Видео

I could go along with this interpretation. If Peterson is posing this as a hypothetical in terms of, "Christianity would/could have value if..." Though, I'm not sure how the mother/child archetype could be posed that way? Its just confusing because he said that "cultures who don't" implying that there were cultures who did hold the imagery sacred (presumably historical examples) and those who didn't?

Generally speaking, "new Atheist" refers to early 2000-2015ish movement. The major players were Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet. Lots of public debates about religion and poplar level books like the God delusion. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

For the record yes, in this case the word culture is synonymous with society

Awesome, thank you for watching and your replay. Can you point me to where in the conversation he says that?

@@MichaelGranado1 “Any culture that doesn’t hold the image of the woman and infant sacred dies.” That’s where he said it. It would seem that if he said “2+2=4” your response would be: “but why didn’t he explain what 2 means? Or 4? Or + and =?” It really doesn’t require that much explanation.

@@mattlagassa9084 No. Where does he say it's about birth rates or parenting?

@@MichaelGranado1 in the words “woman and child”. By saying those words he is quite obviously referring to the relationship between women and children (ie motherhood which is a PARENTAL relationship). And by using the word child he is referring to the exact thing that “birth rates” measure (ie how many children are people having. It’s very ironic that in another comment you accused him of being pretentious, but here I am having to explain first principles to you

Yeah, they can be really difficult to listen to. Not only are they pretentious, but they have no reason to be!

Thanks for watching!

Dawkins on cultural christian @@MichaelGranado1 ruclips.net/video/lrYuLeydZxs/видео.htmlsi=la7Dis0e4XD4A06C&t=1680

Haven't seen this one yet, thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the kind words!

Thank you for watching and the kind words!

He makes reference to Aristotle quite a bit, but I don't think he explicitly engages with him directly. At least not in his major works? He does reference Aristotle in Time and Free Will, as well other Greeks (especially Parmenides). I could be mistaken though. I did find a article putting the two in conversation though: doaj.org/article/f3a0297694e5409f98465458e2048569

@@MichaelGranado1 Hello and thank you so much for the reference, which I will be reading today. I also want to thank you for your explanations about theories of time, they’ve been very clear and informative. I have been working on developing a framework regarding time and the nature of now that begins with Aristotle's idea that time is no more than a measure of change. From what I can find, this premise has never been fully followed through to its logical and many implications, and so finding connections between Aristotle and later philosopher's exploration of temporality is of real value to me.

Thanks for watching and for the kind words! Bergson is worth the read. I'm glad you found this helpful.

I left out a lot of historical context that probably would have provided more insight into Bergson's position, but I mostly just wanted to cover the general outline of his arguments since Bergson is coming back in fashion. 1. I think that it's Bergson's epistemological basis (knowledge of time is rooted in our experience of duration) that ultimately puts him at odds with Russell and Einstein and also with his French contemporaries Poincaré and Bachelard. To be fair, this is a monumental shift in intellectual history. The idea that "common sense" could ultimately be misleading to something as fundamental as our experience of time. I think that's what tripping Bergson up so much (in my opinion). 2. Speaking to both of your points 2 and 3, another important contextual piece of information is that at the time of his objection to Einstein there was very little empirical evidence of relative time. While I am pretty sure that Eddington was somewhat familiar with Bergson, I'm not sure that the reverse is true. This kind of relates back to the first point, but from what I have read of Bergson he just doesn't put mathematics on the same level as primary experience. For him, ultimately, relativity is purely a theoretical explanation that cannot be physically true. Ultimately, that's probably his biggest mistake but given the amount of available evidence is understandable. Anyway, thanks as always for commenting Simos. We do need to catch up sometime.

