• 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:
Hawass is not a scientist, he's a dogmatist.

That was in fact a "refusal to debate"...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The article said that no academic would debate him.

His attempt at refuting that claim from the article was to bring up the debate with Hawass.

Harass refused to debate him.

Thus the original claim from the article, that no academic would debate him, stands.

But Hancock seemed to think that he'd refuted that point somehow.
 
Roboramma said:
Exactly.

The article said that no academic would debate him.

His attempt at refuting that claim from the article was to bring up the debate with Hawass.

Harass refused to debate him.

Thus the original claim from the article, that no academic would debate him, stands.

But Hancock seemed to think that he'd refuted that point somehow.
Click to expand...

Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.

Hancock has evidence Hawass and skeptics here simply won't address. #sad
 
A debate is not the place for science. Let him gather, evidence, write articles, and submit them for peer review.
But that's not what Hancock wants. Because the one thing a public debate with a prominent scientific authority brings is a lot of media attention.
And that's what Hancock wants. Media attention so he can flog his poorly researched pop sci books.
 
King of the Americas said:
Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that this criticism seems rather hypocritical, considering KotA just put two people on ignore for asking reasonable questions about his methods and theories.
 
King of the Americas said:
Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.

Hancock has evidence Hawass and skeptics here simply won't address. #sad
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say anything at all about whether or not Hawass was justified in his behaviour. I was commenting on an argument that Hancock made.

An article written about him said that no academic would debate him. He said that the article was wrong on that claim. To dispute it he brought up Hawass and said that he had a debate with him. Then he mentioned that Hawass refused to debate him, which, again, leaves us back where we started. The point is not whether or not academics should debate him, but that he was wrong when he disputed the point in the article.

The article said no academic would debate him, and in spite of Hancock's odd attempt to refute it, and it is right. Do you dispute that?
 
Roboramma said:
Again, I didn't say anything at all about whether or not Hawass was justified in his behaviour. I was commenting on an argument that Hancock made.

An article written about him said that no academic would debate him. He said that the article was wrong on that claim. To dispute it he brought up Hawass and said that he had a debate with him. Then he mentioned that Hawass refused to debate him, which, again, leaves us back where we started. The point is not whether or not academics should debate him, but that he was wrong when he disputed the point in the article.

The article said no academic would debate him, and in spite of Hancock's odd attempt to refute it, and it is right. Do you dispute that?
Click to expand...

No... I misunderstood the nature of your response.

I do not care about the article, or its accuracy, and found Hancock wasting time on it petty, even if Shermer relented.
 
King of the Americas said:
Awesome sauce!

Did you find the GT evidence convincing?
Click to expand...

I think they pushed it rather further than I thought it would bear. History is funny though. You only get the data points you get. No repetition in a lab, no finding what can't be found.

There's a headline making the rounds now about pushing homo back (the out of Africa date) from 200,000 years to 300,000. Suddenly 12,000 years doesn't seem like all that much.
 
marplots said:
I think they pushed it rather further than I thought it would bear. History is funny though. You only get the data points you get. No repetition in a lab, no finding what can't be found.

There's a headline making the rounds now about pushing homo back (the out of Africa date) from 200,000 years to 300,000. Suddenly 12,000 years doesn't seem like all that much.
Click to expand...

That the site was buried, as it was, and subsequent 'lesser' verions built atop, simply defied all evolutional lessons I have been taught.

If GT doesn't represent a lost/civlization, I am not sure what would.

Ever seen the ruins of Puma Punku? Those were not carved with bronze and copper chisels...
 
So, my next question is, if "experts" like Hawass control the dig sites and the debate, how does evidence like GT become a point of debate and understanding?

Hunter-gatherers weren't just hunting and gathering, before they decided to do it full time, again?

We lost knowledge and ability...the ruins following the original GT were of 'lesser' quality!

If 'I' were a self-announced skeptic/debunker, I might refuse to watch this video too...
 
You seem not to have grasped our point: debates of this kind are worthless entertainment. They are not designed to put forward valid argument, but merely to win the debate.

I'll happily read a transcript in my own time (which will take a fraction of the time it takes to listen to the debate), and then I'll form an opinion. What I have read in this thread, however, means that I am already biased against Hancock. That a civilisation can disappear in this way without leaving any traces whatsoever - apart from some megalithic stone blocks - seems to be the kind of assertion that needs solid evidence to be credible.

In the recent June 2017 issue of Scientific American, Shermer is discussing Hancock's theories, and he is not impressed. I do not know if this was written before or after the live debate.
 
steenkh said:
You seem not to have grasped our point: debates of this kind are worthless entertainment. They are not designed to put forward valid argument, but merely to win the debate.

I'll happily read a transcript in my own time (which will take a fraction of the time it takes to listen to the debate), and then I'll form an opinion. What I have read in this thread, however, means that I am already biased against Hancock. That a civilisation can disappear in this way without leaving any traces whatsoever - apart from some megalithic stone blocks - seems to be the kind of assertion that needs solid evidence to be credible.

In the recent June 2017 issue of Scientific American, Shermer is discussing Hancock's theories, and he is not impressed. I do not know if this was written before or after the live debate.
Click to expand...

Debates have rules and time limits.

This was a discussion where both sides were allowed to talk, until they were done.

AGAIN. At the end of this exchange, Shermer finds Hancock both well reasoned and researched.

I highly recommend you consume the contents of this video, transcript or not.
 
carlitos said:
As you were told here what - 6 years ago? - no, they were not. Your general sense of incredulity and lack of curiosity as to how things actually work is your own problem.
Click to expand...

6 years is a long time.

What thread was that?

If we take the GT 'fact' of an ancient awesome civilization, that disappeared, ruins like Puma Punku seem less hunter-gatherer, and more GT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom