulfr Good question, I think really at the core of it Graham seeks to know just how far back Human 'intelligence' goes. If there was an older group of humans that were teaching a newer group of humans, that shows a deeper intelligence than once archaeologists or paleontologists believed to be the case.
This isn't to say that nomadic humans were 'dumb', but to use modern terms they were 'street smart' and Graham seeks to learn just when 'book smart' humans seemed to be the norm rather than the exception, and if that norm is much earlier than current theories pin it to be.
I found it funny that Dibble calls Graham's civilization an "empire" at one point and Graham says "I never said it was an empire". How was a global spanning civilization not an empire ?
Total tangent but related: Paul Harrel, a gun and survival guy, mentions in his clips about a mistake made by most people when it comes to survaival in the wilderness: thinking you have a skill, a talent or a knowledge about something that you don’t really have
I love Paul! You are right there is a very similar nuance and tact! You might like to check out Thomas Sowell
Yeah, and that certainly describes 99% of gun nerds
Paul is that ninja
Very true
The only way to know is to do. This is why academia is so lost. There is nothing archeologists can predict based on their findings. There is no method to check or verify the validity.
Hi! I'm an archaeologists and I just found your channel. I really appreciate your points about engaging with alternative ideas, as well as your encouragement of academics to hop on CZcams. You're absolutely right that it takes more time to create researched videos vs. vibes videos. I hope to see more academics join CZcams and it's so encouraging to see the desire for it from your comments section alone. On a personal note, I'm looking forward to diving into your backlog!
Here... my 'not an Archaeologist' evidence for a trans atlantic crossing from America to Africa.
Can you help me understand the difference between what is vs is NOT evidence? Seems completely arbitrary to me and basically just an artificial fence put up around the official narrative.
@@SMunrohow do you know your ancestors didn’t arise in the Americans and not Africa? Ppl are so deep in the official narrative, they can comprehend a world above the surface.
Couldn’t agree more. Very insightful video. The pay wall on academic research is a massive massive problem. Contributes hugely to the common perception of elitist academia in its ivory tower. Really difficult to refute when the research is simply not available to the general public.
More than the paywall its the citations I was reading a collection of papers, I found in a local library, on Ancient Greek Archeology and they off handedly said that the Dorian Invasion's have been disproved, so I flipped to the cites and the citations was the proceedings from some conference that I couldn't find anywhere online, as I don't have access to a University library, I found the whole experience to be immensely frustrating
Also a big problem is that academic communicators are completely different people from actual academics, especially in the internet age. So we need more people who know stuff to talk about it, because even many who are the spokesmen of the traditional narratives of their subject don’t know the nitty gritty of how it actually works and just blindly parrot what actual academics tell them without understanding it.
6:12 Part of the issue is that the maxim “assume good faith” can be exploited through bad faith rhetoric. Sealioning for example. There isn’t enough time in the day to argue from first principles if the bad faith “interrogator” wants to debate from first principles. It takes 10 minutes do undo a lie that takes 10 seconds to say.
I understand what you mean, and I agree to an extent, but I think what is meant by that is it's best to not jump to the conclusion that someone is ill intended or to not start out with the assumption that someone is ill intended.
"Sea lioning" in my experience just means "I don't have an argument so I'm going to assume your honest questions are bad faith so I don't have to properly respond to them and I can make you look like the bad guy"
@@jacobscrackers98 Case in point. Thanks for the example.
@@Chris.4345 LOL
@@Chris.4345 "It takes 10 minutes do undo a lie that takes 10 seconds to say."
I'd still say that it's a bad idea to accuse the other side of lying or bad faith argument. It doesn't look convincing to most people who don't already agree with you. If you don't want to assume good faith and respond to spurious claims with evidence and reason, it's probably better to not have a debate at all than to have a debate and the attack your opponent.
It's way easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.
ikr? all the sheep who swallow the dogma of Orthodox Academia are too dumb to know that they've been fooled by a sinister cabal of Elite Gatekeepers.
Mainstream archeologists have fooled the public for years.
Yes, true from the first person who said it and still so true, and bares repeating.
It's honestly hard to find channels where someone like you makes content that is high quality, entertaining, and cites sources. I'm just a simple carpenter, so I really appreciate you doing these videos on CZcams. You're right when you say people just find these topics entertaining, and just want to know more about them. I'm really drawn to historical mysteries and the like, and I have watched JREs Graham podcasts, not this last one, but he proposes a lot of cool ideas, though I do think that they're just that. I sometimes think that maybe archeologists need to do more digging in a sense, but maybe they are, and I don't know about it, because it's behind a pay wall in a journal that even if i got my hands on it, i might not be able to make sense of what I'm reading. Great video, really enjoy your work here!
A simple carpenter??? No, what you do is so important and can be an art form. I wish I had skills to make things like you can.
Jesus was also a simple carpenter
Let me let you in on an open secret. Paywalls are porous. Search for sci-hub.
I assumed its Jesus
Well I have math degree and work in tech/finance. I like facts and numbers but bit fantasy and open mind is way to move forward. If you change nothing nothing will change ;)
i've always had a soft spot for pseudo archeology. then i've found David Miano's channel world of antiquity, and he does exactly all the things you suggested. he made me realize that human history is so fascinating and mysterious without recurring to advanced technology, or aliens, or whatever. we as human are able to do amazing things and also to believe to the stupidest bs.
He also gets into difficult engineering problems without having any deeper knowledge on it and labels it 'precionism' (c.f. the videos on Egyptian granite vases or the numerical facts of the pyramids). Great guy.
In pseudo archeology/history they always had ALL the advancement only aliens could provide. Except electric circuits :D:D:D:D
Yes, I often start listening to it …. But I often lose interest quickly. But maybe I am just ADHD. Lol
An excellent example of the difference on the subject is right here in this excellent video.