@@MichaelGranado1 thanks for the reply tc and would love to catch up

Thanks for watching? 🤣

@@MichaelGranado1 didn’t… couldn’t get through 10 mins.. u need to join the light side brother ur on the dark side and you don’t know it that’s part of it. Graham is the light. He never says he’s right there just os a ton of obvious proof being the stonework and earthworks until you go around and visit these sites and listen to what people have to say not just read the wiki you will experience the reasons why the intuition the same sort of intuition Einstein was bashed for following only to be correct. Did you watch DeDunking videos?

I didn't make it through the whole thing. I watch mostly because I fundamentally disagree with them both. 🤣

Very well said. It is incredibly difficult to admit when you are wrong, and it is even more difficult to change positions on something that you feel is a Cornerstone of your identity, or something that you have invested years of intellectual activity into. I've been in that position before. It's typically a slow transition. Thanks for sharing your story!

Let’s be real anyone who thinks dr pounding stones Miano or sacred geometry decoded is a source of information is clearly out of their depth on the lost civilisation theory. There is a reason it’s been around for hundreds of years as the archaeological fairy tale for a lot of the megalithic sites is basically laughable. The guy who posted this video isn’t even aware of the multiple lies and miss representation of evidence made by flint dibble during the rogan debate. People need to educate themselves better before making farcical statements like dr pounding stones Miano is a source of correct information.

@@raina4732 the world of antiquity 😂 😂 you mean dr pounding stones the historian that can’t sites correctly. The sphinx video full of outright lies, aye that debunked the lost civilisation theory that’s been in existence for over 300 years. Out of your depth

Thanks for stopping by and leaving a positive comment! You articulated both of those points really well. Said the second point better than I could have. I couldn't agree more with that last sentence.

There's a lot of validity to what you're saying here, and on a basic level I would tend to agree. The only caveat I would add is that over the past 50 years or so archeology (and the academic Community as a whole) has gotten a lot better with this sort of thing. This is perhaps why they are so sensitive to it, maybe it's because they want Hancock to recognize the mistakes that they have made in the past? Anyway, thanks for the comment!

Thanks for stoping by!

🤣🤣🤣

This is the level of smug bullies that are Hancock fans.

@@raina4732 wtf are you talking about? On one hand he claims to be a student of the history of science, while at the same time ignoring that the scientific consensus is overturned time and again; that literally is the history of science.

​@edbop lmao it's overturned when there is proof that changes our perception and understanding. Your argument is simply that it must be true because it happens every so often. Please try a little harder

@@Lastofthefreenames Yeah and new evidence has been found, clovis first is no longer the consensus, but was just a few years ago; not to mention gobeki teppi. To suggest Dibble's argument has been made into a strawman just isn't true. Diddle misrepresented the science and in some cases outright lied. I haven't suggested anything is true; all i've said is that this guy doesn't seem to understand the history of science.

@@edbop Science works in conjunction with evidence. You can't push forward a new paradigm without evidence first. Even if ALL the archeologists and rogue guys suspect something to be true based on intuition, they can't change the story until they find evidence. Science is flexible because it opens as new evidence enters. Don't forget the the reason we know about Pre clovis and gobekli tepe is because of all the archeological work done by... archeologists.

Yeah, I tend to get that a lot when I make a video on Hancock!

I teach in the humanities. I don't know what you are talking about and I've never witnessed anything akin to what you are saying.

@@MichaelGranado1 What is a woman?

@@MichaelGranado1 The humanities have led western culture into this bizarre biological reality denial that is destabilizing civilization itself.

@@tomharris5661 I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but here is the wiki. Not sure if that's what your looking for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

@@MichaelGranado1 I thought you were a teacher, and you're pointing me to what is known to be one of if not the least reliable source? Wiki? Really? Why not just tell me what a woman is in your own words? Your dodging a simple question as a self-proclaimed teacher in the humanities illustrates the point I'm making precisely. Are there fundamental immutable human traits, and what does that mean for humans? Is that not what the humanities set out to explore?

I can see where you're coming from here, especially with the statement of wanting to attribute the sites to the correct group. I think that it is inherently important to get the historical details correct, that I think we could agree on. To clarify, the SAA letter is not saying that Hancock himself is racist, or even that the show itself is racist. It's a slightly different claim, which is that these ideas are very SIMILIAR two arguments in the past which have been used to discredit indigenous people and do dangerous things like take away their land. See for example the policies of Andrew Jackson, and the speech that he gave crediting the works of North American indigenous people to other sources. Hancock does not make Jackson's argument, and I think that he would fundamentally disagree with the sorts of arguments that people in the 19th century made about indigenous people. My primary issue is that Hancock doesn't seem to acknowledge how his ideas are similar, and doesn't spend any time separating himself from those ideas. Don't know if that makes sense, let me know.

Thanks for the kind words. Speaking to your point, and I can't speak for archaeologist because it is not my area, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that he is referencing archaeological sites. I think that they feel the need to engage on that level in order to combat the misinformation regarding those sites and to adequately represent their field. Also, to clarify, I wouldn't say that Hancock himself is dangerous. I do not think that he, personally, is promoting dangerous ideas. I think this is also what the SAA letter is pointing out. Rather, similar ideas to the one that he is saying has been used in pretty horrific/ dangerous ways. Don't know if that makes sense? Let me know.

In what sense are his questions valid? The questions that he asked about existing archaeological sites we already have answers for. I would not call what he's doing a theory, because within an academic context theories explain evidence. What evidence is Hancock explaining? All of his examples of evidence already have explanations, in theories which explain them.

Stop asking stupid questions then

@@MichaelGranado1point 1: hilarious that you named this video “Hancocks Strawman” and then proceed to strawman 😂 Point 2: I’m sorry when exactly have we excavated the Sahara? Or the Sunda shelf? Or Bimini? Or 70 percent of the Amazon? This is exactly why academics like yourself get correctly called out. The idea that all the sites or areas graham are talking about have been heavily researched and excavated already is flatly false. You’re either going out of your way to make “Logically Dubious” claims. Point 3: the valid questions he is asking are the same valid questions that archeologists and historians ask all the time. Namely Given that we definitely do not have all the information, records, artifacts going past call it 5000 years of human history, what can we glean from the information we do have in order to learn more about our collective past. Point 4: we do not even have substantial enough records or have not done enough archeological work to know exactly where battles that we KNOW happened took place 500 years ago. The idea that archeologists and historians have gathered enough data to absolutely refute the idea that human civilization goes back farther than what is currently accepted, is ridiculous. Historians and archeologists REGULARLY make the point that archeology is not an exact science, it takes a lot of theory crafting based on the small amount of artifacts or structures or quite frankly trash that are found in order to come up with a PLAUSIBLE idea of what any specific artifact or structure was even intended for. You cannot with any amount of credibility or credulity make the claim that we have gathered enough data to completely rule out the theory. Point 5: what are you counting as evidence? Geological records do not count? The fact that there are geologists, not one but multiple, who have actually gone to see the sphinx and agree that there are water erosion markers that do not match up with the currently accepted dating of the sphinx also I guess does not in any way count as evidence? Again this is just you being pedantic about what does and doesn’t qualify as evidence and by the way what has historically qualified as evidence within the field. You spent half the video explaining what a straw man is, then proceeded to strawman graham. Nasty work, at some point you guys are going to have to realize this whole “oh no we have degrees so we just know better than everyone” is not going to help the field. What would actually be helpful for all parties involved, would be to get the archeological work done in order to prove or disprove the claim. This is simply using wordplay to obfuscate the argument graham and a growing number of scientists in a number of different fields. Your style in the video, simply laughing off graham and continuously not using “evidence” or dealing with the theory being put forward, is quite literally you doing exactly what it says on the title. Bonus Point: you didn’t read the whole letter 😂😂😂 you cherry picked parts of it that don’t sound so terrible. Anyone who gets this far down please go watch dedunking’s video on the entire letter. The letter flatly states that graham himself promotes racial violence against minorities. Which is hilarious coming from a field, Archeology, which has a very long and well documented history of “discrediting the accomplishments of indigenous people” and “white washing their history”. I noticed, just like within the letter, you do not at any point actually explain what about grahams ideas specifically, not some amorphous idea of what has in the past has been done by people who are not graham, would make anyone who has followed his work believe that indigenous people are inferior. And you can’t, because NOWHERE in grahams work has he EVER proclaimed any belief in any kind of white supremacy. I’m black and Puerto Rican, are you really going to tell me that I can’t speak for myself, or that I need a field of science which has for longer than it hasn’t supported white supremacy, to tell me what racism is? I can promise you I don’t. Does flint dibble need to make sure that he explains that his thesis cites an open white supremacist? Apply the rules equally or stop with that nonsense, it’s beyond disrespect for the archeological community to weaponize racism in order to further a narrative. That is in it of itself racist, using native peoples to further narratives that they themselves have not espoused any belief in. Do better.

​@MichaelGranado1 oh well, if we already have explainations about things that happened 5000 years ago we better stop asking questions. Solid point. 10/10 combat an argument of ignorance with an argument from authority. Big brain stuff. We're all very impressed.

@@MichaelGranado1 point 1: you spent the entire video not actually dealing with any of grahams claims, you just used wordplay to obfuscate. You saying we have enough evidence to rule out the idea that human civilization is older than the accepted current date is at the least intellectually dishonest and at the worst you know that’s simply not true which makes it a lie. If archeologists are very happy saying we don’t even have enough evidence to know where the sea peoples came from, then how would it in any way be possible that they have enough evidence to say they know for a fact people were not building cities before a comet hit the planet? Point 2: if you’re going to make a video about strawmaning someone, maybe don’t straw man in that video. If you’re going to say graham is promoting racial violence or that the ideas he espouses promotes racial violence then you’re going to have to put roughly 50 percent of archeology as a whole in that same pot. Archeology is built on white supremacy, built on Europeans and people of European decent pillaging natives all over the world, and sticking native artifacts, up to and including bodies, in museums. I am black and Puerto Rican of Taino descent, I have yet to see anything in grahams work that espouses any level of white supremacy and it fact he makes the point regularly that he does not believe Europeans had anything to do with these lost civilizations. Again that’s just you being lazy and strawmaning. Point 3: it’s honestly pretty obvious you don’t have a direct background in archeology itself because you don’t at any point engage with the substance, you just spend the entire video making amorphous statements that maybe could apply to graham if you ignore anything he’s ever said. And this is exactly your average person do not trust appeals to authority. Because authorities regularly lie and obfuscate. A video like this only does more to prove the point. Notice you didn’t read anywhere near the whole letter, you just cherry picked a few statements from the letter. Anyone who is reading this, please go watch DeDunkings video breaking down the letter in full. Y’all need to do better, and you in particular as someone who talks about critical thinking, need to come up with a more feasible argument than, well we already know everything about that, when we literally do not. That is a lie, or it’s you being ignorant but I have to believe you know better.

I'm responding to what I believe are bad arguments, it's something I do on this channel. To says I'm doing it for a quick buck is funny to me. That would be nice.

@@MichaelGranado1 you’re riding the wave of graham Hancocks controversy for clicks/views I.e. money. Grifter activities

@@garrettsandini5358And Hancock is riding the wave of real archeologists. How many archeological digs has Graham volunteered on or donated to or funded in the specific areas he’s demanding people work on? With his millions from books sales and Netflix series, you’d expect him to at least have put some of his money where his mouth is. Nope. Zero. He’s very happy to keep selling books, giving “alternative” tours of sites archeologists have discovered. But actually get his hands dirty? Actually use his vast wealth and resources to fund the search for his lost civilization? No, not Graham. He’s “just asking questions” to make a Netflix series about how he just asks questions. He’s spend decades “just asking questions” and waiting for archeologists to uncover his lost civilization, and do all the hard for work him for free.

