The Good, the Bad & the Ironically Ugly... | Dibble/ Hancock Review Comments Follow Up
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2024
- Following a recent episode of Unstratified Entertainment, I have some thoughts about the quality and nature of the comments on our review of Joe Rogan Experience # 2136 - Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble:
• Joe Rogan Experience #...
***
Fighting Fire with Fire? Archaeologists Review the Flint Dibble vs. Graham Hancock Debate:
• Fighting Fire with Fir...
***
NB: As is often the case, to avoid being accountable, some of these folks have commented so that they appear in my 'comments' tab, but deleted them before I can reply.
One comment was deleted by me as it contained abusive language which was not welcome in the broader conversation.
Civil comments and criticism always remain on 'Soup comments sections.
***
#grahamhancock #flintdibble #joerogan
Support us on Patreon:
/ archaeosoup
NB: A refinement of the question as to why is it that Neil DeGrasse Tyson Is repeatedly able to go on to the Joe Rogan podcast without the need to debate the validity of his field.
Archaeology holds fundamental, perceived, direct ancestral relevance and implications for all parts of society. Whereas Neil can talk about time dilation, light cones, gravity and the scale of the universe in a way that doesn't change the listener or Joe's sense of self!
To put it another way, Joe and his audience do not feel qualified to query the fundamental basis of DeGrasse Tyson's expertise. Tyson isn't potentially implicating their (real or imagined) family, lineage or ancestry in a grand narrative that relates to social constructs, power, identity and ultimately nationhood. 🤔
From reading comments I think that NDT is seen negatively and people don't like him for showing how little Joe knows about topics, problems in his thinking and lying about his height. That crowd doesn't like science generally and they just usually agree with Joe
NDT is not well liked among JRE fans in general because he comes off as a massive Narcissist. In general, the fans liked the episode, but thought Dibble's clear slander of Hancock in articles was bullshit and his attempt to separate himself from it instead of just owning that he 100% said heinous garbage was absolute cowardice. THAT was where the genuine flame came from. stepping back, the majority of people thought Dibble's evidence was welcomed and interesting, but it still didn't push the conversation forward because it still boiled down to "Well you can't prove that and I think it's something else" from both of them. Frankly, Dibble's arguments outside of Agriculture were fair but weakly defended - not surprising, as Agriculture is his expertise. I really wish the debate was EXCLUSIVE to agriculture because Dibble didn't have the depth of knowledge in, honestly, the random-ass photos ala world tour Hancock was showing. Had Dibble talked about corn out the chute, I think the conversation would've been far more interesting; I wanted 30 more minutes about cultivation and brain development, societies, whatever.
Calling someone a Nazi though, is totally unacceptable and antisemitic because it dilutes real Nazi atrocities. Dibble absolutely and purposefully attempted to associate Hancock with White Supremacy and Naziism in an attempt to quite literally get him cancelled (get the show airing cancelled). His comments would be equal to Egyptologists claiming Tina Gharavi's "Queen Cleopatra" Docuseries is dangerous due to Tina's theories being known calls to action for the Crips and The Black Panthers and perpetuates an underlying hatred for White people. They didn't do that, instead they debunked her claims and left her alone.
Dibble and Co's response to Hancock's Netflix series is indefensible and abhorrent; bordering on lawsuit-worthy. They should be admonished for the lack of decorum and THAT and exclusively that, is what I and many others, disliked about Dibble's presentation on JRE.
Hancock was instantly extremely aggressive in his approach to the conversation; it very much felt like a Gonzo assault of 10,000 photos and a cop shining a light in Dibble's face, asking how he can explain them. I didn't like it, it came off very douchey. Furthermore, while Dibble basically saying, "No, that doesn't look man-made." is a crappy defense (again, those things weren't his expertise), it actually made Hancock's claims look extremely flimsy because for the most part he'd just guffaw and have no retort better than, "Does TOO!" I remember saying aloud to myself, "Fuck dude, don't you bother at least TRYING to steel man?" In this regard, I can absolutely understand why he would anger researchers: Cryptozoologist give better due diligence. He looked completely stupid; he gave shoddy evidence and had next to zero corroboration in said evidence - it felt like he just tried throwing as much random stuff from all over the world as he could at Dibble when, if his case is genuinely solid, he should have laid out a preponderance of evidence from a single region and then shown global evidence as "potentially related due to similarities" to suggest that 1:A civ definitely existed HERE. and 2:This same civ might have been at xyz locale.
At the end of the day, I think it was a terrible episode. Both of them came unprepared for each other and out of their depth to what each other had to say. Both of them acted like complete children, and Dibble DEFINITELY said disgusting crap online; Hancock may have as well but it didn't come up. Overall, I don't want either men back on the show and while Graham is Joe's friend; they are friends because Joe was/is interested in the subject. I have the distinct feeling Joe values Graham as a source significantly less after that utterly pathetic showing. I don't expect either of them on JRE again and I'm all for it: both men should be utterly ashamed of their behavior in front of millions of people, representing their field. If I were either of them, I'd issue a formal apology to the Scientific Community.
