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

[Rambo John J]

Joe holds his first Debate style Podcast.
Joe Rogan Experience #961 - Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson & Michael Shermer - YouTube

It is wild and has a bit of a Pro Wrestling feel to it...many twists and turns.

Michael Shermer...a "pro skeptic"(LOL wut?) attempting to debate/discredit the possibility of Ancient Civilizations that were wiped out by the Last Ice Age.

It gets heated...there is an "Unpublished" Smear Article(that was on the internet already?)...one party essentially gets mentally owned and taps out for nearly an hour of the debate...both parties bring in interesting Phone a Friends...Name Calling, Ego crushing, this has it all.

This is tense...this is funny...this is educational...this is sparta.

Many different Voices....Angry Intelligent British Voice Dude...Smooth Kermit Sounding Voice Dude...Rogan Squeaky Voice...Voice of GOD...Aggro Phone a friend Geologist...Technical Jargon Way over the top of everyones head Geologist Phone a Friend.

This all stemmed from a single tweet from the pro Skeptic/Debunker

 

[Filthy]

I'm a little over an hour in, and I've noticed a few things:
1) Joe is horrible as a moderator. He has a full-fledged "I want to believer, convince me not to believe" perspective. Not really useful in a debate over something like this.
2) The above really turns this in to a 3-on-1 exercise in logical fallacies. Graham incessant 'appeals to authority' and 'god in the gaps' is fairly annoying.

I'll keep listening at work...but it seems to be two guys giving Joe a hand job while he raves about how this is an incredible BJ, with a guy pointing out that he's getting jerked off by a couple dudes.

 

[Filthy]

not sure how much more of this I can tolerate, at about 90 minutes. Rogan is jumping on Shermer over the fact that the Bluefish Caves study was mentioned in Smithsonian magazine, and indicates that humans might have butchered horses in North America as far back as 24k years ago. In real time he's doing the exact same thing to Shermer that he chastises Shermer for doing by proxy - executing a character assassination.

How can someone be so blind to their own hypocrisy? "You didn't even read the whole thing. You want to be right so bad." While at the same time ignoring Shermer's explanation because Joe himself 'wants to be right so bad'.

 

[MadFatChickKilla]

Randall is a beast!

Great break down op, gold star.

 

[Rambo John J]

I'm a little over an hour in, and I've noticed a few things:
1) Joe is horrible as a moderator. He has a full-fledged "I want to believer, convince me not to believe" perspective. Not really useful in a debate over something like this.
2) The above really turns this in to a 3-on-1 exercise in logical fallacies. Graham incessant 'appeals to authority' and 'god in the gaps' is fairly annoying.

I'll keep listening at work...but it seems to be two guys giving Joe a hand job while he raves about how this is an incredible BJ, with a guy pointing out that he's getting jerked off by a couple dudes.

Ya I hear ya...Joe is a poor moderator
But SHermer did absolutely jack for research after saying he had studied extensively for the debate...He was unprepared and Joe seemed very disappointed by that.

A smear letter written about Graham and "accidentally released" on the internet days before the debate....Perfect way to ruin a debate before it starts....They knew it would be read by thousands and it was intentionally misleading and misquoting...the very principles they use to discredit Graham and Randall

Shermer brought a paper towel roll to a gunfight and he was exposed...regardless of if anyone believes Hancocks theories...Shermer tried to avoid discussing anything specifically and to just misdirect and straw man any questions sent his way.

"professional skeptic" has got to be one of the silliest terms I have ever heard...we are all skeptics at heart and if not we should be...but this guy is a "Pro" LOL

Graham, Shermer, Joe and Shermers Phone a friend all use similar hypocritical tactics IMO...All came with an agenda

Randall dealt with Facts and Malcomn also dealt in facts.

Problem is that M shermer got caught up so many times and was so unprepared that he makes Grahams point that mainstream will not easily consider new theories...they first discredit and character assassinate....That is exactly what they tried to do

Wish the letter was not published because the debate could have done without all the anger....but Skeptics tried to play dirty and it kinda bit them in the arse IMO

FYI I don't really believe all the theories put forth but I certainly am not in a position to instantly deny them either.

