@@collegesandcannibals241 A non sequitor is an inference that does not follow from the premises; it is a fallacy. I think what is bieng done here is explaining the fallacies.... Fallacies are not self-explanatory, otherwise you would have a point.
Im 12 minutes in and wow. The condescending attitude you guys have is unbearable. Actually cant listen further. Especially the American guy. An insufferable condescending diva. Have some self reflection. In the end, you're doing exactly what hes doing. Taking a bunch of facts about these sites and then making a conclusion. Sure perhaps his conclusions might be wrong, fine. But you're embodying the exact attitide he criticises archeologists for. You would have a lot more interest in the work youre doing and conclusions youre coming to if you adopted some humility and grace. Is any of the actual scientific facts wrong? Then correct those. Are his conclusions misguided ? Offer the othadox one and explain why its more likely. Its an opportunity to teach people, but instead you guys act like obnoxious assholes. Go look at how Ed Barnhart (featured in the episode) critiques Graham. Its a masterclass, and actually got me genuinly more interested in the subject.
Our society has a terrible misunderstanding that "freedom of speech" means "all opinions are valid and deserve respect." In this show, Hancock is still promoting the same ideas he was in 1995, which were criticized and rejected before any of us started our careers. Those ideas are in turn a rehash of hundred-year-old ideas, which were rejected by archaeologists in their own time. How can science progress if we're expected to waste our time re-litigating wrong ideas over and over, when we already know they have no scientific merit? We do assess the archaeological claims in the show, and we give credit where it's deserved. But science is based on criticism, and if Hancock (or his fanboys) can't handle it, then unfortunately they will not earn the respect of the scientific community.
This is an interesting comment in that it shows part of the reason Hancock is so popular and this was brought up in the episode. He is a good speaker, he is a good presenter and he speaks with an accent that makes him sound like an intellectual. Meanwhile the trained archaeologists come across as condescending and the American accent comes across the worst of the lot. We need people like Hancock actually telling the story of archaeology, he could be a great ally to the archaeological community if he had only used his skills to find out truth and not push his agenda.
I don't know which is funnier/sadder - the fact that so many qualified archaeologists are interested in/so bothered by GH's views that they feel the need to argue with/respond to them, or the fact that you are doing so purely to make money off the back of his pseudoarchology....which I think kind of makes you no better than the person you're criticising. You could be using your time and energy to do something more interesting and valuable instead of arguing over a bit of fluffy entertainment.
Heads up, one of Hancock's acolytes--DeDunking--made a video about this episode of your podcast. So if you getting a few more cranks than usual, that's why.
interesting. I don't like much of Graham Hancock ideas. Listening to professional scholars in this video. I have to decide who has a good argument. Lets do that using only video: I didn't watch Graham's video. I'm only going by what is said here. at 22:30 Graham said the calendar feels out of place. First heard you say this. Suggests this type of calendar feels out of place from this culture. Not that they didn't need a calendar. The oldest known calendar that I'm aware of is watching the big or little dipper traveling around our current poll star. They used other star bodies before that such as Deneb head of the northern cross. can look at the season very easy.
I fell under Graham Hancock's spell years ago! I watched his talks and his lengthy Joe Rogan interviews. He really entertained me. I'm glad that more archeologists and historians are coming out and pointing out his flaws in thinking and theorizing
As an evolutionary biologist, Hancock reminds of Michael Behe and the other hucksters of the intelligent design crowd. Similar to these hucksters, Hancock doesn't want his bumpkin to go through the scientific process, including testing his ideas against evidence and analysis: the whole scientific peer-review process. What he wants is to bypass all that and display his noise as fact. But all he offers is another god of the gap's argument, that is not falsifiable, and worse yet it is confuses the public. And if archeologists don't accept his pseudoscientific nonsense, then he attacks them with straw man fallacies and syllogisms. He should be selling pencils from a cup on a street corner instead of the platform that he currently has. But I guess book sales and podcasts outweigh peer-reviewed evidence and the scientific process as a whole.
@@campfirefootball You mean the one where he suggested that there evidence of a civilization on Mars? Or the one where he referred to the Mayans as "jungle-dwelling indians" who weren't capable of building what they did?
intelligent design also believes in evolution. At least the ones I know. They believe DUF1220 gene deletion 1q21.1 suppresses brain growth in humans. 12 nucleotides precisely are formed at a periodic resonator of Phi. Phi on a graph looks like a saw tooth action suggesting evolution takes place at a specific time every cycle. Find this through a report by Dr Perez Golden ratio and Klein bottle Logophysics. Though very few believe in "out of Africa" which I agree with them. Out of Africa is none sense. The missing link was Chromosome 2 telomeres fused while leaving telomeres in the displacement. P53 genes job is to kill genes that misfold like this
Good chat, i enjoyed it a lot and it's filled in some blanks in my 'knowledge'. I have a hardback copy of Fingerprints in a box somewhere, it may even be signed. I read it the year I started uni and then completely forgot about it. I guess I got brainwashed while getting my degree. The one thing that kinda stayed with me was GH's take on Antarctica. When I became aware of Ancient Apocalypse I paid it a bit of attention but I've never once heard his take on the crust-shifting episode that doomed Atlantis to become cold icy Antarctica. Has he dropped this from his ouvre? Also did he talk about Orion a lot back then? An awful lot?
Yes he has quietly abandonned Charles Hapgood's "Crustal Displacement Theory" in favour of the more trendy "Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis". And yes, he has been a proponent of the "Orion Correlation Theory"; his Wikipedia page has a whole section on it! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock#Orion_correlation_theory
Yep! He could be bringing genuine archaeology to the masses if he wanted to, but instead he throws our incredible history into the bin and sells snake-oil to an audience eager to be lied to. 😓
Unfortunately editing video takes 4-5 times longer than editing audio. We all have careers and this is a side hobby for us. If you want video, like and subscribe and spread the word, because we'd need to be able to monetize and hire an editor before we could pivot to video.
You're right re views, but it's perfect for me because I can listen while driving like I would with a podcast. So, that's one vote in the audio-only column, he he.
"Let us ignore these non-sequiturs by discussing them for over two hours and then uploading them to RUclips".
Who said anything about ignoring the non-sequiturs? Criticizing the non-sequiturs was the whole point
@screensofthestoneage By definition, non-sequiturs require no criticism.
@@collegesandcannibals241 A non sequitor is an inference that does not follow from the premises; it is a fallacy. I think what is bieng done here is explaining the fallacies.... Fallacies are not self-explanatory, otherwise you would have a point.
@@collegesandcannibals241 sounds to me like you're missing some important information. For example, an understanding of what a non sequitur is.
Im 12 minutes in and wow. The condescending attitude you guys have is unbearable. Actually cant listen further.
Especially the American guy. An insufferable condescending diva. Have some self reflection.
In the end, you're doing exactly what hes doing. Taking a bunch of facts about these sites and then making a conclusion. Sure perhaps his conclusions might be wrong, fine. But you're embodying the exact attitide he criticises archeologists for. You would have a lot more interest in the work youre doing and conclusions youre coming to if you adopted some humility and grace.
Is any of the actual scientific facts wrong? Then correct those. Are his conclusions misguided ? Offer the othadox one and explain why its more likely. Its an opportunity to teach people, but instead you guys act like obnoxious assholes.
Go look at how Ed Barnhart (featured in the episode) critiques Graham. Its a masterclass, and actually got me genuinly more interested in the subject.
Our society has a terrible misunderstanding that "freedom of speech" means "all opinions are valid and deserve respect." In this show, Hancock is still promoting the same ideas he was in 1995, which were criticized and rejected before any of us started our careers. Those ideas are in turn a rehash of hundred-year-old ideas, which were rejected by archaeologists in their own time. How can science progress if we're expected to waste our time re-litigating wrong ideas over and over, when we already know they have no scientific merit? We do assess the archaeological claims in the show, and we give credit where it's deserved. But science is based on criticism, and if Hancock (or his fanboys) can't handle it, then unfortunately they will not earn the respect of the scientific community.
Can’t believe you call me an “insufferable condescending deva.” I am very sufferable.
@@KinkellaTeachesArchaeology He said you acted like a diva, you wish you were a deva.
@@KinkellaTeachesArchaeology 🤣
This is an interesting comment in that it shows part of the reason Hancock is so popular and this was brought up in the episode. He is a good speaker, he is a good presenter and he speaks with an accent that makes him sound like an intellectual. Meanwhile the trained archaeologists come across as condescending and the American accent comes across the worst of the lot. We need people like Hancock actually telling the story of archaeology, he could be a great ally to the archaeological community if he had only used his skills to find out truth and not push his agenda.
I don't know which is funnier/sadder - the fact that so many qualified archaeologists are interested in/so bothered by GH's views that they feel the need to argue with/respond to them, or the fact that you are doing so purely to make money off the back of his pseudoarchology....which I think kind of makes you no better than the person you're criticising. You could be using your time and energy to do something more interesting and valuable instead of arguing over a bit of fluffy entertainment.
lol you think we make money
@@screensofthestoneage ?
Ah yes Historical fanfiction 😅
But on the upside, I have some great new Archy’s to follow on the socials now! 🎉
Thanks for another great episode! I'm so glad you've hosted Dr. Kinkella for this particular topic-he adds a lot of valuable insight! 😊
Heads up, one of Hancock's acolytes--DeDunking--made a video about this episode of your podcast. So if you getting a few more cranks than usual, that's why.
Yup, I figured that out quick. I'm surprised he gave so much attention to our tiny little channel, but I'll take it!
interesting. I don't like much of Graham Hancock ideas. Listening to professional scholars in this video. I have to decide who has a good argument.
Lets do that using only video:
I didn't watch Graham's video. I'm only going by what is said here.
at 22:30 Graham said the calendar feels out of place. First heard you say this. Suggests this type of calendar feels out of place from this culture. Not that they didn't need a calendar.
The oldest known calendar that I'm aware of is watching the big or little dipper traveling around our current poll star. They used other star bodies before that such as Deneb head of the northern cross. can look at the season very easy.
I fell under Graham Hancock's spell years ago! I watched his talks and his lengthy Joe Rogan interviews. He really entertained me. I'm glad that more archeologists and historians are coming out and pointing out his flaws in thinking and theorizing
Hey guys, i'm curious about your opinion about the unchartedx "precision" vases, is the "rock attached to a stick" a valid hypothesis?
Dr. David Miano has a really thorough video on this: ruclips.net/video/Wcl82hQr8xc/видео.html
As an evolutionary biologist, Hancock reminds of Michael Behe and the other hucksters of the intelligent design crowd. Similar to these hucksters, Hancock doesn't want his bumpkin to go through the scientific process, including testing his ideas against evidence and analysis: the whole scientific peer-review process. What he wants is to bypass all that and display his noise as fact. But all he offers is another god of the gap's argument, that is not falsifiable, and worse yet it is confuses the public. And if archeologists don't accept his pseudoscientific nonsense, then he attacks them with straw man fallacies and syllogisms. He should be selling pencils from a cup on a street corner instead of the platform that he currently has. But I guess book sales and podcasts outweigh peer-reviewed evidence and the scientific process as a whole.
Have you ever read any of Hancock's work?
@@campfirefootball You mean the one where he suggested that there evidence of a civilization on Mars? Or the one where he referred to the Mayans as "jungle-dwelling indians" who weren't capable of building what they did?
intelligent design also believes in evolution.
At least the ones I know. They believe DUF1220 gene deletion 1q21.1 suppresses brain growth in humans. 12 nucleotides precisely are formed at a periodic resonator of Phi. Phi on a graph looks like a saw tooth action suggesting evolution takes place at a specific time every cycle. Find this through a report by Dr Perez
Golden ratio and Klein bottle Logophysics.
Though very few believe in "out of Africa" which I agree with them. Out of Africa is none sense. The missing link was Chromosome 2 telomeres fused while leaving telomeres in the displacement. P53 genes job is to kill genes that misfold like this
Good chat, i enjoyed it a lot and it's filled in some blanks in my 'knowledge'. I have a hardback copy of Fingerprints in a box somewhere, it may even be signed. I read it the year I started uni and then completely forgot about it. I guess I got brainwashed while getting my degree. The one thing that kinda stayed with me was GH's take on Antarctica. When I became aware of Ancient Apocalypse I paid it a bit of attention but I've never once heard his take on the crust-shifting episode that doomed Atlantis to become cold icy Antarctica. Has he dropped this from his ouvre? Also did he talk about Orion a lot back then? An awful lot?
Yes he has quietly abandonned Charles Hapgood's "Crustal Displacement Theory" in favour of the more trendy "Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis". And yes, he has been a proponent of the "Orion Correlation Theory"; his Wikipedia page has a whole section on it! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock#Orion_correlation_theory
Yep! He could be bringing genuine archaeology to the masses if he wanted to, but instead he throws our incredible history into the bin and sells snake-oil to an audience eager to be lied to. 😓
Fascinating channel.
Unfortunately, the reality is that this show would get more views were you all to be on camera.
Unfortunately editing video takes 4-5 times longer than editing audio. We all have careers and this is a side hobby for us. If you want video, like and subscribe and spread the word, because we'd need to be able to monetize and hire an editor before we could pivot to video.
You're right re views, but it's perfect for me because I can listen while driving like I would with a podcast. So, that's one vote in the audio-only column, he he.