General JRE #961 Randall Carlson...Graham Hancock...Michael Shermer

[Rambo John J]

science is an argument, and it's turtles all the way down. Don't be scared, homey.

Randall is working on a theory. A very interesting theory, and you can see the mutual respect between the 3 geologists when they argue their points.
Of course Randall isn't going to be dismissive of Hancock's wild conjecture, it brings eyes to his research. It brings attention to something that most people give Zero Shits about (geology). If your geology isn't centered around where to dig to find treasure, it's very difficult to get funded. Good for Randall, but even he explicitly backs away from endorsing Hancock's guesses.

Hancock is not putting forth science, he's writing fantasy novels. His modus operandi is obvious to people who work in the hard sciences. His incredulity, his cursing and blustering...it's what people do when holes in their data are pointed out if they have an ego attached to their hypothesis. Notice that Randall doesn't do any of that, neither does his Phone-A-Friend (or Shermer's when he's talking to another scientist) Shermer's expert did let some ad hominen into the discussion regarding Hancock, and he acknowledged it. But science people get tired of refuting non-science when there's lots of emerging science that's worthy of investigation.

I only bring up Moon Hoax as an example of psuedo-science that the 'moderator' swallowed hook-line-and-sinker. But it's a long list, and his bias definitely colored the debated and his treatment of Shermer and Hancock's relative points.

"have you stood on the sphinx?" "have you interviewed Klaus Schmidt?" "Have you read..." WELL I FUCKING HAVE.
no scientist cares. Naked appeals to authority. How about you answer the question about what this 'highly advanced society' brought to Gobekli Tepe if it wasn't language and tools. Hancock makes all kinds of Correlation Is Causation fallacies in his fantastical re-telling of history. There are lots of holes in Forgottten Civilization theory, Ancient Alien theory, and other "one grand solution".

Real science is slow, tedious, and consistently being frustrated by unanswerable questions. And it involves almost no YouTube videos.

You do realize Graham is not writing textbooks.

Shermer signed up for a debate...He showed to be very unprepared other than to say his state that his Friend Jared Diamond told him something...telling someone something is not a published scientific discovery, which is exactly what Shermer requires of Graham theories

Shermer shot himself in the dick before the debate and during it...it is painfully obvious...had not researched anything...and was out of his league in many ways.

MS talked smack on twitter and also in that letter he was gonna publish that "slipped out", how convenient...intentional to fire up Graham IMO

You have a double standard IMO

I do find it odd that you downplay Randalls authenticity and also the value of actually being at an Archeological Site.

Real Skeptics punch upwards, inwards and every way possible....False Skeptics punch only downwards

 

[Filthy]

@Rambo John J

Shermer signed up for a moderated debate. That's not what he received.

And I'm not downplaying Randall's authenticity at all. He's very genuine and his hypothesis is intriguing.

What Hancock is doing is not science. It doesn't really have a place in scientific discussions.
But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works, and what real science looks like.

Every person in that discussion (Rogan, et al) has a strong profit incentive which colors their validity if you let it. But Randall brings science. Diamond brings science. Mentally-fatigued-friend brings science. I would have preferred Rogan/Hancock and Shermer taking turns asking questions of real scientists and pulling at Hancock's suppositions. Shermer isn't a scientist, Hancock isn't a scientist, and Rogan isn't a moderator.

 

[Yossarian]

I think some others are hitting on it, but basically Hancock has a hypothesis about the meaning of a dig site which implies that people were doing things not previously attributed to civilizations at that time. Then Hancock cherry-picks some emerging geological data to bolster his claim that a previously unknown civilization passed this knowledge on to the hunter-gatherers after their own demise following a planetary cataclysm. However, when scientists criticize his lack of evidence and assumptions, he attributes it to their own unwillingness to accept his brilliance. When pushed further, he falls back on the Caveman-Lawyer defense..."I'm just a simple reporter, asking questions..." No, you're putting forth a scientific hypothesis that is rightly pilloried for non-scientific methods and conclusions. Rogan did/does the same thing with Moon Hoax..."here watch this youtube video". <people with experience and eduction> "It's full of shit, stop flooding the internet with bullshit and confusing people". <Rogan> "Hey - I'm just asking questions"

Hancock's explanation is not science - it's conjecture based on a data set that omits contradictory evidence and gives disparately heavy weight to the data points he can find that support (or at least, don't directly contradict) his relatively unsubstantiated hypothesis.

