• 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

King of the Americas said:
Debates have rules and time limits.

This was a discussion where both sides were allowed to talk, until they were done.
Click to expand...
Ok. What is the point?



AGAIN. At the end of this exchange, Shermer finds Hancock both well reasoned and researched.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that Shermer was bested here, so what is the point?



I highly recommend you consume the contents of this video, transcript or not.
Click to expand...

I need better reasons to waste hours of my life than that.

ETA: Perhaps I should point out that I would be just as disinterested if Shermer had "won" the argument. I never listen to podcasts or view YouTube videos, except when I have a personal interest in them.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
Ok. What is the point?


Yes, we know that Shermer was bested here, so what is the point?


I need better reasons to waste hours of my life than that.

ETA: Perhaps I should point out that I would be just as disinterested if Shermer had "won" the argument. I never listen to podcasts or view YouTube videos, except when I have a personal interest in them.
Click to expand...

The point? To be exposed to new information, and reach new conclusions.

Bested? I think the word you are looking for is enlightened. Understanding isn't a contest.

So, you didn't watch the video...? And you are posting in a thread discussing the video...

It would seem that your interest is in derailing discussions.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Agreed, but neither do "Bayesian statistics"...
Click to expand...

I guess you missed my point.

One can have an understanding of the world based on an overwhelming amount of evidence such that any new evidence is very unlikely to be able to change that view, and yet still be entirely reasonable.

It would take very strong evidence to change the analysis that the total evidence (which includes all of that prior evidence) leads to, which is that there was no advanced civilisation 12,000 years ago.

Hence it's reasonable not to expect much from the video. And that's even before noting that you aren't even able to bring up whatever amazing evidence you seem to think was presented there:

frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
 
Roboramma said:
...

It would take very strong evidence to change the analysis that the total evidence (which includes all of that prior evidence) leads to, which is that there was no advanced civilisation 12,000 years ago.

Hence it's reasonable not to expect much from the video. ...
Click to expand...

Refusing to look at evidence based on the grounds it would HAVE to be very strong evidence to convince you is an argument for refusing to address ALL evidence that contradicts your current beliefs.

Bravo, an argument for ignoring evidence...

I recommend you watch the video, THEN comment.
 
I'm actually very happy to see whatever evidence was presented. I don't think it takes 3.5 hours to say "They found a gun buried at GT, which obviously is a relic of an advanced civilisation", or whatever evidence was actually presented.

Listening to 3.5 hours of back and forth is probably the least efficient way to be exposed to that evidence. But once again you are entirely unwilling to present that evidence and yet still complain that somehow you think other people are unwilling to face it.
 
Roboramma said:
...

Listening to 3.5 hours of back and forth is probably the least efficient way to be exposed to that evidence. But once again you are entirely unwilling to present that evidence and yet still complain that somehow you think other people are unwilling to face it.
Click to expand...

Listening to two people discuss a topic is the least efficient way to be exposed to evidence...?

That's crackpot talk, utterly mad.

You just admitted you are unwilling to watch the video, ergo, you are unwilling to face the facts as presented.

Come out of the dark buddy...there's interesting stuff out here.
 
King of the Americas said:
Listening to two people discuss a topic is the least efficient way to be exposed to evidence...?

...
Click to expand...

Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Refusing to look at evidence based on the grounds it would HAVE to be very strong evidence to convince you is an argument for refusing to address ALL evidence that contradicts your current beliefs.

Bravo, an argument for ignoring evidence...

I recommend you watch the video, THEN comment.
Click to expand...
Watching videos is slow compared to reading transcripts, thus transcript is superior. Assuming transcript is accurate. Why spend an hour to watch something that can be read in 10-15 minutes at most - and which you can much more easily move backwards and forward in.
 
King of the Americas said:
Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???
Click to expand...
Because none of the material is being peer reviewed so cannot be verified as it issues forth. That is why we have peer reviewed journals for science - and they are what counts, not the ravings of the insane.
 
fuelair said:
Watching videos is slow compared to reading transcripts, thus transcript is superior. Assuming transcript is accurate. Why spend an hour to watch something that can be read in 10-15 minutes at most - and which you can much more easily move backwards and forward in.
Click to expand...

Then read the transcripts...

Have you?
 
fuelair said:
Because none of the material is being peer reviewed so cannot be verified as it issues forth. That is why we have peer reviewed journals for science - and they are what counts, not the ravings of the insane.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight...and were there any such sources featured in this discussion...?
 
King of the Americas said:
Riiiiight...and were there any such sources featured in this discussion...?
Click to expand...

No, I have no real interest in the debates on silly things. I am merely noting the order of trustworthiness and speed of inputting information from same when such is both available and of interest/need.
 
This thread is an even better example of skeptics' outright refusal to address evidence.

There are 6 pages here, 95% of which have not seen the video being discussed!

And why would you, Michael Shermer has only been your God, the super sloth debunker, who ends up saying Graham Hancock is both well reasoned and well researched but that doesn't matter...

Ignoring evidence is THE best way to never, ever be wrong...'in your own head'...

Reality is that thing that's real, even if you don't believe it.
 
King of the Americas said:
Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???
Click to expand...

I am actually asking you to please present the evidence for that side. That sounds to me like the opposite of what you seem to be claiming, but maybe I'm the crazy one.

What exactly do you want to discuss in this thread if not the actual content of the video? Since you watched it you should be able to discuss it, no?
 
Roboramma said:
I am actually asking you to please present the evidence for that side. That sounds to me like the opposite of what you seem to be claiming, but maybe I'm the crazy one.

What exactly do you want to discuss in this thread if not the actual content of the video? Since you watched it you should be able to discuss it, no?
Click to expand...

DO your own work.

There is a video you should watch before posting again. You are wasting time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom