• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

Yes, you should, especially since 'has ran' is a great example of what we've been tolerating.
 
What research? This whole thread has been about the dynamic between Shermer and Hancock, and about how Shermer's attitude towards Hancock somehow makes the latter's arguments more reasonable, or how it's​ evidence that all skeptics are wrong because Shermer's is somehow their spokesperson...

I haven't seen any discussion about the evidence.
People have tried, but a certain person then suddenly claimed that the arguments aren't his to make and that everyone should just watch a 4 hour podcast to try and debunk 'something'.

If you tell us what research you'd like to discuss, we might move beyond this silly 'Shermer's deference to Hancock proves all skeptics wrong' bit.
 
King of the Americas said:
Should I claim that skeptics have 'ran' from this topic because they refused to address the research provided?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could sum up the claim as you understand it, as well as the evidence that you think supports it?

Alternately since you think Shermer did such a bad job in the podcast, perhaps you could quote some of things that he said that you think aren't true? We could analyse his contribution based on any errors you think he made.

I'd be happy with either approach.
 
Roboramma said:
Perhaps you could sum up the claim as you understand it, as well as the evidence that you think supports it?

Alternately since you think Shermer did such a bad job in the podcast, perhaps you could quote some of things that he said that you think aren't true? We could analyse his contribution based on any errors you think he made.

I'd be happy with either approach.
Click to expand...

The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
 
King of the Americas said:
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
Click to expand...

You don't have to provide evidence for the claims in the interview, just for your own claims that the evidence in the interview was satisfactory.

You played the same game in your other thread. You weren't going to tell us why you were correct, we had to watch a documentary.
I watched it, asked which specific parts of it supported your conclusion, because as far as I could tell nothing did.

Your response was that they were not your claims, and by the way there were like, totally supported by evidence, go watch the movie again, maybe you'll catch the secret next time.

If anyone listens to this 3.5 hour long podcast and tries to discuss facts with you, you'll just retreat and say that they're not your claims. So I'm not going to bother.
 
King of the Americas said:
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
Click to expand...

Okay, you're not interested in having a conversation.

You have a particular interpretation of the 3.5 hour podcast that is very different from my interpretation of the 1.5 hours that I watched, but you're not capable of explaining what specific things were said in the podcast that support your view.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not going to find out by talking to you and I didn't find Hancock to be very convincing during the 1.5 hours that I watched him explain his viewpoint either, so I don't see much use in continuing to waste time with him.

My view:

GT sounds like a very interesting site. I find it conceivable that agriculture did develop slightly easier than we thought and thus preceded the site. Thus it would have been built by some sort of agricultural civilisation. That's possible to me. On the other hand it may have been built by hunter gatherers of the sort you saw in the pacific northwest of north america who were very organised and formed large societies (for hunter-gatherers) due to the density of food sources in the area. There is, in fact, suggestion that the reason that agriculture was able to develop where it did was because hunter-gatherers were able to form those sorts of dense societies and it's only after settling down to some extent that they developed agriculture.

Even if agriculture arose earlier than we thought, it couldn't have been much earlier. One piece of evidence is the simple fact that agriculture led to the evolution of the grains being cultivated and we can we that process happen through time. There are plenty of other reasons to think it couldn't have been much earlier.

There's no good evidence that there was an advanced civilisation that preceded GT. And the degree to which that suggestion is counter-factual is greater the more advanced that civilisation is posited to be. I heard on another of Joe Rogan's podcasts Randall Carlson suggest that there was a nuclear war that wiped out that previous advanced civilisation. That, I'm sorry, is counter to the evidence that we have. Any civilisation that could build nuclear weapons would have been world-spanning, and left a truly massive archeological record.
 
Roboramma said:
Okay, you're not interested in having a conversation.

You have a particular interpretation of the 3.5 hour podcast that is very different from my interpretation of the 1.5 hours that I watched, ...
Click to expand...

You listened to LESS than half of the evidence presented...and you want me to do what exactly? Fill in your blanks? Present 'better' than the researchers did, their arguments?

The bearded guy spent almost an hour going over 'proof' of multi-asteroid impacts, and how this event mirrored the GT decline.

Now you talking about ANOTHER Rogan interview, here, WHY?

You've disregarded evidence, while adhering to previously held beliefs...

What's the word I'm looking for...?
 
If one needs proof that debates are a poor way to determine truth, I need only point to the Phil Plaitt/Joe Rogan debate on the Moon Landing Hoax on Penn Jillette's podcast a few yeras ago.

Phil had debated Moon Hoaxers before and done quite well. Joe Rogan, however, was a better debater and conversation controller than an actual expert on any astronomy subject.

So out of the gate Joe does an absolute Gish Gallop of 'issues' with the Moon Landing. Almost two dozen things are listed in rapid-fire succession. Phil didn't call him on the Gish gallop, and Penn let him get away with it. Phil starts to touch on a point and Rogan interrupts him. Phil never gets a point debunked and Rogan 'wins' the 'debate' about the Moon Hoax handily.

Fast forward a couple of years and Rogan tells us he thinks the Moon Hoax claims are BS.

So, yeah, what happens in a debate means very little scientifically. What happens in a debate as interpeted by a fanboy means even less. When come back, bring evidence.
 
King of the Americas said:
You listened to LESS than half of the evidence presented...and you want me to do what exactly? Fill in your blanks? Present 'better' than the researchers did, their arguments?
Click to expand...
You are free to do whatever you like. As are the rest of us.

I'm not going to be watching any more of that podcast for the reasons I explained upthread.

If you'd like to discuss it you'll have to do some work. If not, that's cool too.

The bearded guy spent almost an hour going over 'proof' of multi-asteroid impacts, and how this event mirrored the GT decline.
Click to expand...
I don't think the amount of time he spent on it is particularly meaningful.

Now you talking about ANOTHER Rogan interview, here, WHY?
Click to expand...
Because it includes claims that Carlson made, and I'm pretty sure his viewpoint hasn't changed.

You've disregarded evidence, while adhering to previously held beliefs...
Click to expand...
What specific evidence do you think I've disregarded?
 
The video is 3 hours and 35 minutes.

But I'll concede, 2/3's was an over estimation.

You ignored 57.14% of the evidence presented.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
The video is 3 hours and 35 minutes.

But I'll concede, 2/3's was an over estimation.

You ignored 57.14% of the evidence presented.
Click to expand...

It's even worse than that, Hancock has written books and I'm sure has done many lectures, and I haven't even read any of his books! I think by your standards I've ignored more than 99% of the evidence he's presented!

Of course for people who speak english...
 
Roboramma said:
It's even worse than that, Hancock has written books and I'm sure has done many lectures, and I haven't even read any of his books! I think by your standards I've ignored more than 99% of the evidence he's presented!

Of course for people who speak english...
Click to expand...

This thread is about the video...
 
angrysoba said:
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.

Click to expand...

Maybe the title confused you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom