ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Graham Hancock , joe rogan , michael shermer , zahi hawass

Reply
Old 18th May 2017, 06:47 AM   #1
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,523
Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 08:18 PM   #2
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Shame on Michael Shermer for debating a crackpot. The debate might give the crackpot credibility.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 10:57 PM   #3
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,523
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Shame on Michael Shermer for debating a crackpot. The debate might give the crackpot credibility.
I think he likes to debate crackpots which isn't really the problem. The problem is that he doesn't do his homework, so when he turns up to debate people who have been fashioning their crazy theory for decades he looks out of his depth.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 01:43 AM   #4
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think he likes to debate crackpots which isn't really the problem. The problem is that he doesn't do his homework, so when he turns up to debate people who have been fashioning their crazy theory for decades he looks out of his depth.
Yeah. It's hard to be an expert on everything.

I did listen to the whole show - pretty entertaining. Shermer got a few general points in to good effect, but overall it sounded like, "teach the controversy."
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 02:40 PM   #5
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
So, we were NOT hunter-gathers 12,000 years ago...?

We were in fact talented stone masons who built the largest stone structure the world has ever known?

Interesting.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 03:16 PM   #6
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
...

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Careful, your ad hominem is showing...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:42 PM   #7
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,523
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Careful, your ad hominem is showing...
Yes, I know.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:58 PM   #8
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Skepticism is a kind of "woo"...

Adherence to it in spite of new-found facts is unwise.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:18 PM   #9
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
So, we were NOT hunter-gathers 12,000 years ago...?

We were in fact talented stone masons who built the largest stone structure the world has ever known?

Interesting.
Yes, apparently the site is that old. Are you thinking it was dated incorrectly?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:51 PM   #10
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, apparently the site is that old. Are you thinking it was dated incorrectly?
7,000 years older than Stonehenge...

...with construction requiring a force that was similar or even bigger than those who stacked up the pyramids.

We were supposed to be small band of tribal units with simple stone tools.

---

The multiple asteroid induced end of the ice age and resulting flood theory was really intriguing.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:08 PM   #11
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
7,000 years older than Stonehenge...
One of the benefits of working with stone - it lasts a long time.

Quote:
...with construction requiring a force that was similar or even bigger than those who stacked up the pyramids.
Pretty cool, huh?

Quote:
We were supposed to be small band of tribal units with simple stone tools.
Maybe that's why it's a rare find.

---

Quote:
The multiple asteroid induced end of the ice age and resulting flood theory was really intriguing.
I didn't really get the connection. Is it that one idea is somehow dependent on the other?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:40 PM   #12
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
One of the benefits of working with stone - it lasts a long time.



Pretty cool, huh?



Maybe that's why it's a rare find.

---



I didn't really get the connection. Is it that one idea is somehow dependent on the other?
Hancock postulates that a flood that covered coastal cities in over 100 ft of water, likely 'erased' the advanced civilizations revert us 'back' to hunter gather.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:44 PM   #13
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Shame on Michael Shermer for debating a crackpot. The debate might give the crackpot credibility.
Did you watch the whole interview?

Shermer ended up agreeing with most of what Hancock said!
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 09:52 PM   #14
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,523
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Did you watch the whole interview?

Shermer ended up agreeing with most of what Hancock said!
I think Shermer ran out of steam, and was probably worn down by Hancock's belligerence. I don't think he agreed with Hancock.

There's a good summary of the debate here by a guy called Jason Colavito.

Here are some important points:

Quote:
Hancock, on the other hand, was eloquent but idiotic, and painfully quick to anger at the least provocation. I was frankly surprised that he couldn’t hold his cool for more than a few minutes at a time. When asked why we have no ancient metal tools or writing from the lost civilization, Hancock suggested that after the comet, the surviving people chose not to use metal or writing after the disaster to undo the destroyed civilization’s sins. (He later clarified that he thought that the ancients believed themselves “to blame” for the comet.) Shermer, blind to Hancock’s storytelling, couldn’t engage him in the idiocy of this warmed-over Atlantis story and instead said that the explanation was “OK” before moving on.