It's good to have a Hancock put academia on their toes. A lot of things were proven science until it wasn't. Global warming became climate change, shellshock became PTSD, etc, etc. Scientists do not have it always right the first time, and they are protecting their views until they have no other option left anymore but to admit their mistakes. Happened over and over and over again. But we are still not allowed to question these "scientists"? Science is a religion sometimes, gotta post the metaphorical 95 theses on the church door sometimes to shake things up. Any falseties will be exposed.

 

[Filthy]

It's good to have a Hancock put academia on their toes. A lot of things were proven science until it wasn't. Global warming became climate change, shellshock became PTSD, etc, etc. Scientists do not have it always right the first time, and they are protecting their views until they have no other option left anymore but to admit their mistakes. Happened over and over and over again. But we are still not allowed to question these "scientists"? Science is a religion sometimes, gotta post the metaphorical 95 theses on the church door sometimes to shake things up. Any falseties will be exposed.

Good science does all those things. Hancock is not engaged in good science.

 

[Rambo John J]

@Rambo John J

Shermer signed up for a moderated debate. That's not what he received.

And I'm not downplaying Randall's authenticity at all. He's very genuine and his hypothesis is intriguing.

What Hancock is doing is not science. It doesn't really have a place in scientific discussions.
But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works, and what real science looks like.

Every person in that discussion (Rogan, et al) has a strong profit incentive which colors their validity if you let it. But Randall brings science. Diamond brings science. Mentally-fatigued-friend brings science. I would have preferred Rogan/Hancock and Shermer taking turns asking questions of real scientists and pulling at Hancock's suppositions. Shermer isn't a scientist, Hancock isn't a scientist, and Rogan isn't a moderator.

-"Shermer signed up for a moderated debate. That's not what he received."

Shermer expected Joe to "moderate" a debate well? That is on him...He should have listened to the latest podcast with graham and randall where they discuss Shermer's diss of Graham and Randall's Gobekli Tepe Theory...Joe makes it clear he doesn't appreciate the dismissive attitude of "mainstream" and the constant skeptical position towards any new theory on human history.

Shermer was completely unfamiliar with nearly all of the published science Graham and Randall are basing their theory on...That is on MS

How is a moderated debate supposed to occur when a character assassination piece is released pre debate and brought up in the first half hour? That again is on the Skeptics and is Dirty play for someone who is supposed to be scientific....That letter is not the words of anyone ready for any type of "moderated debate"

-"And I'm not downplaying Randall's authenticity at all. He's very genuine and his hypothesis is intriguing."

"Of course Randall isn't going to be dismissive of Hancock's wild conjecture, it brings eyes to his research. It brings attention to something that most people give Zero Shits about (geology)."

This ^^ seems to be putting words into Randalls mouth. If you believe him to be "Genuine" then why not let him tell us if he is in support or opposition of any Theory. You make it seem as if he didn't show up to this debate to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial impacts that wiped out a possibly advanced civilization. You attempt to speak for a man that does not need speaking for.

Let them have their theory...you seem to want to squish any contrary opinion of your own without any real research yourself...AKA pulling a Shermer

-"What Hancock is doing is not science. It doesn't really have a place in scientific discussions.
But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works, and what real science looks like."

Yes I agree Graham is not a Scientist....he never claimed to be a Scientist...But if you want to keep saying that it is a free country LOL
He is an author and nothing more...He has a Theory that is still being investigated. If your "science" does not include investigating and honestly considering the implications of New Published Scientific Evidence then it is in fact not science at all.

It is indeed possible that you may need to re-examine your definition of "Science".

-"Every person in that discussion (Rogan, et al) has a strong profit incentive which colors their validity if you let it. But Randall brings science. Diamond brings science. Mentally-fatigued-friend brings science. I would have preferred Rogan/Hancock and Shermer taking turns asking questions of real scientists and pulling at Hancock's suppositions. Shermer isn't a scientist, Hancock isn't a scientist, and Rogan isn't a moderator."