An academic admits "I could be wrong, please correct me in that case". A pseudo-academic proclaims "I am right, and everybody else is wrong".
A pseudo-academic also says stuff like, "They are silencing me" when he clearly gets to say whatever he wants.
😂@@MatthewTheWanderer
Hancock doesn't say that though.... Hancock takes issue with the way this guy smeared him and his work as anti-semitic and racist. THAT'S where the animosity creeps in. Guy doesn't critizie his work whatsoever and "Flint Dibble" (obv fake archeology-themed name) seems to be the fraud to me
@@billballinger5622 You are extremely ignorant and don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. You should be ashamed!
@@billballinger5622 If you believe anything Hancock says you are extremely unintelligent. Also, Flint Dibble is definitely not a fake name.
I'm a PhD student in accounting (yes we exist). I'm inspired by your suggestion that we use CZcams to communicate *good* research. You acknowledge/mention that presentation skills are often not academics' strong suit. As someone with an apparent knack for it, can you provide a more detailed guide to constructing short, interesting, informative videos? 🙏 There are several acct papers that would be worth presenting to a CZcams audience, but I don't have the foggiest clue where I would start with recording a video about them.
Fellow accountant here. (Not much of a research kinda guy, I enjoy tax more, since each case is so unique and very puzzle like)
I think the most important thing is to try and explain like you would to an 8th grader.
Not because people are dumb. But because a lot of people just have no experience in the field. If you have a younger family member think how you would explain to them and start from there.
Also if this is gonna be your channel im going to subscribe since its tough to find any info in the field that isnt very dry and technical. Or just accountant reacts type stuff.
Wow a Dr of Accounting, that's amazing!
I would love to subscribe to your channel. Read the thread, a guy above suggested a good thing, imagine you're explaining it to an 8th grader.
Our of interest - what area are you researching?
Hey, 2+2 always equals 4. PhD DONE.
I actually do believe Hancock is a grifter. He's no Carl Sagan, and that comparison only reinforced my feelings about him. Spreading this narrative is his business, and he is very aware of what he's doing.
Yeah he openly misused quotes and audio from interviews in his show. He aslo said one of my favorite grifter things ever "they will tell you its this thing. It is not" and then thats it lmao. He leaves out or lies about information about archeological sites for his own benefits.
Eric Von Dangen rerun.
That's not the point. You don't argue with someone assuming they're a grifter. The point went over your head. And yeah yeah I know you're trying to make an independent point of whatever, you should have made a better comment.
There is a thirst for truth, sure, but one issue not addressed in this video is the thirst for a simple black or white, yes or no, truth - anything that takes time or nuance, and is just work with no exciting payoff at the end, full of maybes and whatifs with no overarching narrative, is not really the object of that thirst.
This is very true. Conspiracy theories tend to exist at a very basic, skin-deep level, and require little real or disciplined thought. I think for a lot of people there's not so much a thirst for truth as there is a thirst for answers, and those who simply have a thirst for answers hate ambiguities and treat them as a sign of deficiency.
What's more is that a lot of people have a thirst for answers because they want to be able to look or sound smart, especially if their answer doesn't conform to mainstream thinking. Conspiracy theorists who I've known will routinely argue that everyone else is too dumb or conformist to unlock the 'truth' that they themselves have. They seek answers not for truth, but for the pleasure they derive from feeling superior. That's not to say every conspiracy theorist falls into that camp, but some absolutely do.
That is an excellent articulation. @jeangove01
Richard Feynman touched on this issue by saying he's comfortable with not knowing something.
Maybe an effect of the desire for 'truth' and answers is a tendency to believe that there has to be a satisfactory answer NOW, because it's far more comforting to some/most(?) that way.
The first thing I think to realise is mainstream tells us what they want us to hear. I don’t subscribe to this but many do.
So what do you make of the lies and fraudulent archeology of our past that has finally been exposed years and years later like piltdown man and Nebraska man, mainstream was so incredibly keen for there to be a missing link they created one. Your avoidance of looking deeply and believing all dogma is your downfall.
Love the videos, looking forward to listening to this
22:55 lol, "science advances one funeral at a time" 😅
The problem with that process is that there is a funeral only few times in a century.
i love your videos so much, i could listen to you speak about history for hours. you are so polite and well spoken and the material is always incredibly interesting:) thank you for another great upload
The one thing everybody fails to point out about Graham Hancock is that he's been pushing these ideas for 30 years now. He could have easily spent a few of those years studying archeology himself. He could even have his own PhD by now. Even if there is any truth to his claims, that's a huge Factor on why nobody takes him seriously because he's trying to LeapFrog over all of the academics to make his ideas the mainstream theories.
Mainstream believers are always convinced that alternative thinkers just haven’t studied the mainstream narrative enough. Serious alternative thinkers are well versed in the official narrative, they just come to a non mainstream conclusion. HOWEVER, mainstream thinkers are never well versed in alternative ideas. Which group is doing “science” and which group is doing “Science”?
@@1237barca you can study archeology without agreeing with the mainstream narrative while focusing on your field of interest and Getting a degree in the field would destroy the pseudo archeology label being used the ignore the theories he has spent his life studying and sharing with us. On top of that many of these Historical locations deny access to important parts of these Historical sites for anyone thats not an academic. Hancock would gain alot of tools to help his ideas and also open alot of doors to further his research that would gain him access he previously did not have to many of these ancient artifacts that could be key to proving his theories. His lack of academic training is the exact reason the mainstream thinkers refuse to acknowledge anything he says with seriousness.
@@neotheseattledj gatekeeping certifications in the name of “science”. There is nothing scientific about getting a degree. Like saying someone doesn’t understand God cuz they didn’t go to seminary.