The last phone a friend is hilarious...His technical talk just goes clean over my head and he seemed tired...he was very intelligent and all but energy was uber low.

 

[Rambo John J]

Randall is a beast!

Great break down op, gold star.

Voice of God bro
Love hearing him talk
Talking with him on twitter today a bit....gonna get the locations of this spot and go walk around on it if the farmers will allow me
He is really cool and helpful

this is the ridge in the middle of the washout

Im fascinated by the thought of the water creating vortexes that drill into bedrock and leave circular depressions...really cool and they are all over the river banks here in Oregon

 

[Filthy]

It's more than a little 'disingenuous' for Rogan to invite on a skeptic, and to populate the discussion with himself (a self-admitted conspiracy want-to-believer) and two people supporting what amounts to a conspiracy theory. A more meaningful discussion would be to have Rogan and Sherman 'moderating' the debate with mainstream Egyptologists/Geologists/Archeologists/Anthropologists to balance the alternate-theory side of the argument.

I have a feeling that all of Graham's appeals to authority would be quickly outed and he'd be left clinging to his 'but we don't know for sure so it might be this theory, buy my book about this theory' argument. It's disappointing to see Rogan/Hancock smearing the motives and courage of basically everyone in these fields of study without addressing their own motives for taking a contrarian position.

I do appreciate that Randall (so far, will have to watch more tonight/tomorrow) is basically sticking to a position of presenting evidence which is anomalous in the prevailing theories and holding it out as either evidence that the prevailing theories are incorrect, or are at best incomplete, until they account for these other data points.

 

[Kingtony87]

Ya I hear ya...Joe is a poor moderator
But SHermer did absolutely jack for research after saying he had studied extensively for the debate...He was unprepared and Joe seemed very disappointed by that.

A smear letter written about Graham and "accidentally released" on the internet days before the debate....Perfect way to ruin a debate before it starts....They knew it would be read by thousands and it was intentionally misleading and misquoting...the very principles they use to discredit Graham and Randall

Shermer brought a paper towel roll to a gunfight and he was exposed...regardless of if anyone believes Hancocks theories...Shermer tried to avoid discussing anything specifically and to just misdirect and straw man any questions sent his way.

"professional skeptic" has got to be one of the silliest terms I have ever heard...we are all skeptics at heart and if not we should be...but this guy is a "Pro" LOL

Graham, Shermer, Joe and Shermers Phone a friend all use similar hypocritical tactics IMO...All came with an agenda

Randall dealt with Facts and Malcomn also dealt in facts.

Problem is that M shermer got caught up so many times and was so unprepared that he makes Grahams point that mainstream will not easily consider new theories...they first discredit and character assassinate....That is exactly what they tried to do

Wish the letter was not published because the debate could have done without all the anger....but Skeptics tried to play dirty and it kinda bit them in the arse IMO

FYI I don't really believe all the theories put forth but I certainly am not in a position to instantly deny them either.

The last phone a friend is hilarious...His technical talk just goes clean over my head and he seemed tired...he was very intelligent and all but energy was uber low.

They lost me for a second with the extra terrestrial talk, but when I realized they weren't talking about aliens it was all good.


All in all a fun podcast.

 

[Rambo John J]

It's more than a little 'disingenuous' for Rogan to invite on a skeptic, and to populate the discussion with himself (a self-admitted conspiracy want-to-believer) and two people supporting what amounts to a conspiracy theory. A more meaningful discussion would be to have Rogan and Sherman 'moderating' the debate with mainstream Egyptologists/Geologists/Archeologists/Anthropologists to balance the alternate-theory side of the argument.

I have a feeling that all of Graham's appeals to authority would be quickly outed and he'd be left clinging to his 'but we don't know for sure so it might be this theory, buy my book about this theory' argument. It's disappointing to see Rogan/Hancock smearing the motives and courage of basically everyone in these fields of study without addressing their own motives for taking a contrarian position.

I do appreciate that Randall (so far, will have to watch more tonight/tomorrow) is basically sticking to a position of presenting evidence which is anomalous in the prevailing theories and holding it out as either evidence that the prevailing theories are incorrect, or are at best incomplete, until they account for these other data points.

