Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

[Craig B]

"Detail" & "Logistic Difficulty"...made the first ruins "more advanced."

I'm not sure that these criteria are readily measurable, and in any case it was you who introduced size of tomb as a proxy for this. I have stated my objection.

ALSO, remains of the following generations, show that the population 'shrank'... They "devolved" into hunter gatherers.

People can lose skills or population sizes in a particular area.

Wheels disappeared from Mesopotamia for millennia, after being used there at a very early date. Wheeled vehicles were displaced by pack camels. In many areas of Europe, populations were smaller in 1700 than in 1300. But what are you arguing? That humanity possessed an advanced technology, which it then lost on account of a universal catastrophe, and thus humanity as a whole subsequently turned to hunting and gathering? Are you saying this? - if so I will argue against it.

Or are you stating something else. If so, what is the proposition that you want me to accept, or at least consider?

The oldest ruins at GT indicate a bigger population and more advanced building techniques, than those that followed. The first ruins are dated to the younger dryas catastrophe.

So what? Individual populations and individual cultures can regress or even disappear. What conclusions about the general course of human progress do you think I should draw from this GT example, even assuming that your beliefs about it are well founded?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let's start with microspherules?

Is the data convincing? Are these evidences of an asteroid impact that happened across the now U.S. Canada border?

Depends on how you mean that. I think in later tests the microspherules have been proved to be rather mundane in composition (mundane, as in earthly origins), so the crazier left field comments about them being replete with space dust are probably inaccurate. They've been altered by extreme heat, so some sort of cosmic even is quite probable but it's still under study and a Krakatoa like event isn't ruled out.

Is the date arrived at, in alignment with the Scablands flood?

In a very broad range? Yes.


And this all proves Ancient Civilizations, how?

 

[King of the Americas]

... lost on account of a universal catastrophe, and thus humanity as a whole subsequently turned to hunting and gathering? Are you saying this? - if so I will argue against it.

No. I am not. GT is a singular site, specifically dated to the younger dryas, 'potentially' caused by several small asteroid impacts. This did not result in 'one' "universal catastrophe" that affected everyone, equally. Some civilizations were lost, never to be heard from again, some survived, some may have even thrived, due to location and life styles.

The facts of GT point to a specific point of decline, and a reversion back to small bands of hunter gatherers.

The previously held notion is that hunter gatherers evolved into agricultural towns, that then began to build simple structures that evolved into more complex, higher, more detailed megaliths...

NOT so at GT.

Or are you stating something else. If so, what is the proposition that you want me to accept, or at least consider? So what? Individual populations and individual cultures can regress or even disappear. What conclusions about the general course of human progress do you think I should draw from this GT example, even assuming that your beliefs about it are well founded?

I want you to watch the video wherein you will see evidence that Michael Shermer finds both well researched and well reasoned.

I promise it will be well worth the time you have spent typing out these responses.

 

[Craig B]

I want you to watch the video wherein you will see evidence that Michael Shermer finds both well researched and well reasoned.

I promise it will be well worth the time you have spent typing out these responses.

Don't worry about me. Simply tell me what the propositions are that you are defending.

If Shermer turns up on this forum, he can tell me what he personally finds convincing, but my question is addressed to you, because if I need to examine your responses further, you are there to continue the discussion if you wish. Shermer is not.

 

[King of the Americas]

Don't worry about me. Simply tell me what the propositions are that you are defending.

If Shermer turns up on this forum, he can tell me what he personally finds convincing, but my question is addressed to you, because if I need to examine your responses further, you are there to continue the discussion if you wish. Shermer is not.

No. I am not. GT is a singular site, specifically dated to the younger dryas, 'potentially' caused by several small asteroid impacts. This did not result in 'one' "universal catastrophe" that affected everyone, equally. Some civilizations were lost, never to be heard from again, some survived, some may have even thrived, due to location and life styles.

The facts of GT point to a specific point of decline, and a reversion back to small bands of hunter gatherers.

The previously held notion is that hunter gatherers evolved into agricultural towns, that then began to build simple structures that evolved into more complex, higher, more detailed megaliths...

NOT so at GT.

 

[King of the Americas]

Depends on how you mean that. I think in later tests the microspherules have been proved to be rather mundane in composition (mundane, as in earthly origins), so the crazier left field comments about them being replete with space dust are probably inaccurate. They've been altered by extreme heat, so some sort of cosmic even is quite probable but it's still under study and a Krakatoa like event isn't ruled out.

I am certain "melting points" of all of the materials collected are both known and quantified. These microspherules of all sorts are found across the (now) U.S. Canadian border, in a layer dated to the Younger Dryas. The date does NOT correspond with the north american volcanic activity.

In a very broad range? Yes.


And this all proves Ancient Civilizations, how?

What?

The 'construction' at GT proves "ancient badasses"...the dated findings correspond with their decline.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I am certain "melting points" of all of the materials collected are both known and quantified. These microspherules of all sorts are found across the (now) U.S. Canadian border, in a layer dated to the Younger Dryas. The date does NOT correspond with the north american volcanic activity.



What?

The 'construction' at GT proves "ancient badasses"...the dated findings correspond with their decline.

No. This is where Hancock steers you wrong. He actually admitted during the initial discussions of GT that he's a writer, not a scientist and thinks that his job is to make **** up that he can support with intellectual argumentation. In the next breath he says essentially that it's the work of mainstream science to refute him. The key, though, is that it's conjecture.

Recognize the pattern? See "Atlantis/Menorah" thread. I'll just make this stuff up and try to give it some semi-sound trappings and you guys can disprove me, if you dare.

OOOPS! Hit the post button when I wanted to preview.

Shermer is quite clear that the most exciting thing about GT is that it puts a whole new light on what we considered hunter/gatherer "society". Hancock says that it appeals to his logic as proof of an intervention but offers no such proof. Shermer's point is excellent. We have underestimated our ancestors repeatedly. Every new discovery causes us to re-examine what we thought we knew. It does NOT mean, "Oooh, magic!" unless you can actually show that. It's conjecture. Hancock is weaving a believable yarn and selling it.

 

[King of the Americas]

No. This is where Hancock steers you wrong. He actually admitted during the initial discussions of GT that he's a writer, not a scientist and thinks that his job is to make **** up that he can support with intellectual argumentation. In the next breath he says essentially that it's the work of mainstream science to refute him. The key, though, is that it's conjecture.

Recognize the pattern? See "Atlantis/Menorah" thread. I'll just make this stuff up and try to give it some semi-sound trappings and you guys can disprove me, if you dare.

OOOPS! Hit the post button when I wanted to preview.

Speak more about this 'conjecture' you protest against? Are the evidentiary findings indicative of several small asteroid impact that date the younger dryas, or not?

Shermer is quite clear that the most exciting thing about GT is that it puts a whole new light on what we considered hunter/gatherer "society". Hancock says that it appeals to his logic as proof of an intervention but offers no such proof. Shermer's point is excellent. We have underestimated our ancestors repeatedly. Every new discovery causes us to re-examine what we thought we knew. It does NOT mean, "Oooh, magic!" unless you can actually show that. It's conjecture. Hancock is weaving a believable yarn and selling it.

Yes, hunter gatherers WEREN'T just hunting and gathering- they were bigger, better, farming-ass, city dwelling megalith builders.

The "intervention" you are seeking to insert is a confutation of issues. There is no 'magic' implied or stated. There was a badass civilization, that declined, starting during the younger dryas.

 

[Craig B]

There was a badass civilization, that declined, starting during the younger dryas.

Good. There is a proposition you want to defend. Let's make sense of it. First, remove ambiguous wording. Did the badass civilisation start during the younger dryas, or did its decline start during that time?

If the first, then how long had this civilisation lasted prior to its decline? What level of technology had it attained at its peak, compared to modern industrial society, for example? Over what area of the world did its control or influence stretch?

Before the badass civilisation appeared, did any society practice agriculture or advanced technology? In other words, if people were hunter gatherers after the fall of the badass civilisation, in what state were they prior to the rise of the badass civilisation? Hunter gatherers? Interstellar space travellers? Or something in between? If so, what?

Have any traces of technologically advanced artefacts attributable to the badass civilisation ever been found? If so, where and what? If not, where are they?

Note. It is clear that collecting big groups of people and setting them to work large stones and assemble them in such formats as megaliths and pyramids doesn't require technical attainments of any high order. It requires central authority and logistics, but these are within the reach even of polities which have neither efficient metal tools nor effective writing, as was the case in pre Conquest Peru. End note.

 

[King of the Americas]

Good. There is a proposition you want to defend. Let's make sense of it. First, remove ambiguous wording. Did the badass civilisation start during the younger dryas, or did its decline start during that time?

Watch the video...

If the first, then how long had this civilisation lasted prior to its decline? What level of technology had it attained at its peak, compared to modern industrial society, for example? Over what area of the world did its control or influence stretch?

Watch the video...

Before the badass civilisation appeared, did any society practice agriculture or advanced technology? In other words, if people were hunter gatherers after the fall of the badass civilisation, in what state were they prior to the rise of the badass civilisation? Hunter gatherers? Interstellar space travellers? Or something in between? If so, what?

I don't think ANY historians 'know' what was really happening prior to the younger dryas.

Have any traces of technologically advanced artefacts attributable to the badass civilisation ever been found? If so, where and what? If not, where are they?

You mean besides the monuments?

Note. It is clear that collecting big groups of people and setting them to work large stones and assemble them in such formats as megaliths and pyramids doesn't require technical attainments of any high order. It requires central authority and logistics, but these are within the reach even of polities which have neither efficient metal tools nor effective writing, as was the case in pre Conquest Peru. End note.

You are ignoring the decline of the building style...

"Doesn't require technical attainments of any high order...?"

This is my last response to you, until you've watched the video. We cannot continue this discussion, if you refuse to look at the evidence.

 

[John Jones]

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???

The above is a fallacy known as the False Dichotomy and a straw man. Others might apply as well. Go look them up on youtube

 

[King of the Americas]

The above is a fallacy known as the False Dichotomy and a straw man. Others might apply as well. Go look them up on youtube

Then, please do, defend the actions of NOT reviewing this video before posting, because what YOU are doing is called 'deflection'...

You are attacking the manner in which I phrased my counter-point, rather than address the fact that this poster is judging evidence he or she publicly refuse to look at.

"Come now, it is the afternoon, let the bag sit in thy cup a bit longer."

Indeed, my counter-factual did go a step too far... But ignoring evidence, and interrupting people trying to have a discussion is *(currently under discussion)*

 

[Craig B]

Watch the video...

Watch the video...

I don't think ANY historians 'know' what was really happening prior to the younger dryas.

They don't, indeed. There was no writing then. The period was "prehistoric". Unless you're telling us that these early people had writing after all. But archaeologists have evidence that in those times people lived by gathering and hunting, not by agriculture, let alone advanced technology. Do you reject that?

You mean besides the monuments?

You are ignoring the decline of the building style...

I have already addressed that point. "Style" and "decline of style" are not valid criteria in determining technological progress.

"Doesn't require technical attainments of any high order...?"

I have illustrated what I meant by that. I am discussing technical achievement. The Incas, to take one relevant case, had no effective metal tools, and no writing (they used tallies made of knotted string) but in spite of this technological backwardness they could construct monuments from carefully worked stone, displaying great refinement of style.

This is my last response to you, until you've watched the video. We cannot continue this discussion, if you refuse to look at the evidence.

i am acquainted with evidence, and I will decide what evidence I choose to sustain my argument. That decision is for me to make, not you. I have told you. I am discussing this with you. I have advanced various arguments and I am now inviting you to comment on them. Please do so, according to your own understanding of the facts of the case, citing the material in your video if you want, in words reflecting your own opinions of the merits of its content. You will choose your sources and I will choose mine. If there is something about my presentation that you don't understand - and there seems to be - please say what it is, and I will strive to explain it. That's why I'm talking to you, and not passively watching any video instead.

 

[King of the Americas]

They don't, indeed. There was no writing then. The period was "prehistoric". Unless you're telling us that these early people had writing after all. But archaeologists have evidence that in those times people lived by gathering and hunting, not by agriculture, let alone advanced technology. Do you reject that?

Haha, no. The 'findings' of GT contradict those previously held beliefs or understandings.

GT was NOT built by a small band of hunter gatherers. The skills and techniques suffered decline from a vey advanced, massive city, with advanced buildings techniques, compared to those that followed at the same site.

I have already addressed that point. "Style" and "decline of style" are not valid criteria in determining technological progress.

So you reject the idea that technology evolves towards a more perfect state, unless it suffers an interruption?

Okay...we disagree.

I have illustrated what I meant by that. I am discussing technical achievement. The Incas, to take one relevant case, had no effective metal tools, and no writing (they used tallies made of knotted string) but in spite of this technological backwardness they could construct monuments from carefully worked stone, displaying great refinement of style.i am acquainted with evidence, and I will decide what evidence I choose to sustain my argument. That decision is for me to make, not you. I have told you. I am discussing this with you. I have advanced various arguments and I am now inviting you to comment on them. Please do so, according to your own understanding of the facts of the case, citing the material in your video if you want, in words reflecting your own opinions of the merits of its content. You will choose your sources and I will choose mine. If there is something about my presentation that you don't understand - and there seems to be - please say what it is, and I will strive to explain it. That's why I'm talking to you, and not passively watching any video instead.

Watch the video, and we'll talk more...

 

[Craig B]

Haha, no. The 'findings' of GT contradict those previously held beliefs or understandings.

GT was NOT built by a small band of hunter gatherers. The skills and techniques suffered decline from a vey advanced, massive city, with advanced buildings techniques, compared to those that followed at the same site.



So you reject the idea that technology evolves towards a more perfect state, unless it suffers an interruption?

I don't accept "perfection" as a condition of technology. I have discussed "advances" in that field.

Okay...we disagree.

Watch the video, and we'll talk more...

You may not set conditions on what sources I choose to consult.

I deny again that perfection of style is a measure of the progress of technology. I assert that there is evidence for the activity of people prior to the younger dryas. Abundant evidence; and I will produce it from the sources that seem best to me, while you will respond from whatever sources you personally select. That is how I conduct such discussions.

Even if you stop addressing me, I assert the right to continue to respond, respectfully, to any argument or information or source thereof, that you may choose to employ.

 

[King of the Americas]

I don't accept "perfection" as a condition of technology. I have discussed "advances" in that field. You may not set conditions on what sources I choose to consult.

...

Technology, "gets better"...it improves...evolves 'towards' a desired state of perfection, normally.

Pitfalls, setbacks, degradation in difficulty to create advancement, are caused by 'disruptions'...they could be internal or external.

In the case of GT, the site's remains feature a perfectly preserved point of 'highly advanced building techniques'...who abandonment/burial, was followed by structures much less impressive. There date of this interruption correspondences with the younger dryas.

Look at the evidence presented in the video, it is very compelling.

 

[King of the Americas]

Stupid question: Does Craig B = Craig4?

 

[Foolmewunz]

KotA,
Do you realize that GT and other settlements are destroying one of your favorite lines of intellectual entertainment. Every new discovery, whether in China or India or Turkey or Central America fills in another of those "OMG where'd they get this!" gaps. Around the time of Chariots of the Gods, Egypt was the gape-mouthed inexplicable technology. Now we see that something like GT exists with no written language and no metal implements in what's pretty obviously a pre-potter neolithic age, and the True Believers have to change to wondering where THEY got their knowledge because it seems that Egypt with its many astonishing developments was merely standing on the shoulders of previous civilizations.

The next argument is the Joe Rogan one.... But man, it was like 6000 years before Stonehenge! Yeah? And how many years before the earliest Egyptian history? How many before Nevali Cori? Some of the uniqueness of both GT and Nevali Cori is that they are preserved. Ancient settlements on a river route or by a natural harbor were quite likely simply trampled to dust. I think we can safely predict other findings over the years that will fill-in some of those thousand-year gaps.

From the body of knowledge we're developing about earliest societies, one of the constants is the debunking of low expectations. Because WE can't figure out how to do it, THEY must certainly have not been able to. But it turns out that quite a number of neolithic and post-neolithic cultures had this fascination with monument building. Because we can't imagine developing those skills before developing metallurgy or writing, we lazily fob this off to aliens or superior, now extinct, civilizations. The preponderance of evidence is that numerous societies developed monument-building and graphic arts before they developed either. Rather than assuming the order in which WE would do it if we had to, why not explore with the assumption that we have evidence for.... that they actually did this and that those further developments are not necessary to the task of monument-building.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

From the body of knowledge we're developing about earliest societies, one of the constants is the debunking of low expectations. Because WE can't figure out how to do it, THEY must certainly have not been able to. But it turns out that quite a number of neolithic and post-neolithic cultures had this fascination with monument building. Because we can't imagine developing those skills before developing metallurgy or writing, we lazily fob this off to aliens or superior, now extinct, civilizations.

STOP... You asserted "aliens," "superior," "now extinct," "civilizations"... One none has asserted aliens. *sigh* Superior? Compared to the last GT builds the first was indeed "superior." Now extinct. YES. There are no more GT citizens building these sites. Civilizations. YES. Entire civilizations are being 'found' or rediscovered anytime they look or dig deeper anywhere. It is called discovery.

The evidence at GT is truly astounding... Have you reviewed it?

The preponderance of evidence is that numerous societies developed monument-building and graphic arts before they developed either.

What?

Rather than assuming the order in which WE would do it if we had to, why not explore with the assumption that we have evidence for.... that they actually did this and that those further developments are not necessary to the task of monument-building.

We have evidence of advanced monument builders, agriculture, and sciency poop. Then they covered it up, and built similar less impressive stuff on top of it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

STOP... You asserted "aliens," "superior," "now extinct," "civilizations"... One none has asserted aliens. *sigh* Superior? Compared to the last GT builds the first was indeed "superior." Now extinct. YES. There are no more GT citizens building these sites. Civilizations. YES. Entire civilizations are being 'found' or rediscovered anytime they look or dig deeper anywhere. It is called discovery.

I have no idea what you're saying. Are you claiming that alt dot archaeology hasn't tried to claim alien origins for numerous sites and achievements? Are you claiming that Hancock isn't selling GT as a passing of knowledge from a superior civilization? You're not really clear on what it is YOU are proposing, as you're fairly clearly not here to support Hancock, although that is ostensibly the topic.

The evidence at GT is truly astounding... Have you reviewed it?

What is it you find astounding? I find it fascinating and enlightening to discover that we can push back the time line of the origins of our collective history. But that's nothing new. We've been doing that for the last century.

What it's changed is the notion of the "neolithic revolution". Are we at the beginning of the timeline or is there going to be another discovery and another and another. Hancock and friends keep harping on how much before Stonehenge (I guess they assume we're all still puzzled by Stonehenge) this was or how much before Egypt, but there have been numerous discoveries over the past 50 years filling in those millennia, already.

Instead of "OMG this is seven thousand years before the pyramids" I see it as ??>>>GT>>>>Nevali Cori>>>>>Catalhoyuk>>>>>And onwards....

The big interest here is that the assumption has been that we're tracking "THE Civilization", e.g. all the "fertile crescent" stuff we learned in school, but there are discoveries of neolithic settlements that while they don't match GT in scope, they certainly are indications of some form of organized settlement. And they're not remotely near the overall area of previous archaeological concentration. (The Thai Spirit Cave predates GT, for instance.) We are piecing together a patchwork quilt of history using small shovels and air brushes. I personally doubt that I'll live to see it, but think we'll find all sorts of fillers in these gaps of two to three millennia when we seem to think we were waiting for the next great civilization arise. I also think we'll probably find similar and perhaps earlier societies to GT.

What?



We have evidence of advanced monument builders, agriculture, and sciency poop. Then they covered it up, and built similar less impressive stuff on top of it.

And? What conclusion do you draw from this? The history of mankind and civilization is a series of rising and falling. In the absence of written history of the time, we're going to be left to archaeology to learn more. Two decades ago Nevali Cori pushed "history" back to about 8000 BCE. Now we're looking at GT at about a thousand years older.

I don't buy the "later are less advanced" argument. First, they haven't finished excavating GT. Second, how do you define "advanced"? We can see the style of the construction morphing into what we later see at Nevali Cori, but that could be a matter of taste. We need a lot more exploration before we can make that claim.