How does Rogan make money from one side or the other? He makes money from ratings...He also seemed seriously disappointed and confused by MS lack of preparation and knowledge of the topics discussed on a debate Shermer requested and agreed to.

FYI Jared Diamond's Theories are not universally agreed upon and he is best known as an author of books riddled with Theory. Much of his Guns Germs Steel theory revolves around pure Luck.


See how I actually replied directly to what I disagree with instead of sidestepping and muddying the water?

I will repeat this because it is very deep if you care to absorb it...

Real Skeptics punch upwards, inwards and every way possible....False Skeptics punch only downwards

 

[1031]

But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works

Well..... I don't have the time to get into this conversation but that is dismissive and arrogant.

 

[Filthy]

Well..... I don't have the time to get into this conversation but that is dismissive and arrogant.

Sorry about that, not at all how what I intended to get across.

my point is that real science is slow and bloody. Real science involves putting your dick on the table and listening to everybody laugh at how small it is while they send pictures to your mother. I don't think Hancock is engaged in 'science'...he's throwing out conjecture and wrapping it in data that supports his conjecture, but not at all addressing the many holes in it. When holes are pointed out, he gets very defensive and deflects to the self-interest of his opposition. He jumps on appeals to authority, correlation = causation, affirms the consequent, single-source fallacy, or a non-testable hypothesis and scampers off to the intellectual horizon.

Randall doesn't engage in that...none of the actual scientists did. They acknowledged the weak parts of their theories and alluded to further research they were performing, or which is being performed, to test their respective hypothesis.

And i'm not approving of the things that Shermer is doing to drive traffic to his site, but skepticism is the default stance when any new data is presented. All new data must be presumed to be an error until proven otherwise. He's not particularly useful to the advancement of our understanding, but neither is he particularly detrimental.

 

[Filthy]

-"Shermer signed up for a moderated debate. That's not what he received."

Shermer expected Joe to "moderate" a debate well? That is on him...He should have listened to the latest podcast with graham and randall where they discuss Shermer's diss of Graham and Randall's Gobekli Tepe Theory...Joe makes it clear he doesn't appreciate the dismissive attitude of "mainstream" and the constant skeptical position towards any new theory on human history.

Shermer was completely unfamiliar with nearly all of the published science Graham and Randall are basing their theory on...That is on MS

How is a moderated debate supposed to occur when a character assassination piece is released pre debate and brought up in the first half hour? That again is on the Skeptics and is Dirty play for someone who is supposed to be scientific....That letter is not the words of anyone ready for any type of "moderated debate"

-"And I'm not downplaying Randall's authenticity at all. He's very genuine and his hypothesis is intriguing."

"Of course Randall isn't going to be dismissive of Hancock's wild conjecture, it brings eyes to his research. It brings attention to something that most people give Zero Shits about (geology)."

This ^^ seems to be putting words into Randalls mouth. If you believe him to be "Genuine" then why not let him tell us if he is in support or opposition of any Theory. You make it seem as if he didn't show up to this debate to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial impacts that wiped out a possibly advanced civilization. You attempt to speak for a man that does not need speaking for.

Let them have their theory...you seem to want to squish any contrary opinion of your own without any real research yourself...AKA pulling a Shermer

-"What Hancock is doing is not science. It doesn't really have a place in scientific discussions.
But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works, and what real science looks like."

Yes I agree Graham is not a Scientist....he never claimed to be a Scientist...But if you want to keep saying that it is a free country LOL
He is an author and nothing more...He has a Theory that is still being investigated. If your "science" does not include investigating and honestly considering the implications of New Published Scientific Evidence then it is in fact not science at all.

It is indeed possible that you may need to re-examine your definition of "Science".

-"Every person in that discussion (Rogan, et al) has a strong profit incentive which colors their validity if you let it. But Randall brings science. Diamond brings science. Mentally-fatigued-friend brings science. I would have preferred Rogan/Hancock and Shermer taking turns asking questions of real scientists and pulling at Hancock's suppositions. Shermer isn't a scientist, Hancock isn't a scientist, and Rogan isn't a moderator."

How does Rogan make money from one side or the other? He makes money from ratings...He also seemed seriously disappointed and confused by MS lack of preparation and knowledge of the topics discussed on a debate Shermer requested and agreed to.

FYI Jared Diamond's Theories are not universally agreed upon and he is best known as an author of books riddled with Theory. Much of his Guns Germs Steel theory revolves around pure Luck.


See how I actually replied directly to what I disagree with instead of sidestepping and muddying the water?

I will repeat this because it is very deep if you care to absorb it...

Real Skeptics punch upwards, inwards and every way possible....False Skeptics punch only downwards

I'll try not to turn this in to a multi-quote battle royale, but I'll address your statements in turn.

I'm not defending Shermer. At all. I'm pointing out that the 'mainstream science' (not really a thing, it's just the process of the scientific method) was poorly represented in that show. Joe is a believer. He doesn't apply the same level of skepticism to Hancock as he does to Shermer. But it's not Hancock was not held to the same fire as Shermer. I'd like to see this discussed like a textbook instead of Hancock's fantasy novel. Again - "I'm just a simple caveman" defense is Hancock's Fortress of Solitude, and he runs to it as soon as contrary data, limited as it was in that context, is brought out.

Rogan makes money by raising his profile and bringing viewers to his videos. Maybe not much compared to his other income streams, but at least we should be able to agree that his intellectual ego profits by being smarter than than the smart kids. Randall/Diamond/Low-T Scientist profit with grant money and academic success, Shermer profits by page views, Hancock profits by book sales. The same can be said about any scientist doing work beyond the HS Science Fair level. But only Rogan/Hancock are profiting by making the hard work of scientific discovery more difficult. I wouldn't have any problem at all with Hancock if he would simply admit the weak points in his hypothesis instead of deflecting to the Fevered Egos of Mainstream Science. It's a cop-out, and people in the science grinder don't shy away from the beatings.

Real Scotsman fallacies don't move me. I don't let them sink in.

 

[Rambo John J]

"But only Rogan/Hancock are profiting by making the hard work of scientific discovery more difficult."

you can't be serious with this new angle^^

And that is where I will agree to disagree...and now I will cease to discuss this further with you
You are not an open mind in my observation

Enjoy

 

[Filthy]

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. I have an open mind, but an excellent bullshit detector and a low tolerance for it.

What I stated is true. It's a world of limited resources, especially when it comes to time/money. Hancock/Shermer and Rogan are the Bread and Circus. Randall and Low-T Scientist are on the fringe of science, but we need people out there challenging the status quo and articulating compelling hypothesis that other scientist are forced to deal with. The first step in examining new data is to assume the error and find an alternate explanation for the new data that fits within the established multitude of inter-supporting evidence lines. The reason for that is so we spend our time and talents (the product of which we call 'money') pursuing discoveries that are most likely to increase our understanding by the greatest amount. It's the scientific communities vetting process, and the goal is to maximize the Return On Investment.
[(Knowledge Gained - (Time * Talent Spent)]/(Time*Talent Spent) = Science ROI

Shermer isn't contributing to that formula. Neither are Rogan/Hancock. But Rogan/Hancock are moving a hypothesis further up the food chain than it deserves to be, and that diverts Time and Talent to away from things that are more likely to increase our understanding of the universe, and move us closer to beating Natural Selection.

edit to tag @Rambo John J .
please tag me if you respond. If not, we part the discussion as amigos.

 

[Yossarian]

but we need people out there challenging the status quo and articulating compelling hypothesis that other scientist are forced to deal with

And this is all I care about, honestly. I want these challenges to come not only from academia. It's not always a pretty process I'm sure, but science has a way of correcting itself. That said, I understand your viewpoint and it got me thinking from another perspective.

 

[Rambo John J]

@Filthy
"But only Rogan/Hancock are profiting by making the hard work of scientific discovery more difficult."

Insane statement IMO ^^^

Shermer is the one who makes money stifling new the new theory, without doing any scientific research. Graham makes money, but he in no way does he make scientific discovery more difficult. Any scientist that relies on Rogans podcast to direct their research/career is not a scientist at all, that statement makes no sense IMO.

Lets let scientists and science decide what is worth further investigation and research.

If money spent and a return on investment is needed to justify what is worthy of research that is a problem. That is science for profit and would restrict the possibility of investigating new evidence, and possibly any new theory that the new evidence suggests. Not much money to be made by reconsidering the History of Humans, probably a big loss in the long run.

I don't have a belief either way on this issue...I do think that the debate was ruined by the actions of the two skeptics...and I do not put that responsibility on Joe, Graham, or Randall...That is why I find your blaming of them in the above bolded quote to be ridiculous...They have a working theory and opinions, nothing more.

I Find it fascinating that a theory can be attacked vehemently without it being investigated or even researched. I understand that rewriting history and doing the hard scientific research takes time, but to dismiss or Poo Poo a new and growing theory seems in direct contradiction to scientific method. Archeology is nearly all theory based on carbon dates and discoveries.

No offense to you but I found your attempts to attach motives to Graham, Joe, and Randall disingenuous and close minded. Also the veiled insult "But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works." to be absolutely non scientific and ego based, because you have not done research on any of the articles and findings that were brought up by the theorists.(correct me if I am wrong)

You may be an amazing scientist or researcher, but most of your points and argument is based on the same flawed thinking that Shermer utilized. Dismissing a theory is not discussing a theory.

Still amigos, no hard feelings here.

 

[1031]

What is the difference, if any, between theory and hypothesis?
What specifically was Hancock claiming that he supported with logical fallacies. I ask because I've read a couple of his books and he seems to usually make a good case but I also admit there were some things I either didn't get it didn't make sense....

 

[Rambo John J]

What is the difference, if any, between theory and hypothesis?
What specifically was Hancock claiming that he supported with logical fallacies. I ask because I've read a couple of his books and he seems to usually make a good case but I also admit there were some things I either didn't get it didn't make sense....

It gets confusing...Theory vs Scientific Theory are different...One is confirmed science based and repeatable in experiments(could not happen in this case)and one is not.
Theory vs Hypothesis also has different definitions...A hypothesis is an idea that is based on proven Theory.

Theory, Hypothesis, Idea, Projection etc... Not sure which ones this debate is technically based on, but Archeology is not really repeatable in a lab due to the time it takes for things to age. Speculation is what Archeology is mostly based on.

As for Hancock, he is a fiction writer/non scientific investigator that bases much of his Projections on others work. He is likely correct on some of his conclusions and also completely wrong on some of them.

I stayed at a holiday inn last night LOL
The definitions seem to be very much technical jargon/wordsoup...I prefer to think of proven ideas and unproven ideas...that may be too simple for science but it seems logical.

 

[Filthy]

@Filthy
"But only Rogan/Hancock are profiting by making the hard work of scientific discovery more difficult."

Insane statement IMO ^^^

Shermer is the one who makes money stifling new the new theory, without doing any scientific research. Graham makes money, but he in no way does he make scientific discovery more difficult. Any scientist that relies on Rogans podcast to direct their research/career is not a scientist at all, that statement makes no sense IMO.

Lets let scientists and science decide what is worth further investigation and research.

If money spent and a return on investment is needed to justify what is worthy of research that is a problem. That is science for profit and would restrict the possibility of investigating new evidence, and possibly any new theory that the new evidence suggests. Not much money to be made by reconsidering the History of Humans, probably a big loss in the long run.

I don't have a belief either way on this issue...I do think that the debate was ruined by the actions of the two skeptics...and I do not put that responsibility on Joe, Graham, or Randall...That is why I find your blaming of them in the above bolded quote to be ridiculous...They have a working theory and opinions, nothing more.

I Find it fascinating that a theory can be attacked vehemently without it being investigated or even researched. I understand that rewriting history and doing the hard scientific research takes time, but to dismiss or Poo Poo a new and growing theory seems in direct contradiction to scientific method. Archeology is nearly all theory based on carbon dates and discoveries.

No offense to you but I found your attempts to attach motives to Graham, Joe, and Randall disingenuous and close minded. Also the veiled insult "But it feels like science if you don't understand how science works." to be absolutely non scientific and ego based, because you have not done research on any of the articles and findings that were brought up by the theorists.(correct me if I am wrong)

You may be an amazing scientist or researcher, but most of your points and argument is based on the same flawed thinking that Shermer utilized. Dismissing a theory is not discussing a theory.

Still amigos, no hard feelings here.

