What research? This whole thread has been about the dynamic between Shermer and Hancock, and about how Shermer's attitude towards Hancock somehow makes the latter's arguments more reasonable, or how it's evidence that all skeptics are wrong because Shermer's is somehow their spokesperson...
I haven't seen any discussion about the evidence.
People have tried, but a certain person then suddenly claimed that the arguments aren't his to make and that everyone should just watch a 4 hour podcast to try and debunk 'something'.
If you tell us what research you'd like to discuss, we might move beyond this silly 'Shermer's deference to Hancock proves all skeptics wrong' bit.
|