IF you haven't finished then you don't get what I am saying.

You must know that this was Shermer's Idea to debate them...he proclaimed on his social media to his followers that he had prepared extensively....that is the problem.

And the phone a friend concept was sprung on Joe at the last second.

An uneducated skeptic is just ignorance

 

[Filthy]

I'm at 1:45...so far, Hancock hasn't come across as any more educated than Shermer. What Shermer has failed to do is stay on message and consistently challenging Hancock about why the rest of the experts don't believe his alternate theory, and calling Hancock on his numerous logical fallacies. Shermer is a skeptic, Rogan is a believer - not a moderator. This is really skewing the direction of the discussion to favor Hancock, but I think if Shermer knew that Rogan was going to be so overtly biased to one side of the discussion, he would have demanded that experts be available to dispute the veracity of Hancock's claims.

But in fairness, Rogan jumping all over Shermer, putting words in his mouth, and slurping up whatever Hancock spits out is doing way more to color the debate than Shermer's lack of specific expertise.

 

[Gay For Longo]

Just finished and this did not go well for shermer
He seemed unprepared and came in wanting to argue
He did come around when his friend was being a complete ass which was good to see
Graham really didn't come across much better honestly
Obviously he's incredibly intelligent and I am a fan, but he seems pissed from the get go and it hurt how he presented some arguments imo

Randall was a boss as always, I could listen to that man talk for fucking days

Good podcast but could have been much better if that asshole didn't release the paper discrediting hancock
That caused everybody to come in with a chip on their shoulders and really effected what could have been an all time great podcast unfortunately

 

[Filthy]

Every time Graham says "not my problem" it should be pointed out to him that if wants his position to be accepted, it IS his problem.

Graham is basically taking the Moon Hoax tact by saying "look at these anomalies, here's an explanation. No, my explanation does not address the existing mountain of evidence that contradicts my explanation. NOT MY PROBLEM." He then asserts that the reason no one accepts his explanation is because of their own self-serving motives and possibly some larger conspiracy. If we transcribed all of Graham words in to an American accent, he would come off as extremely petulant.

But I'm just getting to the Phone-A-Friend, so we'll see how the discussion progresses.

 

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

I enjoyed the hell out of this. I hope Joe does more on these lines going forward- give people a forum to debate.

They said in a recent show that he's getting 120 million downloads a month. That's fucking unbelievable.

 

[tang]

not sure how much more of this I can tolerate, at about 90 minutes. Rogan is jumping on Shermer over the fact that the Bluefish Caves study was mentioned in Smithsonian magazine, and indicates that humans might have butchered horses in North America as far back as 24k years ago. In real time he's doing the exact same thing to Shermer that he chastises Shermer for doing by proxy - executing a character assassination.

How can someone be so blind to their own hypocrisy? "You didn't even read the whole thing. You want to be right so bad." While at the same time ignoring Shermer's explanation because Joe himself 'wants to be right so bad'.

Inconsistencies on Joe. Strawman and Ad-hominen. I don't think Joe is educated enough to be a mediator for these type of stuff.

There was another podcast about someone denying the "Flat Earth" theory and I don't think Joe was understandable or processing what the guy was saying. He just goes, "My head hurts..."

 

[1031]

What Shermer has failed to do is stay on message and consistently challenging Hancock about why the rest of the experts don't believe his alternate theory, and calling Hancock on his numerous logical fallacies.

I haven't watched it and don't think I'll find the time in the next couple days. Could you elaborate (as that seems to be rather central to your criticism of the whole show)?

 

[Ghost Bro]

JR's attempt at hosting an intellectual debate was both hilarious and dreadful at the same time.

"Why do you not BELIEVE him"?
Simplest reason would be Ockham's Razor. lol @ "mainstream science"

 

[Rambo John J]

JR's attempt at hosting an intellectual debate was both hilarious and dreadful at the same time.

"Why do you not BELIEVE him"?
Simplest reason would be Ockham's Razor. lol @ "mainstream science"

Loved it when SHermer asked about what was "mainstream" at the time of hunter gatherers...Wut?

The entire idea of a debate with one side being a "Pro Skeptic" is a poor one...It was an entertaining train wreck and had some good moments.