The 'return' in the ROI is "how much does this advance human understanding". That's also what I was getting at when I made the statement about 'it feels like science if you don't understand how science works'. Science is a competition for limited resources, whether it's money from corporate overlords/academic grants or the time needed to present your research at congregations in your field, or publishing space in journals. Science for Science is dead by the time you get your Undergrad degree, unless you have an unrelated source of income (the patronage model).

Shermer is profiting by regurgitating the hard part of science - watching people crap all over your ideas because there are holes in your hypothesis. So I don't really think he's slowing anything down or making it harder for scientists to advance understanding. Rogan/Hancock are adding noise to the 'argument' about where time and money should be spent. I suppose you could say that they're bringing interest to areas of research that don't get a lot of attention outside of corporate interests, like anthropology or geology, but at best it's a wash (IMO).

As for assigning motives, I'm assigning the same motive to everyone. We all act in our own self-interest, and our self-interest is most easily quantified by profit - financial profit or ego profit, I don't draw a distinction. Shermer/Diamond are not exempt, but I thought I was fairly clear about that. If everyone has the same motive, we can dismiss with the Evil Conspiracy of Fevered Egos and the Simple Caveman BS that Hancock and Rogan duck behind. Shermer also does the Simple Caveman bit, but he qualifies it with "if I'm wrong I'll admit it and change my mind."

I don't think the debate was ruined, because it was only marginally a debate. There was about 45m or so of scientists presenting their evidence and finding points of disagreement. But Rogan/Shermer/Hancock basically shut up during that part, and that was really the only part that I found interesting and compelling.

I'm not an amazing researcher or scientist, but I am a slightly-above-average lover.

 

[Filthy]

What is the difference, if any, between theory and hypothesis?
What specifically was Hancock claiming that he supported with logical fallacies. I ask because I've read a couple of his books and he seems to usually make a good case but I also admit there were some things I either didn't get it didn't make sense....

this is pretty good, at least for understanding what people mean when they talk about Hypothesis/Theory/Law

 

[Rambo John J]

The 'return' in the ROI is "how much does this advance human understanding". That's also what I was getting at when I made the statement about 'it feels like science if you don't understand how science works'. Science is a competition for limited resources, whether it's money from corporate overlords/academic grants or the time needed to present your research at congregations in your field, or publishing space in journals. Science for Science is dead by the time you get your Undergrad degree, unless you have an unrelated source of income (the patronage model).

Shermer is profiting by regurgitating the hard part of science - watching people crap all over your ideas because there are holes in your hypothesis. So I don't really think he's slowing anything down or making it harder for scientists to advance understanding. Rogan/Hancock are adding noise to the 'argument' about where time and money should be spent. I suppose you could say that they're bringing interest to areas of research that don't get a lot of attention outside of corporate interests, like anthropology or geology, but at best it's a wash (IMO).

As for assigning motives, I'm assigning the same motive to everyone. We all act in our own self-interest, and our self-interest is most easily quantified by profit - financial profit or ego profit, I don't draw a distinction. Shermer/Diamond are not exempt, but I thought I was fairly clear about that. If everyone has the same motive, we can dismiss with the Evil Conspiracy of Fevered Egos and the Simple Caveman BS that Hancock and Rogan duck behind. Shermer also does the Simple Caveman bit, but he qualifies it with "if I'm wrong I'll admit it and change my mind."

I don't think the debate was ruined, because it was only marginally a debate. There was about 45m or so of scientists presenting their evidence and finding points of disagreement. But Rogan/Shermer/Hancock basically shut up during that part, and that was really the only part that I found interesting and compelling.

I'm not an amazing researcher or scientist, but I am a slightly-above-average lover.

I agree with almost all of that. I see your angle more clearly now.

I do think it is hard for anyone who has invested themselves deeply in a theory or narrative to reconsider new evidence/possibility...that is where I disagree and give some credit to the "Evil Conspiracy of Fevered Egos"...although that definition is dramatic it is not honest IMO...Humans are at their core based upon Ego, and the most human of reactions is Denial...It is natural to respond to ideas in that manner, Ego and Denial was prominent in the "Debate" except possibly from Randall and Malcom(old dude at the end on phone).

I agree it was not really a debate at all, except for Randall and the Shermers Phone a friend...and that is not really a debate because Mark wrote a slander piece and obviously had his mind made up pre debate and Randall is more of a jack of all trades.
Mark vs Malcomn would have been interesting but I don't think Mark is interested in debate to be honest...He is after all writing for skeptic magazine.