@@garrettsandini5358 Calling someone a grifter while defending Graham Hancock is the level of unawareness that I strive for in life.

@@benhazen1905 ignorance is bliss

@@likwidmocean brilliant take

1. I clearly listed out the two Strawmen that Hancock made in this interview. 1. Archaeologist reject him because he's popular and 2. Archaeologist reject him essentially because they are virtue signaling (these ideas are dangerous because they're racist). 2. I agree with this point to an extent, however I don't think that Hancock is operating within the context of the paradigm. As I stated in the video, the methodology that he uses is completely different. Einstein challenged the Paradigm of 19th century physics, but he did so using 19th century physics (non-euclidean geometry, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, in assumptions about the speed of light). I'm more than happy to change this position if you are able to give me an example from the history of science that supports your claim. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong. 3. It's a straw man on Hancock's part because he's not portraying their criticism as legitimate and acknowledging the historical basis for their claims. From the interview, the suggestion is that they are saying these things simply to get him shut down (virtue signaling), and not because similar arguments have been made with respect to Native American sites since the early 19th century and that these arguments have been used to justify the removal of land from indigenous people (within the context of US history). Thanks for the response, looking forward to your reply.

​@@MichaelGranado1 1. I dispute your interpretation of the statements. 1- A. The attention he receives from academics corresponds with his popularity and the resulting proliferation of his opinions. If he were unknown it would be moot, he's not, and that's root cause for the perceived need to refute him. Pointing at the obvious is not a strawman, it's level setting. Ignoring the obvious state of play contributes to the sense that this video is disingenuous. 1-B. The nature of the criticism leveled against him ie. that his claims are racist, may appear as virtue signaling to him. "Virtue signaling" is idiomatic for the use of cheap rhetorical tactics, the aspersion racist is often used in this manner. As a brief summary of the letter issued against him it seems rather appropriate. To me, it's simply a lazy attempt to paint with a broad brush and use a superficial similarity to attribute harm to his ideas, while misrepresenting those ideas to do so. Thus, I see validity in claims that it's a cheap rhetorical tactic rather than genuine criticism. 2-A. Hancock does not make claims to be an archeologist, and as such, expectations that he should be following their methodology, or operating in their paradigm have little merit. This is something he goes into at length, often while praising the efforts of archeologists. He cultivates a narrative he finds compelling based on his interpretation of evidence, a kin to Vico in a kind light, or Herodotus in an unkind light. 2-B. The comparison with physics is not appropriate. If the point of your statement is to establish that discovery must come from within the paradigm and methodology, I point at Galios, in an even more rigorous field, breaking with paradigms and rejecting established frameworks, and being correct. Mendel, Faraday, van Leeuwenhoek, Ramanujan, Wegener, Semmelweis, Zwicky, Alpher, Prusiner, Ampère can substituted to provide a gradient of involvement in existing paradigms and adherence to methodology. What is nearly uniform is the resistance they met from contemporary authorities. 3. Hancock is under no obligation to validate, or acknowledge, specious claims. Only a fool would justify attempts to find them guilty by association, when no association exists, by legitimizing that association via acknowledgement. That superficially similar ideas were used to cause harm has nothing to do with him. The idea that a person must not venture away from paradigm lest they shoulder the burden of anyone who has do so before, regardless of the dissimilarity in theory, is not only silly, it retards the pursuit of insight and discovery. Let's reduce to further absurdity: Semmelweis emphasized the value of cleanliness. Policy was made that populations of people were to be exterminated after being labeled as "dirty". Would Semmelweis be responsible for providing a scientific basis for that policy? Must every soap manufacturer acknowledge the potential for harm resulting from their advocacy for the benefits of cleanliness? Should society abandon study of sanitation because it has, and can be, used to justify harmful policy? Obviously not, it's absurd.

@@MichaelGranado1 dont make videos. delete your channel.