@@neotheseattledj you can take a blood oath to a secret society. Doesn’t mean you WILL do their bidding, but that is the point.
@@1237barcaYeah, no. Graham has shown over and over again how much he does not know about archeological advances. His thoughts on archaeology are still stuck in the late 80s early 90s. Thats why he keeps bringing up “Clovis first” as a gotcha. There has been 30 years of research since. He ignores research that does not fit his stated conclusion and subverts ideas which might support his conclusions. Over the years many lay people who are not archeologists have published as authors and coauthors on papers in archaeological journals. Graham does not even try. He is the prime example of a pseudo-archeologist.
A really good video. For me as a viewer who is interested in History but doesn't want to read academic papers all day but rather listen to a history video while doing housework, the biggest difficulty is to distinguish between content creators who do proper research and know what they're talking about and those who want to push their predetermined narrative. It helps to judge the credibility if the content creator has a Ph.D in the relevant field, like 'toldinstone' who makes videos about the ancient romans and greeks, but that doesn't mean that other people don't know what they're talking about.
As an example, the creator of the Welsh history channel 'Cambrian Chronicles' is to my knowledge, not a historian with an academic title in the fields of Welsh history but for all I can judge as an amateur, he seems to really know the stuff about the extremely niche area of history.
I also like 'Historia Civilis', but the creator seems to prefer to ignore the controversy of some historical accounts for the sake of telling a coherent story without disruping the flow. I don't think there is any malintent but it's rather a choice for the type of story telling the creator wants to do and overall I think it's a great channel.
I think it would be helpful if credible channels like premodernist would recommend history channels they like to watch. I saw a premodernist comment on the channel 'Ancient Americas' which is another interesting history channel I like, so it would be cool if those types of creators would get a shout out here sort of as a badge of approval.
All the channels you mentioned do really good work.
My main thing that helps me get a better sense of who might be reliable than others is generally, people focused more on creating a "brand" out of a constant stream of content will always be directing links, references, and energy inwards towards themselves and their brand. Usually with a subtle marketing implication that they have some sort of special knowledge they "allowing" their audience to access. In contrast, those I find to be are truly knowledgeable and curious, even if amateurs who share personal opinions alongside facts, will usually be eager to talk directly about where they learned the things they know, whether from books, from talks with experts in the field, from their personal research of sources, documentaries, etc. it directs learning outward, towards a myriad of possibilities, rather than positing themselves as The voice and source of information for the layman, and also uplifts other creators who might specialize in niches they themselves might not know much about!
I think cambrian chronicles has at least a master's in a history field if I remember correctly.
I’ve never heard Cambrian Chronicles mention his level of education but I’m pretty confident he’s at least a post-graduate in history or some research field. The way researches primary sources and secondary sources and the way he presents information isn’t the way amateur historians (ex Dan Carlin) approach history research. I seriously doubt he’s an amateur (not that an amateur couldn’t produce similar results, you point still stands).
Generally it's good to avoid channels that are constantly inserting things that are currently politically favorable into history, as they care more about the current era than the previous eras. By taking in content from a variety of eras and people of different backgrounds you can then identify what bits different sorts of people play up or ignore which will slowly give you a better idea of what actually happened but also what types of people are more or less likely to actually due their due diligence and try to find the truth and which people are more concerned with other things
Dude your videos are so soothing. Every time I watch one it feels like I'm listening to a friend. You would be great at making podcasts !!
Jeff Goldblum's smarter brother.
I’d have said Adam Scott’s older brother
Hard not to assume bad faith from Hancock when he had a book named The Mars Mystery that he never mentioned again after cash grab
Atun-shei also had a great video on the same thing. Really interesting to see it get so much coverage!
Atun-Shei's video was good until he started talking about the culture war because I guess that brain rot is just inescapable now. Always one step forward two steps back with that guy.
@@doctorbobcat7123 I get what you mean, but the original Rogan episode was already discussing those themes, such as Graham’s accusation of Flint calling him racist, in reference to his article about how pseudo archeology is often used to reinforce racist revisionism of history (i.e. the field itself originates from certain 19th century figures denying that brown people would be capable of building impressive ancient structures, and so instead attributing it to a hypothetical lost technologically-advanced civilisation).
As much as I’m also fed up of hearing constant culture war bullshit, it is unfortunately already embedded in the topic, and ignoring this will not do anyone any favours.
@@buzhidao5065 You are right. However, I think starting with that makes people defensive off-the-bat. Most modern people don't look at the pyramids with the mindset of "no brown person could build this" as much as "no human at all could build this", which is why these beliefs are also instilled in European monuments like Stonehenge or the "Bosnian Pyramid". So when you start with by saying those theories are racist, some people might find it accusatory, as Graham did. Although I think Graham might have exaggerated it to try to paint Flint in a bad light, still.
I think it's more productive to tackle the modern views, as they are now. After that, we can discuss further the foundations laid in the 19th century.
Also, Atun-Shei is about as subtle in his political views as a shotgun blast to the face, and tends to say some pretty silly things from time to time because of it. So it might be an issue with him rather than the argument in general. But that's just me.
@@doctorbobcat7123no I actually disagree that people don’t look at the pyramids and think “no brown person could’ve done this”. The entire ancient aliens franchise and this entire video is on just that subject!
@@nathansyoutubeaccount Refer to my previous comment. They do it to European monuments too, maybe not as often, but they do.
Comment before watching for transparency. I was just watching one of your older videos at the gym of all places and hoping to see a new one soon… was so happy seeing the post notification!! Big fan of your work and the way you present information.
if you havent done a crossover video with miniminuteman, I think I would really enjoy that, he sort of shook me out of my lingering desire to latch onto the fantastical narratives put forth in the pseudo-archeological arguments from the likes of Hancock.
I’m a graduate student in climate science, and the way you talk about pseudoarchaelogy reminds me a lot of climate change denial. One of the reasons it feels hard for scientists to talk to deniers is because the scientist has seen proof hundreds of times and is surrounded by it, whereas a denier may have only seen two or three headlines a year about the climate. Learning how to separate the “belief” from the person is key.
Have fun with your gender studies diploma
@@navienslavementclimate science. Cant you read?
@@navienslavement WTF are you on about? He is studying the physical sciences not psychology and social sciences, which do have their own value.
@@navienslavement What does this mean?
So you believe everything you are told what a good boy you are, the socialists will be very proud of you. Mainstream is full of lies, you will work it out one day, here’s a really nice example for you, some highly qualified engineers with state of the art measuring equipment have tested pre dynastic vases from the step pyramids in Egypt, you can see it being done with your own eyes on unchartedX, these ancient artefacts are concentric to less than the width of a human hair, absolute evidence of some sort of high tech we don’t know about yet. Mainstream archeologists and teaching institutions are still ignoring these findings and insult our intelligence by saying they were made with the tech of the era copper chisels. Rose granite is more than twice the hardness of copper. You know as well as I do new findings fall on deaf ears if it doesn’t..”suit”
You’re my favorite channel. Please continue making more videos.
Always the best thing to see a new vid! Thanks
i genuinely love your approach, its academics like you that inspire me. thank you :)
Great video! Your point regarding the 1988 presidential debate was particularly poignant. When often confronted with common historical misconceptions, or pseudo-history, it can be easy to become a bit jaded. This is something I’ll keep in mind when communicating about History to others. Thanks!
As someone who read Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel and thought it was interesting, I would love it if you could do a video on it. Or maybe just those kinds of books (I wonder what you think of Sapiens).
That whole book is that guy just talking out of his ass
Jared Diamon makes a lot of dubious claims without a lot of evidence. A much better book on the subject is Why the West Rules For Now, by Ian Morris.
It would be a good continuation of this topic.
@@molotov1936yo Somehow I feel like your response is exactly what the video warns against doing 😅 In any case, I really would be interested in such a video as well; a friend who studied (some form of) history at uni once pointed out to me that Guns Germs and Steel is not considered something anyone takes seriously in academia and at the time I wanted to push back on that because it was the first (and probably only) taste of world history I had, and I didn't want the wonder I experienced reading it to be ruined. However, the way it was spoken of in this video has given me an appetite to have Jared Diamond's narrative challenged.
World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction by Immanuel Wallerstein
The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000 by William H. McNeill
The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy by Kenneth Pomeranz
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History by J. M. Blaut
Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams
Reorient: Global Economy in the Asian Age by Andre Gunder Frank
Those will give you a good overview of different perspectives in the field.
Absolutely amazing video by the way. Please keep uploading anything; it's all incredibly interesting.
Really appreciate your perspectives on this. Thank you for making this video.
As a new science professor thank you for this video! It’s crazy how powerful assuming good faith and treating others with respect can be. It’s the only way to win hearts and minds and I saw this alot during covid. It’s crazy to me that this isn’t the dominant culture in academia…
Thank you, and good luck with your new job! I agree, if academics can get into this mindset it would work wonders.
love the new microphone setup
i respect your position towards the alternative fact types of people. i think it takes a significant level of maturity to not only internalize it but also to enumerate the problem in the first place.
He used pseudo archaeologist as a derogatory term and spent no time actually debunking anything.
@@robertely686 the point wasnt to debunk anything.
he was as polite in providing strategies on how to have a dialogue with people who are clearly interested in history and archeology, but for whatever reason dont form their conclusions in the correct way... much like you
I encourage you to read my comment thread, think as you may
@@robertely686 Congratulations. Your failure to understand the point of the video has proved Atlantis 👍
@laserpanda94 maybe you could call people conspiracy theorists whilst claiming you're open minded.
Now go and find those wmd in Iraq but watch out for those Chinese weather balloons that are spying on you
Your channel is awesome! Always insightful content to get my brain going.
Was a fan of Hancock in my younger years, read several of his books, listened to many interviews , and I agree he believes what he is saying. He seems like a smart guy who so wants to believe this stuff that sounds really cool, that he doesn’t apply the same level of skepticism to other things.
Keep up the great videos, this sort of rational discourse is needed in every field represented on youtube.
top notch content, and I'm always in awe of the haircut
Coming from archeology, i can absolutly confirm that general knowledge is decades behind the academical consensus.
Concerning some keys topics (politcal ones), the gap get go past 100 years
@@tubbs2063 Well, in France at least, all fields that have been used for nationalist purposes are affected. Here, that would be anything related to the middle age or the gallic era.
A lot of far right groups regularly use those periods or some keys characters (gallic heroes, kings, saints) to indentify themselves.
So much is said about these topics that the academic voice is kind of "lost in the mix" and hardly changes people's perception of the past.
I was just checking your channel earlier today and thought "Hmm, it's been a minute since he's uploaded. I wonder if we'll get a video soon."
Now here are! With some juicy drama too! Thank you for your time, good sir!
I've mainly been attracted to your historical videos but this is an absolute gem of a video. This is an amazing demonstration of how to communicate with anybody of an opposing view beside the context of psueo-history, just an effective way of embracing any challenging topic. I really hope more people can see this video!
Much love from an archaeology undergraduate. Your suggested approach to treat people in good faith is spot on. I could tell Graham Hancock definitely believed in what he was saying, and all the people who bring up his writings definitely have the same enthusiasm about the past. You want to engage with that enthusiasm, instead of rebuking people for being incorrect through no fault of their own.
But that‘s not all the people. most don‘t want to hear any differing opinion because then they feel dumb for believing him. Just staying with that interesting sounding contrarian idea is easier then self reflecting for most.
Well said. I think this approach is very helpful when dealing with people in general. Not only to communicate ideas so that they are heard. But also for yourself and your own mental health.
Based on the definition of good faith as not intentionally lying, sure. But, I would make the argument that ignoring contradictory evidence is in itself a form of bad faith.
This is what I would highly recommend to you and your community... I don't believe in Graham... but I also doesn't trust Archeologists. I believe I am actually closer to the norm than you might think. The field needs to change and you all need to clean house. It's not rigorous enough. Just listen to Flint's language. He frequently uses absolutes such as "definitely" or "without a doubt". That alone is inherently unscientific. He relies heavily on logical fallacies from ad hominem, call to authority, appeal to ignorance, qualification, appeal to tradition, false dilemma, and about 5 or 6 more... He cherry picked data a few times in the conversation (including in his speciality). That all inherently makes him appear disingenuous. Then the general practice of presenting speculative narratives based on the data as conclusive fact is also unscientific. Just present the hard science data without narratives or assumptions attached. Let the data speak for itself. If you want to publish opinion pieces on what you think it might mean, that's fine... as long as it's not presented as definitive proof of anything. I studied statistics, and I have a past of handling massive data sets at previous jobs... Large data sets aren't as infallible as Flint made them out to be. Not even remotely close to definitive. The hubris from the field needs to chill out. It's why people are skeptical of Archeologists. Be more like Einstein when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". That's the right attitude to have. You're the new wave... You're the future... You can change the field and make it something we can trust and be proud of.
He believes what he's saying, but that belief is motivated by an ideology, not a passion for the past in itself. His ultimate aim is to convince people that the ancients were better people because they took psychedelics, were more in tune with nature, communed with that spiritual world, and lacked the hubris of petty modernity. The archaeological assertions are just a means to that end, a sort of anti-woke hippy ideology. He also believes there's architecture on Mars.
I think this is far too generous.
8:40 Yes, but Carl Sagan did not do this repeatedly for decades and based his whole livelhood on these wrong ideas. He also was not constantly confronted with evidence to the contrary and ignored it. This was one episode of many, that is a huge difference to people peddling the same stuff over and over again.
There definitely are a lot of grifters out there, and pseudoarchaeology often also has a darker side rooted in nationalism and racism. To assume good faith really cannot be done in many cases. It is far too obvious that the motive is not the discovery of truth.
If you want something to be true, it is hard to let go of it. This is true in mainstream science as well, which has the far more inertia behind it than kook cults.
yep. this guy is adorable. let's all bend over backwards to give "alternative theorists" the benefit of the doubt. always assume "Good Faith."
surely their only motive is the Advancement of Scientific Knowledge!!!!
let's appease and assuage the charlatans and play along and stroke that shaft, fluff those balls and have the common courtesy to give 'em a reach-around as we discretely plant seeds of doubt in their followers...
I think the point is more that you want to assume they will, at some level, internalize what you've said if you do it in a non-condescending way. I understand the point you are making though. Certain people are just so walled up that it's not possible to get through.
We need more videos from you, Professor! Please keep 'em coming!
You are easily my favorite account on CZcams, I really hope you keep coming out with videos.
Pseudo archeology/history is less rigorous research and more vibes stuff is such a perfect take.
I love your channel so much and I’ve rewatched your time travel advice video like 4 times.
You should do one about time traveling to the Middle East.
Hancocks issue is he has a preconceived conclusion that he morphs everything he finds to fit into. He always talks about how mainstream archeology refuses to change but he is honestly the same and doesn’t stray from or adapt his ideas. I think there’s a bit of truth in his theories, maybe like 10-20% but then he just fills in all the rest with what he wants it to be.
a
What makes it so obnoxious to talk about something we know in history or archeology is that the “evidence is being ignored” mantra has made its way outside of academics and into the mouths of people who are not actually academics, and believe that their singular piece of evidence (from any source, even if not itself dubious) trumps the larger scientific body.
They believe the specific evidence is being ignored rather than that it has already been considered and has not had enough weight to tip the scales the other way. The most frustrating part is in trying to get them to understand that their evidence wasn’t ignored in the first place and either was or actively is being studied, debated, and juxtaposed with the larger body of study.
I think often this comes from an unawareness of the size of the body of evidence and sources that have piled up in any field of study. The reason it’s frustrating to talk to these people is because they will probably believe you are brainwashed unless you offhand are able to explain the entire body of current academic knowledge to counter their singular source.
Unfortunately that is a tough proposition for anyone, given the length of time even small portions of that study take to learn and incorporate. It can’t be done in a conversation. So, the person will continue to cling to their singular evidence and spread it to everyone who doesn’t know better, and ignore and look down upon all the people who do.
Meanwhile, the people who do know better are not often sharing their knowledge to the general public since to them it’s either “common” or too convoluted to explain.
So the pseudo-science grows. It has virtually no counter possible in media since the only thing capable of countering pseudo-scientific claims is the communication of deep understanding in the appropriate topic of a tiny and likely cautious minority.