Fascinating stuff and I hope somehow we can find out more about the mystery of our race.

 

[Rambo John J]

this is pretty good, at least for understanding what people mean when they talk about Hypothesis/Theory/Law

LOL guy is wacky...the way he describes it sounds like dog chasing its tail...he describes it pretty well though.

I prefer Logic and Proof...their definitions seem easier to grasp and also seem subject to less misinterpretation.

He did say stay curious at the end so that is nice.

 

[Ghost Bro]

It's good to have a Hancock put academia on their toes. A lot of things were proven science until it wasn't. Global warming became climate change, shellshock became PTSD, etc, etc. Scientists do not have it always right the first time, and they are protecting their views until they have no other option left anymore but to admit their mistakes. Happened over and over and over again. But we are still not allowed to question these "scientists"? Science is a religion sometimes, gotta post the metaphorical 95 theses on the church door sometimes to shake things up. Any falseties will be exposed.

Change of nomenclature is hardly change in science. The problem with these guys is that the more assumptions your theory thinks to be true (objective science 101), the more the factors that influence it which ofcourse means that inevitably there are more holes that can be poked in a theory and it can fall apart. Ockham's razor is a great guide for anyone curious to figure out the cause, not the symptoms- the simplest explanation is most likely to be the reason,it is independent of the most variables and a correlation can be seen. Hancock chooses to make things fit his agenda and when called on it says he's merely a journalist reporting. This is charlatanism, just because it's plausible for Hancock's or the Carlson's theories to be true we are not, after a shitty podcast, about to change what is accepted as true to make them feel a part of the "mainstream science"(lol) circlejerk. From the podcast I could tell Shermer was thinking of telling Hancock he's seen as a bad joke in the field- but went around it in a more political way (especially at the start). That is the problem, these guys have no credibility in their field, its not that mainstream science doesn't want to look at their findings, its just that previous "findings" were bs.
The Santa looking feller also does the same. The funny thing about corrosion is that at the end it depends on the flux of water over that surface, and the total of that would be the same whether it was one GIGANTIC BIBLICAL MEGAFLOOD or just a long period of rainfall. So yeah, good luck proving that...just because it COULD be so, it doesn't mean it is, and that's what guys like Joe Rogan don't understand.

 

[Yossarian]

Change of nomenclature is hardly change in science. The problem with these guys is that the more assumptions your theory thinks to be true (objective science 101), the more the factors that influence it which ofcourse means that inevitably there are more holes that can be poked in a theory and it can fall apart. Ockham's razor is a great guide for anyone curious to figure out the cause, not the symptoms- the simplest explanation is most likely to be the reason,it is independent of the most variables and a correlation can be seen. Hancock chooses to make things fit his agenda and when called on it says he's merely a journalist reporting. This is charlatanism, just because it's plausible for Hancock's or the Carlson's theories to be true we are not, after a shitty podcast, about to change what is accepted as true to make them feel a part of the "mainstream science"(lol) circlejerk. From the podcast I could tell Shermer was thinking of telling Hancock he's seen as a bad joke in the field- but went around it in a more political way (especially at the start). That is the problem, these guys have no credibility in their field, its not that mainstream science doesn't want to look at their findings, its just that previous "findings" were bs.
The Santa looking feller also does the same. The funny thing about corrosion is that at the end it depends on the flux of water over that surface, and the total of that would be the same whether it was one GIGANTIC BIBLICAL MEGAFLOOD or just a long period of rainfall. So yeah, good luck proving that...just because it COULD be so, it doesn't mean it is, and that's what guys like Joe Rogan don't understand.

That goes for scientists as well. So many things were claimed as true until they were bullshit. It is all speculation based on observation. All of it. Scientists are eqully bad, they have a doctrine to protect. Remember big bang that really isn't a bang now? Countless upon countless instances in which new evidence suggested scientists were full of arrogant shit. So I am not going to treat Hancock or Carlson any different, period. Science is about discussion of possibilities, not about butthurt cliques that feel the need to attack because they think they're the only ones that have a right to.

