Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

[TraneWreck]

Old Graham Hancock. Personally, he was very important in my intellectual journey to skepticism.

Around middle school, I read Erich Von Daniken and thought it was really cool. Aliens, advanced ancient civilizations, were Final Fantasy games real? Where was my airship?

Hancock built off a lot of that. By the time I read Hancock a few years later, I already found the alien thing ridiculous, but the idea that humans had been much more advanced in the past is, at least, possible. He used things like water erosion on the Sphinx (which seemed like hard science) and mapping the layout of the pyramids to patterns in the stars - all cool seeming stuff - and went from there.

It was Hancock vs. Zahi Hawass, a guy Hancock painted as a villain over and over, that shook me into a more skeptical perspective.

And lo, these years, decades, later, he's still going on about his same old stuff. The sad thing is that Hancock's thesis is insanely more extreme now than it was in the past. He is moving towards Van Daniken style insanity, but I promise you, his first few books have that veneer of reasonable theory. People had to work - in a good way - to reject the argument about water erosion on the Sphinx. That was a legitimate scientific idea that turned out to be wrong.

Now...eh, it's just new agey craziness.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think he likes to debate crackpots which isn't really the problem. The problem is that he doesn't do his homework, so when he turns up to debate people who have been fashioning their crazy theory for decades he looks out of his depth.

Not to derail, but I think this is apt criticism of Shermer. It is also almost exactly my criticism of Harris for allowing Charles Murray to spew his nonsense with very little pushback.

Only difference is that Graham Hancock is a flibbertigibbet and Charles Murray is the most influential scientific racist of the last two decades.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

It was Hancock vs. Zahi Hawass, a guy Hancock painted as a villain over and over, that shook me into a more skeptical perspective.

And lo, these years, decades, later, he's still going on about his same old stuff. The sad thing is that Hancock's thesis is insanely more extreme now than it was in the past. He is moving towards Van Daniken style insanity, but I promise you, his first few books have that veneer of reasonable theory. People had to work - in a good way - to reject the argument about water erosion on the Sphinx. That was a legitimate scientific idea that turned out to be wrong.

Now...eh, it's just new agey craziness.

I wholly disagree. I too started with von Daniken, then found Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods.

Had you listened to the interview, you'd have heard Hancock abandon his fingerprints theory.

Did you see the debate between Hancock and Hawaas? Hawaas walks out after being confronted by evidence his theory don't explain.

*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?

 

[King of the Americas]

Not to derail, but I think this is apt criticism of Shermer. It is also almost exactly my criticism of Harris for allowing Charles Murray to spew his nonsense with very little pushback.

Only difference is that Graham Hancock is a flibbertigibbet and Charles Murray is the most influential scientific racist of the last two decades.

Again, Shermer apologized to Hancock and admits he is reasonable and well researched.

*Watch the interview...

 

[imodium]

I wholly disagree. I too started with von Daniken, then found Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods.

Had you listened to the interview, you'd have heard Hancock abandon his fingerprints theory.

Did you see the debate between Hancock and Hawaas? Hawaas walks out after being confronted by evidence his theory don't explain.
*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?

The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.

 

[King of the Americas]

The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.

I'm two-minds about the walkout.

One, walking away from a 'debate' is poor form, period. If you are accused of a crime, call for evidence of it, or silence.

Two, debates are not places for personal attacks...which Hancock has had to withstand for decades, and is still suffering.

Hawaas ignores findings that contradict his timeline, he attacks those who offer other findings, and refuses open debate.

I disagree with your characterization of the relationship between Hawaas and Hancock.

 

[GT/CS]

The evidence being Hancock accused Hawass of stealing from the Cairo museum when it was broken into during the uprising.
You fail to understand basic English?
Accusing someone of stealing isn't evidence, of anything.
Along with the other bull hancock spewed like aliensdidit, Hawass was right to walk out on the con artist.

Do you think Hancock is a con artist or do you think he actually believes in what he sells?

I always confuse him with Graham Phillips; that guy is a hoot!

 

[TraneWreck]

*Wait...did you say the water erosion evident on the Sphinx "isn't"...?

Please do explain an alternate theory?

Recent studies of climate suggest that wet-->change happened in the 3500 to 1500 BCE range, which would place the Sphinx well within the timeline established by artifact evidence...etc.

The erosion was unlikely to come directly from rainfall, the patterns mimic those of runoff collection.

 

[TraneWreck]

Again, Shermer apologized to Hancock and admits he is reasonable and well researched.

*Watch the interview...

Don't care. Shermer is not an expert. That he can be so easily bamboozled is evidence of his uselessness, not that Hancock speaks the truth.