I think it's mostly made worse by the collapse in quality of western academia in the recent decades. So many people are getting degrees now that would've never made it in the past, and the continual drive for publishing has gotten worse and worse resulting in a bunch of substandard research that needs to be continuously retracted and redone. The public does pick up on this. Also the blatant use of public academic positions as the personal political soap boxes of many researchers undermines trust even further. Most people aren't actually smart enough to understand the scientific discussion on most topics so they have to go by how trustworthy the people with the fancy papers are, and simply take what they say as gospel. People are simply increasingly seeing them as not as reliable as they were
This has become one of my favourite channels, what an excellent topic to discuss
I discovered this channel a day ago. Incredible content. Keep posting :)
Something I really want to stress is not to be dismissive or too snarky when debunking misinformation - I mean, not as an absolute rule, snarky content is fine sometimes, but it isn't the most effective way to change someone's mind. And I struggle with this because I tend to be a pretty sarcastic person in real life, but if you want to change someone's mind about anything you don't want to make them feel attacked; if someone feels like you're belittling them, dismissing them, or insulting them, they're much more likely to double-down on whatever position they hold rather than to change their perspective. If anything they'll just have reason to characterize academics as bullies. The only time snark works is for making people who might be on the fence about pseudoarcheology/pseudohistory think "Oh, people who believe this pseudo stuff are dumb, I don't want to be like them", which is all well and good for keeping more people from going down the rabbit hole, but if the goal it to pull people out of the rabbit hole then it doesn't work so well.
This is really important, I feel a lot of nuance is lost in this kind of discussion when people treat every interaction as if it must be handled the same. A private interaction with a person you care about and where the goal is to change their specific beliefs requires a different approach from a public debate where the goal is to demonstrate to an audience the strength of your ideas and the weakness of your opponents'
If you have the goal of changing someone's mind while making a comment or anything, this is, in my opinion, by far the most important thing to keep in mind/ rule to follow.
I have always enjoyed challenging people's perspectives and in return having my own challenged, and so I've always liked to comment under posts and engage in a (to the best of my ability) respectful conversation/ argument. A couple years ago, I used to be just entirely rude when making comments. I mean, have you seen sketch artists make fun of sparky redditors? That was basically how I engaged in my comments. And guess what? I convinced nobody of my perspectives. However, now, I'm a lot more pleasant in my comments, I always try to remain respectful, I stay away from logical fallacies as much as I can, blah blah blah, and I've genuinely been able to convince some people of different perspectives of mine. The one I remember in particular was convincing a climate change skeptic that climate change is indeed real. I've genuinely engaged in some very nice debates with people via comments online as of recently, just by being respectful and not dismissing anything without first addressing it.
If only this were the debate you want it to be, the world would be a better place. But these people are ideological pawns, and they don’t care about factual claims.
But then you're getting people to go along with what you think is true for the entirely wrong reasons. It's just social pressure, they aren't actually convinced lol
@@alexdunphy3716 If you're referring to the last sentence of my comment, then yes, it is just social pressure, which is why it isn't effective for changing minds, as I said. If you're referring to my overall point, that isn't the case at all, you still need to make arguments; being respectful is entirely a matter of how you make those arguments. The degree of "social pressure" is no greater than if you insult and belittle them while making your arguments, if anything it's lower; they're just more likely to hear you out if they don't feel attacked.
The nuance in this man's videos is what I miss in today's world.
You are one of my favorite creators. Thanks for the interesting content!
Dude i love your channel. You would be great at making podcasts. Great voice, no annoying effects and pictures. This is really soothing and nice to listen to
So wait the Pyramid of Giza was not a nuclear fusion energy supply?
Evidences for that are yet to be found. The ones there are seem to point in every other direction. But how cool would that be!
No , it’s a piezoelectric generator
What!!!!!!!!!!
@@jorge6207it's okay, in some cases you can just say 'no, it was not a ...'
Yes it was build on water and had a gold tip. It is interesting that both Napoleon and Hitler was crazy to get there. No one documented what they took
This is an interesting topic. I think the presence of "ententainers" like Mr. Hancock shows us how important legends and myths or generally speaking just spirituality is important to humanity. His audience are just people who enjoy listening to potential myths and secrets which they would love to believe therefore rely more on their emotions than logic.
I'm not an academic, but I feel this advice to apply to nearly everyone with a range of topics. Those basic ideas of "Assume good faith, you are you planting a seed for them to question it later, people are going off their one source, etc." are all good mindsets and guides for any debate, discussion, or argument.
I found your channel a few weeks ago and I really am stressing that you have very "Big CZcamsr" energy. Keep up with the videos, this channel had 256k subscribers as of May 2024, I feel you getting a million would be a piece of cake if you keep giving out your level of content.
Yes, I am seeing that in “Looking for the Mother Tree” book. She succeeded. I just enjoyed my life. But I am glad that I remain unknown except by my family.
13:29 length in; your point to "marvel together" is the total essence that most everyone seems to forget these days. It's so hard to get that point across to someone who's high on being argumentative, and make them feel it...but I completely agree and am proud to see you say so on this video.
Can you recommend any good academic critiques of Guns, Germs, and Steel, written for lay people?
"F*ck Jared Diamond" by David Correia, published in "Capitalism Nature Socialism" -- 2013.
He specified *good* lol@@chuckleezodiac24
Maybe just keep reading and you will find it.
I liked the book. But nothing is ever the whole truth. The universe is the whole truth.
@@chuckleezodiac24lol I hope you are jokinh
@@napoleonfeanor what? it's a good critique. there's a plethora of them.
James Blaut: Environmentalism and Eurocentrism.
Living Anthropologically: How Jared Diamond Distorts History.
Love the video!
Would you ever be interested in dismantling why Guns, Germs and Steel is an example of pseudo-history? As you mentioned in the video, it was indeed my first introduction to a macro- historical worldview, and while I have since moved on from his firm geographic determinism, I would appreciate your specific take on the book!
It's because his theories about differences in ease of domestication and movement of people are falsified by the data. Europeans and Asians didn't just happen to "start on easy mode" with all the best animals plants and land. Jared just wanted a justification for why more advanced civilizations, particularly Europe, don't get credit for their accomplishments and to say it was all just down to luck. His work was essentially complete uncited and just a narrative based on speculation and assumptions that were already mostly known to be wrong
We love you PreModernist! Keep making videos! I loved the time travel to the Middle Ages especially. Thank you!
I love the message of this video! (as a non-academic) I appreciate the empathy/understanding in your approach rather than just 'fueling the fire' of an "us vs. them" argument.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a great example for this. Despite its many issues, its theories were a massive break from the racism pervasive in almost all primary, secondary, and popular education on world history in 1997. I specifically recall what a revelation this book was for people raised in those milieus and saw how it opened people's eyes to the role of environments in history. Academics in my experience are extremely mean about the book and on social media often make counterclaims that require as much scrutiny as anything Jared Diamond makes. I've never seen a layman leave an interaction about it with their curiosity intact.
Karl Popper's book about falsification blew my mind when I read it for a class in college. It's so hard to reach certain conclusions, and most science is built on what we can rule out, and usually it is not possible to give sweeping statements about things, all you can say is "We haven't found a case where x is true" or something like that. I hate how so many people in pseudoscience have a really poor understanding of how science works and then they claim scientists have dogma or whatever. I personally feel like that is projection, but i can't prove that, so...
You'd be surprised how few people in academia these days understand falsification, which is part of the problem.
You are amazing. So thoughtful and empathetic. I really appreciate all of your videos, but particularly this, ‘ways of listening’ are so rarely talked about and so important. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I hope a lot of people see this.
I am a retired construction expert whose career included many serious disputes. A lot of professional medications. Your advice about how to speak with people whose ideas are not well formed is really good.
Thank you.
The new microphone makes it look like you're DJing a birthday party.
Your mother's birthday party! Happy Birthday Ma!
I’m just about to start my PhD and the idea of doing YT on top of that terrifies me haha
Yes, I am glad that I earned my advanced degrees before yt.
But I do see competent professionals pushed out of the field and have good yt channels.
They are needles in the haystack.
as always, great video articulated extremely well, some people can explain things well and some can't, you sir are a treasure, keep up the great work, we love it
This channel is a gem. It's so different to all other content I use to watch. It's like a stop parade from everthing, and just watch a simply calm video of someone just simply calmly talking
I love that Carl Sagan was referenced with regard to history and knowledge. He ignored the Islamic Collage in ancient Bagdad which gave the Renaissance to Europe, that was destroyed by the Mongolian hoards in 1258. There was no dark ages between the destruction of the library of Alexandrea and the founding of the Bagdad Collage. It was not all common knowledges that were lost with each event, but something still held onto to rebuild the next generation...
BS
@@patnor7354Bs in what manner?
What about when Carl Sagan supposedly said they found the title page of some book/scroll which was called "The First 100,000 Years of Human History". Something to that effect. Do you think they really found that?
@@genx7006 Carl Sagan was brilliant at Astrophysics and other fields of science, but he held fringe concepts at times (hence his book "First Contact"- later made into a movie). I doubt any such "title page" was found, but even if it was... who's history did it account for? Did it include the entire world within the aspects of human migration? Too many things to question about such a thing.
@@abdihakimjama1556the remains wasn't because of Islamic scholars. If anything it was actually Islamic invasions driving the Byzantine monks and all their copies of the classic works west where they gained popularity again.
I can no longer in good conscience watch these videos without paying something. They are incredible.
My life mantra is that unless you're a billionaire the only way to make the world a better place is through patience and compassion, and this hits that idea home perfectly. Thank you.
i pay. I pay my internet service bill every single month. Yep. I pay too. Anything else over and above it an extra tip. Well earned! Well earned indeed. Anyway, dude’s a literal historian and gets paid a salary wherever he’s professor at. So, therefore, I pay my internet service bill, and I don’t feel bad about not paying him any membership money or tip money. Nevertheless it is very good that you, however, do!
Thank you!
I really admire you offering advice that acknowledges that people who enjoy or consume the fantastical stuff are getting real things from it. Community, comfort, understanding. Even if it is not real, it can have real impacts.
Overall an excellent conversation with actionable advice sprinkled in. You spoil us.
First Milo Rossi, now this? Good week for pseudoarchaeology debunking vids
nothing Hancock said was debunked in this video....
Not quite this week but Stefan Milo also gave his thoughts on the debate! If you like archeology I definitely recommend his videos too.
@@Hunter7023 Yep and so did History with Kayleigh. It seems all the major history/archaeology channels watched that debate and wanted to share their thoughts on it.
@@billballinger5622 Maybe there is some debunking of methods used rather than specific parts of JH's theories.
Also, WorldofAntiquity did an excellent episode about that debate on Joe Rogan.
Wow I'm early, good thing I brought my popcorn and soda *slurp noises*
oh oh oh! read my comments while you slurp! they, and their replies, I theorize and hypothesize, shall entertain you all the more!
Super important point to get across to everyday ordinary folks who are not well versed in a particular topic, and read about something in the media. Media is often very separated by time from current research. Glad you brought that point up
you are so so refreshing, i am very glad you're on youtube.
Great video. Again. I’m definitely someone who gets impatient with conspiracy theorists or pseudo sciency types in general. Great advice.
I think the one question I’d ask Graham Hancock or Flint Dibble is, “what is the definition of a civilization? How do you define it? What does it look like?”
Are Paleolithic villages a ‘civilization’?
If that is Graham’s definition than I guess he’s right, but I don’t think that’s it…
Etymology is the best arbitrator of what civilization is. The notion is not correctly defined. "Civilization" is about "crop-culture," and therefore about "agriculture". Ordinary definitions lack a good handle on both "Civil-ization" and "agri-culture". The words have cognates in pre-Greek living languages.
@@bircruz555 I always thought civilization referred to cities or civilian. So then wouldn’t it be prudent to know how you define a city or a citizen? There is trouble in defining what that is, especially when that’s thousands of years ago.