 

[Filthy]

That goes for scientists as well. So many things were claimed as true until they were bullshit. It is all speculation based on observation. All of it. Scientists are eqully bad, they have a doctrine to protect. Remember big bang that really isn't a bang now? Countless upon countless instances in which new evidence suggested scientists were full of arrogant shit. So I am not going to treat Hancock or Carlson any different, period. Science is about discussion of possibilities, not about butthurt cliques that feel the need to attack because they think they're the only ones that have a right to.

again, you're projecting motives on to the ROI calculations of science.
Hancock has been wrong over and over again with his conjecture and lack of scientific method. But he's just adding static to the discussion in an effort to sell his books. Good for him, but anyone who takes it seriously as part of the scientific process is being conned.

 

[Filthy]

BTW - it does seem like Hancock wants to have it both ways. He wants his suppositions and conjecture taken seriously by the scientific community. But when it's pointed out that he doesn't remotely approach a scientific hypothesis, he cowers behind "just a journalist".

 

[Yossarian]

again, you're projecting motives on to the ROI calculations of science.
Hancock has been wrong over and over again with his conjecture and lack of scientific method. But he's just adding static to the discussion in an effort to sell his books. Good for him, but anyone who takes it seriously as part of the scientific process is being conned.

Again, does not take away scientists dismissed the Gobleki Tepe site as some sort of medieval cemetery of sorts. Turns out they were wrong, was the scientific method not at hand at the time? They could no longer argue in the presence of carbon dating that shit 8000 BC.

 

[Ghost Bro]

That goes for scientists as well. So many things were claimed as true until they were bullshit. It is all speculation based on observation. All of it. Scientists are eqully bad, they have a doctrine to protect. Remember big bang that really isn't a bang now? Countless upon countless instances in which new evidence suggested scientists were full of arrogant shit. So I am not going to treat Hancock or Carlson any different, period. Science is about discussion of possibilities, not about butthurt cliques that feel the need to attack because they think they're the only ones that have a right to.

But scientists don't just throw shit against the wall to see what sticks, they do research and they report their findings, they don't report other's findings to fit into their own agenda, reproduce them and ask the world to accept it as truth. Plenty publish stuff that are wrong, they get rekt and the world moves on...Hancock, a journalist can't take this criticism-looks like.

I don't know what you are referring to with the "big bang that wasn't a big bang"..the "Big Bang" is a term used to describe the expansion of the universe, it was always and still is this. Just like climate change and global warming is the same phenomenon, just the name changed more appropriately (for this in particular because people were saying "well its not waaaarm- its snowing- I don't believe there's warming!!) so the more proper term climate change is more popular now, but it is nothing but a term, it is the same effect.

Carlson deserves respect, after all he does publish his research under his name, Hancock, not so much, he's a journalist after all..
For someone not in a scientific field (allow me to make this assumption) you are very certain that this clique/mainstream exists which I don't think its true. I am a researcher and feel very much alone, as do all. I don't get what is seen as arrogance, it is results based on data whether measurement or observation, that typically follows various theoretical models- endless of these exists, it so happens that actual real life data fits into some of these more than others. The models that are experimentally verifiable and even yet (the ACTUAL theories do this: ) predict future results, not yet observed (such as Einstein's gravitational lensing) are the ones that end up becoming successful theories. The previous theory to this was the existence of ether. Scientists looking for this ended up measuring the speed of light, it took a while, because ofcourse it takes time to actually analyse everything and determine what is and what we hope is and as you probably can figure out they, despite going up against the "status quo", were able to publish just fine.

 

[Ghost Bro]

Again, does not take away scientists dismissed the Gobleki Tepe site as some sort of medieval cemetery of sorts. Turns out they were wrong, was the scientific method not at hand at the time? They could no longer argue in the presence of carbon dating that shit 8000 BC.

But a fellow scientist who could actually do the carbon dating did it and proved that, I guess, so I don't see why you think this is some sort of conspiracy to hide the ancient ruins..its that it would have been very unlikely to be that old, turns out it is by dating it so this is what is accepted now. The discussion before the actual dating (without measurement) is nothing but preliminary. Yes some people, much like Hancock, will defend their theory to the death, but in light of evidence the accepted most likely conclusion changes. This IS the scientific method. You are allowed to make mistakes, what you are not allowed to do is ignore contrary evidence..