Part of the problem is that Hancock happily toggled between two different conceptions of “civilization” and Shermer didn’t call him on it. Sometimes, Hancock spoke (reasonably, if improbably) that in some locations monumental architecture and perhaps cities could have existed earlier than we thought. At other times, he spoke of a world-bestriding civilization that could reach from the Americas to Europe to Asia and beyond. He cites the two interchangeably, but Shermer allowed him to speak of Atlantis and a single Stone Age city as though the latter would prove the former.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 10:09 PM   #15
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,523
The same blogger has written a very long review of Hancock's book here:

Quote:
in most circumstances Graham Hancock is a compelling writer and in another age might have been a well-regarded middlebrow popularizer of archaeology and science. But the economics of publishing have destroyed much of the middlebrow market, and the fringe is a more profitable place to ply one’s trade. Speaking as someone who found Fingerprints of the Gods to be entertaining and engaging, even when it was wrong, I can say that Magicians of the Gods is not a good book by either the standards of entertainment or science. It is Hancock at his worst: angry, petulant, and slipshod. Hancock assumes readers have already read and remembered all of his previous books going back decades, and his new book fails to stand on its own either as an argument or as a piece of literature. It is an update and an appendix masquerading as a revelation. This much is evident from the amount of material Hancock asks readers to return to Fingerprints to consult, and the number of references—bad, secondary ones—he copies wholesale from the earlier book, or cites directly to himself in that book.

Part of the problem, of course, is that Hancock is wedded to his Donnelly-inspired lost civilization, and the long shadow of its Victorian origins casts a pall over the new work. Thus, we find Hancock repeating Donnelly’s arguments even when they are uncomfortably Victorian and, frankly, more than a little racist, imperialist, and colonialist. We learn in Magicians, for example, that the lost race were white men with red beards, who came from the Caucasus region and spread civilization to all the little brown peoples of the earth. We learn that all of the non-white peoples of the earth mistook them for angels or gods, and that even the Jews thought of them as the Watchers and the Nephilim. By sheer coincidence, these masters of the universe, in addition to being white, also espoused values identical to those of modern Christians, with anything that seems too regressive or uncouth merely a remnant of indigenous superstition.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 04:16 AM   #16
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think Shermer ran out of steam, and was probably worn down by Hancock's belligerence. I don't think he agreed with Hancock.

There's a good summary of the debate here by a guy called Jason Colavito.

Here are some important points:
I watched the whole interview...

Shermer and his other skeptic admitted they were wrong about Hancock, said they'd fix their mistakes, and both spoke well of Hancock and the big guy with the beard.

Shermer 'ran of out steam'... BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA.

More like he ran out of room to stand, with a room so full of facts contrary to 'accepted science.'
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 05:21 AM   #17
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,644
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
I watched the whole interview...

Shermer and his other skeptic admitted they were wrong about Hancock, said they'd fix their mistakes, and both spoke well of Hancock and the big guy with the beard.

Shermer 'ran of out steam'... BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA.

More like he ran out of room to stand, with a room so full of facts contrary to 'accepted science.'
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 05:50 AM   #18
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Did you watch the whole thing?

---

Things Shermer agreed to:

-His magazine wrongly characterized Hancock and his arguments
-That we were more than mere hunter gatherers 12,000 years ago
-A massive flood wiped out evidence of a civilization before this hunter gatherer phase
-The scab lands contain the timeline and geological evidence of the end of the ice age
-That Hancock is both reasonable and well researched

Last edited by King of the Americas; 21st May 2017 at 06:56 AM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 06:54 AM   #19
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,784
Do you mean 'gatherer'?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 06:55 AM   #20
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Do you mean 'gatherer'?
Indeed, that you for the correction.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 07:08 AM   #21
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Old Graham Hancock. Personally, he was very important in my intellectual journey to skepticism.

Around middle school, I read Erich Von Daniken and thought it was really cool. Aliens, advanced ancient civilizations, were Final Fantasy games real? Where was my airship?

Hancock built off a lot of that. By the time I read Hancock a few years later, I already found the alien thing ridiculous, but the idea that humans had been much more advanced in the past is, at least, possible. He used things like water erosion on the Sphinx (which seemed like hard science) and mapping the layout of the pyramids to patterns in the stars - all cool seeming stuff - and went from there.

It was Hancock vs. Zahi Hawass, a guy Hancock painted as a villain over and over, that shook me into a more skeptical perspective.