@@kellykramer7629 I was never on board with views correlating civilization with cities. Yet, even in that instance, cities began sprouting because agriculture conduced itself to sedentary life, which in drier regions like the Near East would compel larger populations to congregate in small areas more than in non-dry regions.
@@bircruz555pre-greek living languages? All pre-greek languages are not only dead but only exist in our knowledge as linguistic reconstructions
@@alexdunphy3716 I do not agree with your sweeping conclusion. And non-European pre-Greek languages still flourish. We know they do. And you seem to be parochially centered. Agriculture and crop culture have been around for over 12,000 years. Greeks and the Greek language arrived only yesterday. They are hardly the gauge.
No, Graham Hancock definitely is a grifter.
Fantastic video, fantastic channel, wish you uploaded more.
God I love this channel. So refreshing to hear people speak from evidence based positions about how to win back hearts and minds
I studied history in college, and did quite well, but it's been a while. A couple days ago, my nephew hit me with fifty conceptually difficult and broad questions concerning the entirety of human history, to include pre-history, human evolutionary biology, and even cosmic evolution as an aside. Now I dabbled in that later pair for a couple years while shedding the inherited worldview of my upbringing, but outside of my outdated knowledge of timelines, I was struggling to answer his questions in a way that made it clear that honest, intelligent people are not so sure of the facts as the unenlightened are. Whether I was successful, I do not know, but in any event, I want to thank you for demonstrating how it is done. Cheers.
I never studied history, archaeology, etc formally, but I think that’s a big one. It’s not as interesting to say: „Actually, we don’t know for sure, but…“ as to make a concrete statement and to take hypotheses and guesses as facts.
I am a natural scientist, (geologist/astronomer/meteorologist) and I really refuse to have conversations with most people about things like the climate, or geologic history because I do not want to be the one giving sound bytes that they can use to advance whatever opinion they already have. It's frustrating, but having conversations with people outside the field is like a landmine, they hear what they want to hear, and then they tell people you are the one who told them. Many people only want bias confirmation, they don't want their mind changed.
What an incredibly selfish endeavour. You are a scientific dead end, and part of the problem.
Pseudoscience/history/archaeology are on the rise because of attitudes like the one you've exhibited.
What an incredibly selfish endeavour. You are a scientific dead end, and part of the problem.
Pseudoscience/history/archaeology are on the rise because of attitudes like the one you've exhibited.
What an incredibly selfish endeavour. You are a scientific dead end, and part of the problem.
Pseudo-science/history/archaeology are on the rise because of attitudes like the one you've exhibited.
It's almost like you made this comment without looking at the video. You're approach is a problem he outlines.
True to the tenth power.
Another great video! Keep up the great work!
Dude what an amazing and unexpected intersection between my current interests and a great channel
I dont think graham has a blindside, he has definitely heard all the contradicting evidence. I just think he is too deeply invested in his theory to turn back. Its sort of like a religion to him, not to mention that writing about his theory is making him a lot of money, and why give that up?
Problem 1: Most scholars don't have much time left for broad audiencies after spending so much time in proper research and preparing their scientifically peer-reviewed papers.
Problem 2: Pseudoscientists do have plenty of time left for broad audiencies after NOT spending so much time in proper research and NOT preparing (or barely) scientifically peer-reviewed papers.
"I'm a scholar, I know stuff because I research them, scientifically!"
-Can you explain some of your research?
"No, I'm simply busier than thou."
Didn't the debate sort of illustrate the fact that both sides of the debate are looking about as trustworthy as your average member of Congress. Peer review has been losing ground quickly and is about as trustworthy as a NYT article to many people. Flint Dibble is an excellent example of why we have lost faith in academia. Everything devolves into "real politics" and the facts are irrelevant. Not all academics. Not all journals, Not all professors. But it is systemically rotten enough to warrant looking past academia to other researchers. That's not to say Hancock did any better in the debate. He proved Flint is a little slimy but by no means proved any of his own theories. One would be wise to ask themselves why is Hancock being promoted at all these days? I don't think he is intentionally misleading anyone. I think someone is using him to unintentionally mislead.
Most scholars arent that busy lmfao
You are right, creating a pile of lousy research papers to prove to your boss and financers you are doing actual work is very time consuming. The irreproducibility crisis doesn't make itself. We need more mediocre scientists and peer-reviewrs outputing shit non-stop to keep those numbers of incorrect published science going up!
@@buzinaocarado you think replicability is a crisis in archaeological research? As always, cranks pick up on meaningful criticism of one thing and use it as a tool to discredit everything that disagrees with them. Why don’t you show off some of your writing if you think they’re so lousy? What’s your contributions?
thank you very much for this. I've been reflecting for a while on how to think about Hanock's takes... this is very helpful to organize my thoughts
God I love your videos. Favourite creator by a mile
This is very sane and helpful. I'm an art historian and I'm often asked to teach 100-tier courses that are significantly outside my specialist area. (Like so many others.).
I enjoy it. Tremendously. That includes the doubting task of navigating the scholarship on fields that are FAR more archeological than my own.
But I do get students who have watched a bit too much junk information somewhere online. Most of it ... I can counter in my ordinary happy-go-lucky way. Sometimes, it is a fine point of misinformation that I need to fact check. And then sometimes .. it's "ancient aliens.". That one, I confess, sets me off a bit. I'll have to work on that.
"These are great questions Professor however have you ever tried DMT?" -Joe Rogan.
I guess that is why I don’t listen to Joe.
Hancock too, or should I say HanCook
Joe sits on a mushroom and his feet don't touch the ground.
That’s why I can’t take him seriously. He’s just a stoner kid who never grew up, I don’t know how people think he’s intelligent
Love this channel, I wish uploads were more frequent
I would love to find more channels like yours, with good history content. It would be so cool to hear which channels you would recommend! Big fan of your videos!