 

[Filthy]

I haven't watched it and don't think I'll find the time in the next couple days. Could you elaborate (as that seems to be rather central to your criticism of the whole show)?

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.

 

[Yossarian]

Just an hour in and Shermer got slapped. Did not do proper research coming in.

These pro-sceptics are like movie critics, they are the hammer that sees nothing but nails. I want at least someone to be passionate, invested in the topic to participate in this discussion, not somebody who's professionally a pessimist on everything. That person is only invested in his/her ability to critique. It's not likely they will give in on anything, closed minded if you will.

 

[Rambo John J]

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.

I don't want to argue with you...but you are using the same lame defense mechanism and distraction as Shermer.

Attack and disprove without bringing up a single example.

Graham and Randall are working on a Theory.
Science is full of theory...Archeology is rich with them...to falsely discredit your opponent days before a "debate" is completely against scientific method and openminded debate.

Graham had right to be pissy and even Shermer knew it and admitted it.

It is not his job to defend published works that have been reviewed and published by peers and have stood up to Scientific Theory.
If Shermer wanted to question those findings he should have read them before forming an opinion.

You also try to bring the moon landing into this for some reason, exactly like Shermer bringing up claims not associated with Randall or Graham...it is a diversion tactic that muddies the water and avoids actual debate.

 

[Rambo John J]

Just an hour in and Shermer got slapped. Did not do proper research coming in.

These pro-sceptics are like movie critics, they are the hammer that sees nothing but nails. I want at least someone to be passionate, invested in the topic to participate in this discussion, not somebody who's professionally a pessimist on everything. That person is only invested in his/her ability to critique. It's not likely they will give in on anything, closed minded if you will.

That is how I saw it.

Interesting to me to see the different view on it from different listeners....wow.

Kind of reinforces my opinion that you are either open or closed to new history/science...no offense to any contradictory opinions...just my observation and opinion

Phone a friends are kinda funny in different ways.

enjoy

 

[Zeph]

I've always come away less impressed by Graham Hancock than Randall Carson. Randall seems to have a large knowledge base that he backs up with actual real world examples. I haven't listened to this one, yet, though.

 

[Rambo John J]

I've always come away less impressed by Graham Hancock than Randall Carson. Randall seems to have a large knowledge base that he backs up with actual real world examples. I haven't listened to this one, yet, though.

Plus as cool as an accent is

Randall sounds like God

That voice is so deep and filled with gruffness...epic voice on that dude

 

[Rambo John J]

Inconsistencies on Joe. Strawman and Ad-hominen. I don't think Joe is educated enough to be a mediator for these type of stuff.

There was another podcast about someone denying the "Flat Earth" theory and I don't think Joe was understandable or processing what the guy was saying. He just goes, "My head hurts..."

Mick West...and Joe did shut that one down as fast as possible...seemed like he wanted out at 70 minutes in.
Joe did said he had food poisoning the day before
To me he seemed to get sick of Mick West....He started telling Mick that you cannot go around thinking every "conspiracy" is bullshit....Joe states a bunch of confirmed ones and Mick disregards him and rambles on

Joe cut that short for a few reasons...it really wasn't that good of a podcast IMO...I felt like Joe was feeling that also.

Mick runs METABUNK.COM....as in making a living or name off of Debunking
Shermer runs SKEPTIC magazine and writes theory based debunk articles for other magazines

tough week or so for the debunk/skeptic guests on JRE

 

[Filthy]

I don't want to argue with you...but you are using the same lame defense mechanism and distraction as Shermer.

Attack and disprove without bringing up a single example.

Graham and Randall are working on a Theory.
Science is full of theory...Archeology is rich with them...to falsely discredit your opponent days before a "debate" is completely against scientific method and openminded debate.

Graham had right to be pissy and even Shermer knew it and admitted it.

It is not his job to defend published works that have been reviewed and published by peers and have stood up to Scientific Theory.
If Shermer wanted to question those findings he should have read them before forming an opinion.

You also try to bring the moon landing into this for some reason, exactly like Shermer bringing up claims not associated with Randall or Graham...it is a diversion tactic that muddies the water and avoids actual debate.

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.