And lo, these years, decades, later, he's still going on about his same old stuff. The sad thing is that Hancock's thesis is insanely more extreme now than it was in the past. He is moving towards Van Daniken style insanity, but I promise you, his first few books have that veneer of reasonable theory. People had to work - in a good way - to reject the argument about water erosion on the Sphinx. That was a legitimate scientific idea that turned out to be wrong.

Now...eh, it's just new agey craziness.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 07:11 AM   #22
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think he likes to debate crackpots which isn't really the problem. The problem is that he doesn't do his homework, so when he turns up to debate people who have been fashioning their crazy theory for decades he looks out of his depth.
Not to derail, but I think this is apt criticism of Shermer. It is also almost exactly my criticism of Harris for allowing Charles Murray to spew his nonsense with very little pushback.

Only difference is that Graham Hancock is a flibbertigibbet and Charles Murray is the most influential scientific racist of the last two decades.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 07:18 AM   #23
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
...

It was Hancock vs. Zahi Hawass, a guy Hancock painted as a villain over and over, that shook me into a more skeptical perspective.

And lo, these years, decades, later, he's still going on about his same old stuff. The sad thing is that Hancock's thesis is insanely more extreme now than it was in the past. He is moving towards Van Daniken style insanity, but I promise you, his first few books have that veneer of reasonable theory. People had to work - in a good way - to reject the argument about water erosion on the Sphinx. That was a legitimate scientific idea that turned out to be wrong.

Now...eh, it's just new agey craziness.
I wholly disagree. I too started with von Daniken, then found Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods.

Had you listened to the interview, you'd have heard Hancock abandon his fingerprints theory.

Did you see the debate between Hancock and Hawaas? Hawaas walks out after being confronted by evidence his theory don't explain.

*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?

Last edited by King of the Americas; 21st May 2017 at 07:39 AM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 07:19 AM   #24
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Not to derail, but I think this is apt criticism of Shermer. It is also almost exactly my criticism of Harris for allowing Charles Murray to spew his nonsense with very little pushback.

Only difference is that Graham Hancock is a flibbertigibbet and Charles Murray is the most influential scientific racist of the last two decades.
Again, Shermer apologized to Hancock and admits he is reasonable and well researched.

*Watch the interview...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 09:32 AM   #25
imodium
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: england
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
I wholly disagree. I too started with von Daniken, then found Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods.

Had you listened to the interview, you'd have heard Hancock abandon his fingerprints theory.

Did you see the debate between Hancock and Hawaas? Hawaas walks out after being confronted by evidence his theory don't explain.

*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?
The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.
imodium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 09:38 AM   #26
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by imodium View Post
The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.
I'm two-minds about the walkout.

One, walking away from a 'debate' is poor form, period. If you are accused of a crime, call for evidence of it, or silence.

Two, debates are not places for personal attacks...which Hancock has had to withstand for decades, and is still suffering.

Hawaas ignores findings that contradict his timeline, he attacks those who offer other findings, and refuses open debate.

I disagree with your characterization of the relationship between Hawaas and Hancock.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 12:08 PM   #27
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,784
Originally Posted by imodium View Post
The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.
Do you think Hancock is a con artist or do you think he actually believes in what he sells?

I always confuse him with Graham Phillips; that guy is a hoot!
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 21st May 2017 at 12:10 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 12:26 PM   #28
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?
Recent studies of climate suggest that wet-->change happened in the 3500 to 1500 BCE range, which would place the Sphinx well within the timeline established by artifact evidence...etc.

The erosion was unlikely to come directly from rainfall, the patterns mimic those of runoff collection.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 12:27 PM   #29
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Again, Shermer apologized to Hancock and admits he is reasonable and well researched.

*Watch the interview...
Don't care. Shermer is not an expert. That he can be so easily bamboozled is evidence of his uselessness, not that Hancock speaks the truth.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 01:18 PM   #30
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Recent studies of climate suggest that wet-->change happened in the 3500 to 1500 BCE range, which would place the Sphinx well within the timeline established by artifact evidence...etc.

The erosion was unlikely to come directly from rainfall, the patterns mimic those of runoff collection.
The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.

Do you have a citation for those findings?

Last edited by King of the Americas; 21st May 2017 at 01:30 PM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 01:20 PM   #31
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Don't care. Shermer is not an expert. That he can be so easily bamboozled is evidence of his uselessness, not that Hancock speaks the truth.
If you didn't watch the interview, you missed a great deal of evidence, as well as the opportunity to refute it.