 

[King of the Americas]

Recent studies of climate suggest that wet-->change happened in the 3500 to 1500 BCE range, which would place the Sphinx well within the timeline established by artifact evidence...etc.

The erosion was unlikely to come directly from rainfall, the patterns mimic those of runoff collection.

The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.

Do you have a citation for those findings?

 

[King of the Americas]

Don't care. Shermer is not an expert. That he can be so easily bamboozled is evidence of his uselessness, not that Hancock speaks the truth.

If you didn't watch the interview, you missed a great deal of evidence, as well as the opportunity to refute it.

Instead, you are here talking about other people's useless-ness, really?

 

[King of the Americas]

If Shermer isn't an 'expert' why is he the leading editor of Skeptic?

"I am no expert, so I am the leading skeptic."

*Damn, still no roll eyes icon...!

 

[marplots]

If Shermer isn't an 'expert' why is he the leading editor of Skeptic?

Because, like us, he has interest enough to read the experts and give a counternarrative when the BS starts building up.

I was disappointed that Shermer let Hancock get away with the "I'm just reporting" dodge. If Hancock is quoting someone in Hancock's own book, how is that not an endorsement of what he quotes?

It got worse when Shermer tried to point out other wacky stuff associated with Hancock's sources. Hancock simply pushed it away with an "I'm not saying I support that part and I refuse to defend it." [My use of quotation marks here is only to indicate a paraphrase based on my impression, not an actual quote.]

This mechanism also came into play when Hancock was allowed to disown his previous works. Shermer had an opening to say something like, "Well, how long before you drop this theory too? That's exactly what happens when you base your ideas on cherry-picking the evidence and discounting scientific consensus."

Hancock has an archeological site which has only been 5% excavated and shows stone age peoples building monoliths. That's it. Everything else is either a product of his own fertile imagination or plagiarized from other pseudo-science.

 

[Shepherd]

I believe Graham Hancock was more mellow before he let the serpent Mother Ayahuasca enter into and slither around inside of his body and convince him to change his relationship with cannabis.

http://grahamhancock.com/giving-up-the-green-bitch-hancock/

ETA: Hey, I'm just reporting!

 

[Pacal]

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.

You have not heard of Hancock before? God has been merciful to you! Hancock is a phenomenally successful author who has been publishing woo crap for more than 20 years and it has made him very rich. Among his "masterpieces" are The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods etc. But one thing is always present in his worthless work, enormous amounts of woo nonsense.

Shermer sadly has a track record of not preparing for debates the result is woo merchants can make him look like a fool.

 

[Pacal]

Careful, your ad hominem is showing...

Describing Hancock has a crackpot is merely accurate. Just read the recycled woo crap in Fingerprints of the Gods.

 

[Pacal]

I watched the whole interview...

Shermer and his other skeptic admitted they were wrong about Hancock, said they'd fix their mistakes, and both spoke well of Hancock and the big guy with the beard.

Shermer 'ran of out steam'... BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA.

More like he ran out of room to stand, with a room so full of facts contrary to 'accepted science.'

Hancock and "facts" don't exist in the same room. Hancock's nonsense about Gobekli Tepe is hilarious. The site is almost certainly not some offshoot of a "Lost Civilization". It appears instead to be a very early maybe even before settled agriculture ritual gathering place.

 

[Pacal]

Did you watch the whole thing?

---

Things Shermer agreed to:

-His magazine wrongly characterized Hancock and his arguments
-That we were more than mere hunter gatherers 12,000 years ago
-A massive flood wiped out evidence of a civilization before this hunter gatherer phase
-The scab lands contain the timeline and geological evidence of the end of the ice age
-That Hancock is both reasonable and well researched

Very funny. All it reveals is Shermer's lack of knowledge. Hancock is a joke for one thing and actual researchers ignore him. The second comment merely indicates Shermer's lack of knowledge. Any expert on the Neolithic Near East will tell you that the transition from Hunting and gathering to settled agriculture was well underway 12,000 years ago.

As for Shermer accepting the absurd notion that a flood destroyed a civilization before the "Hunter Gatherer" phase. The evidence of that remains exceptionally close to zero despite Hancock's rantings.

As for Hancock being both reasonable and well researched. Hilarious no doubt his 2012 boosterism was well researched. Nope Hancock consistently avoids up to date research and relies, very heavily on woo crap. Fingerprints of the Gods is ample proof of that.

 

[Pacal]

Duplicate post

 

[John Jones]

The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.

Do you have a citation for those findings?

Ask your interlocutors for evidence of your claims, why don't you?

"That ain't working, that's the way you do it. You play the guitar on the MTV.

Money for nuthin. Chicks for free."