This came up on my Netflix suggestions and I confess I was surprised to see that they’d paid out good money to Graham Hancock of all people who seems to have been peddling the same nonsense “theories” for nigh-on 30 years (with suitable debunking throughout).
Far be it from me to pour scorn on program that I’ve never seen but I did hear him speak on Joe Rogan’s podcast a while back and he had nothing new to say (Joe was lapping it up, shame on you Joe), hence my surprise at a Netflix investment.
So has anyone seen it? Would I be enlightened if I were to watch it? Or is it same old, same old?
For those who aren’t aware of his work, the show is all about the “theory” (scare quotes are going to be needed a lot when talking about Hancock) that an ancient advanced civilisation was wiped out some 12,000 years ago. He then travels the globe and puts forward “evidence” that “proves” this.
His archeological rigour is exactly as good as can be expected from a journalist.
It’s really beyond me why those that profess to be liberal and open-minded scoff at Graham Hancock. He presents ideas for consideration based upon ancient texts in coordination with researchers from all over the world. What’s wrong with that?
I think the Younger Dryas theory is very plausible with gaining support. His ideas about an “ancient technologically advanced civilization” are somewhat specious but the parallels between ancient, widely separated cultures is an interesting topic.
No, no he does not. He presents ideas for consideration and makes up some mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely historical while gesturing in the direction of historical texts, yes, but the ideas themselves are in no way, shape, or form based on the contents of those texts in any meaningful way.
Nothing! What’s wrong with pointing out the clear and obvious flaws in his arguments? That’s called the “peer review” process and is how science gets done.
What is it with the sorts of people who use phrases like
and thinking that everyone is offended by everything?
I’m not offended by Hancock, he’s just saying things that are very, very incorrect; doing so unchallenged on a TV show designed to lend his bad ideas credence is abad, because it helps entranch those ideas. When he presents bad evidence without properly backing it up on his own show, where the opposing side cannot challenge his claims, is bad. It is bad because it leads people to incorrectly say things like:
It raises the total level of human ignorance, which is bad. I’m not offended by that, I’m just pointing out that it is not a good thing for more people to believe things that are false because of how they are presented on Netflix.
You’d be right to suggest that any idea should be approached in an open-minded way.
Put forward a hypothesis, back it up with evidence. That’s the right approach.
Trouble is, Hancock has never really done that, not in any academic way. His “evidence” has been debunked time and time again. I researched and discarded his ideas over 25 years ago and better people than me have trashed his ideas ever since.
If he has something new and evidence to back it up then sure, I’ll take a look but based on what he was talking about to Rogan his ideas haven’t moved on, nor had his evidence so I’m not sure it is worth my time to debunk (again) his rehashed ideas.
He’s definitely a “sensationalist” and that is not appealing and probably a good part of why “academics” despise him. I think you have take what he says and parse through it to find parts that seem reasonable. But, that’s true of everything IMHO.
A peer-review process to which Hancock himself is something of a stranger.
I put Hancock on the same level as Uri Geller. An initially startling idea, presented in a slick way that quickly was shown to be easily explainable by other mundane means.
Like Geller, Hancock seems to pop up from time to time presenting his ideas under a slightly different coat of paint but with no real fundamental change to the central idea.
So I don’t try to debunk Geller any more because everything that needed to be said has already been said. I’m not offended by Geller and I’m not offended by Hancock.
I understand that those coming to his ideas anew might be interested and intrigued. They are certainly exciting and startling thoughts. However, to those of us who know him of old and see nothing new this time it warrants a roll of the eyes and not much more.
I think the academics (no quotes needed) don’t like him because his work is badly researched and borders on outright falsehoods.
His personal relationships with such people are irrelevant though. Is he able to back up what he claims? that is the only thing that matters and thus far (30 years and counting) he has not been able to do so.
no, if he wants his ideas to be taken seriously he needs to back up his claims with evidence. It is not for me to search for post-hoc “reasonable” bits.
Observation, claim, evidence, prediction, confirmation. That’s the process he needs to use.
I am going to have to wildly paraphrase this as it’s from a memory at least 30 years old. Carl Sagan was asked to comment on von Däniken, who had made some idiot claim about the Nazca lines, I think to the effect that they were landings strips/tarmacs.
Sagan, with his voice and demeanor, commented something like: So we are to believe that an alien race, capable of traversing light years in space to visit ancient earth, needed landing strips? Did they bring along DC3’s?
ETA:
And making a living out of it, traveling the world, selling books to the gullible, sure beats real work.
I applaud his effort on behalf of a new audience but even then there is no real need for him to put himself out. Simply googling “Graham Hancock debunked” gives the interested reader plenty to chew on from across his career.
I haven’t watched your link yet but I will do, I’m betting that the claims he makes are tarted-up versions of his old claims and the the debunking done by Stefan Milo is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
I was captivated by Von Daniken’s book, it was the most exciting thing I’d ever read.
But I was 8 years old, unfortunately for Erik I also found my way into reading Carl Sagan, James Randi and Arthur C Clarke etc. and realised at a very young age that scepticism was a pretty powerful tool.
On the Netflix aspect of the OP - I would have hoped that Netflix might aspire to higher standards, but their business is having a tough time. There’s a big market for this stuff, and it’s cheap to make.