Instead, you are here talking about other people's useless-ness, really?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 01:23 PM   #32
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,212
If Shermer isn't an 'expert' why is he the leading editor of Skeptic?

"I am no expert, so I am the leading skeptic."

*Damn, still no roll eyes icon...!
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 02:30 PM   #33
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
If Shermer isn't an 'expert' why is he the leading editor of Skeptic?
Because, like us, he has interest enough to read the experts and give a counternarrative when the BS starts building up.

I was disappointed that Shermer let Hancock get away with the "I'm just reporting" dodge. If Hancock is quoting someone in Hancock's own book, how is that not an endorsement of what he quotes?

It got worse when Shermer tried to point out other wacky stuff associated with Hancock's sources. Hancock simply pushed it away with an "I'm not saying I support that part and I refuse to defend it." [My use of quotation marks here is only to indicate a paraphrase based on my impression, not an actual quote.]

This mechanism also came into play when Hancock was allowed to disown his previous works. Shermer had an opening to say something like, "Well, how long before you drop this theory too? That's exactly what happens when you base your ideas on cherry-picking the evidence and discounting scientific consensus."

Hancock has an archeological site which has only been 5% excavated and shows stone age peoples building monoliths. That's it. Everything else is either a product of his own fertile imagination or plagiarized from other pseudo-science.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 03:43 PM   #34
Shepherd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 190
I believe Graham Hancock was more mellow before he let the serpent Mother Ayahuasca enter into and slither around inside of his body and convince him to change his relationship with cannabis.

http://grahamhancock.com/giving-up-t...bitch-hancock/

ETA: Hey, I'm just reporting!

Last edited by Shepherd; 21st May 2017 at 03:50 PM.
Shepherd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 03:52 PM   #35
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
You have not heard of Hancock before? God has been merciful to you! Hancock is a phenomenally successful author who has been publishing woo crap for more than 20 years and it has made him very rich. Among his "masterpieces" are The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods etc. But one thing is always present in his worthless work, enormous amounts of woo nonsense.

Shermer sadly has a track record of not preparing for debates the result is woo merchants can make him look like a fool.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 03:54 PM   #36
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Careful, your ad hominem is showing...
Describing Hancock has a crackpot is merely accurate. Just read the recycled woo crap in Fingerprints of the Gods.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 03:59 PM   #37
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
I watched the whole interview...

Shermer and his other skeptic admitted they were wrong about Hancock, said they'd fix their mistakes, and both spoke well of Hancock and the big guy with the beard.

Shermer 'ran of out steam'... BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA.

More like he ran out of room to stand, with a room so full of facts contrary to 'accepted science.'
Hancock and "facts" don't exist in the same room. Hancock's nonsense about Gobekli Tepe is hilarious. The site is almost certainly not some offshoot of a "Lost Civilization". It appears instead to be a very early maybe even before settled agriculture ritual gathering place.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 04:09 PM   #38
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Did you watch the whole thing?

---

Things Shermer agreed to:

-His magazine wrongly characterized Hancock and his arguments
-That we were more than mere hunter gatherers 12,000 years ago
-A massive flood wiped out evidence of a civilization before this hunter gatherer phase
-The scab lands contain the timeline and geological evidence of the end of the ice age
-That Hancock is both reasonable and well researched
Very funny. All it reveals is Shermer's lack of knowledge. Hancock is a joke for one thing and actual researchers ignore him. The second comment merely indicates Shermer's lack of knowledge. Any expert on the Neolithic Near East will tell you that the transition from Hunting and gathering to settled agriculture was well underway 12,000 years ago.

As for Shermer accepting the absurd notion that a flood destroyed a civilization before the "Hunter Gatherer" phase. The evidence of that remains exceptionally close to zero despite Hancock's rantings.

As for Hancock being both reasonable and well researched. Hilarious no doubt his 2012 boosterism was well researched. Nope Hancock consistently avoids up to date research and relies, very heavily on woo crap. Fingerprints of the Gods is ample proof of that.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 04:16 PM   #39
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Duplicate post
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2017, 05:04 PM   #40
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,644
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.

Do you have a citation for those findings?
Ask your interlocutors for evidence of your claims, why don't you?

"That ain't working, that's the way you do it. You play the guitar on the MTV.

Money for nuthin. Chicks for free."
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 21st May 2017 at 05:06 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.