Joe has delisted episodes, as well as not aired episodes. I think he made a mistake airing this one.
@@joshuaperry4112 You don't like Joe being challenged and don't question his thoughts. It's ironic how Joe hated echo chambers and said he believed in science. When he said Handcock was his his first serious guest made me concerned for the JRE echo chamber.
To not see Handcock as arrogant and just hypocritical is amazing, never mind his ridiculous theories he tricked Joe into believing.
Joe's logic and abilities to hold a decent conversation are as great as his stand up comedy. People bash shob but all those guys are horrible.
Joe talks bad about Epstein while being friends with, Delia, Callen, Diaz etc
Oh but he is, they just don't realise it.
>" grand narrative that relates to social constructs, power, identity"
Oh, boy, the obligatory left-wing buzzword Bingo. You missed "systemic", "heteronormative" and "marginalized", so you win no award, but you remain in good standing with left-wing establishment academia.
dude she 100% had an agenda, she's an activist.
I clicked on this thinking it was a guy telling me how to make booze out of Monster energy and chocolate chip cookies. I was Pleasantly surprised. Love this kind of work. Archeology doesn't do enough to stop the nonsense because the nonsense is easy to understand
I honestly don't remember much about the interview, but I know opinions vary about those types of interactions. I'm just surprised that so many of your subscribers believe Hancock's stuff. I read a lot of Graham Hancock when I was in college; at first I was intrigued but eventually realized it didn't fit with reality. His "theories" were just sensationalism based on scattershot cherry-picked observations that didn't have any kind of consistency, and he had insufficient (to say the least) evidence for his grandiose claims. And as far as I'm aware he doesn't have a huge following among archaeologists, the people who are kinda familiar with this stuff (no brown-nosing intended). I didn't expect this to be so controversial. The subject has been exhaustively dealt with.
Edit: I used the word "subscribers," that may not be correct.
Thank you for having Kara Cooney on that discussion. I found her refreshing.
Whatever is to be said about the discourse between academia and private researchers, anyone that judges people on their looks, accent, stature, clothes etc. has no interest in the truth, they are just reacting to basic fear responses that all humans get when we see a characteristic that's outside the cultural norm.
It's built into our biology and culture to react this way and take sides and mock the opposition, and it's up to individuals to counteract that impulse using intelligence and consideration.
time for a trim chief
I Think where archeologists lose alot of people on the Giza/ Pyramids discussion is just the sheer engineering of it. Anyone who has spent more than an hour working on site or with any kind of heavy work pieces/pipes/ blocks anything can tell you these things were not made how we were told, just in seconds of looking at the things. Yet they seem so dug in and desperate for the narrative to remain even with the clear impossibility of it. Just how an archeologist can probably instantly tell the difference between somethings antiquity or not. Along with the work Christopher Dunn is putting out its pretty safe to say precision machining was in place at Giza a long long time before we ever thought any type of work of this magnitude was possible. I would not quite go so far as Hancock to where they're levitating 500 tonne blocks with sound waves. One thing is for sure though it was definitely not done with rope pulleys and copper tools. Precision as precise as found in Gaza also does not come around for ceremonial reasons its a byproduct of functionality. If a civilization can erect such monoliths as the great pyramids and all surrounding "Temples" where even greater acts of precision are found in large statues, their society has to be in an advanced state by default.
your NDT example is just dumb because everyone knows that guys a HUGE HACK who's banked his entire life off the achievements of his mentor
Yet his actual contributions to science eclipse anything Hancock contributed to archeology because any number eclipses zero.
I found the discussion very interesting although at times infuriating because I think the three of you didn’t really give flint enough credit for going into the Lions den and playing by their rules and still winning over Joe, getting Graham to make some damning admissions and in general being well received on a very foreign platform. I do completely agree about how women get unfairly judged but also that doesn’t mean Flint isn’t allowed to be the one. He did the work to be the one and he did it. Joe and Hancock were never going to be females because they were preexisting entertainment figures. I think the conversation hasn’t to be taken as being done by the people who did it. They were 3 men. Ok. That’s how it shook out. Would it have been better with a mix of men and women or all women, well who knows it would have been different and it would have depended on how knowledgeable and entertaining the different people were. If you want to improve your political show by having a woman you’ll have very different results if you add Michelle Obama or Marjorie Taylor Green or Hillary Clinton or Oprah. Was Flint the right person to go on the podcast? I think he did a fine job so was a fine choice. Was he perfect? No. Could anyone have been perfect? Probably not but we’ll never know.
A criticism of flint was he should have been going after Hancock’s ideology not his ideas. I don’t think flint could have done this. That is what Hancock claims that archeologists always do. “They try to dismiss me as some sort of psudoarcheoligist and refuse to look at my ideas”. This was the response to that. Hancock and Joe’s fan base were expecting flint to dodge answering Hancock’s questions but instead he went at them head on sometimes to his own detriment. But if flint had tried to dismiss things based on “you’re only doing this cos of your own ideology” that would have come across as dismissing evidence because Hancock is exposing Archeology.
Archaeology is hard and boring and disjointed. It's not even clear if it's a science or humanities. It's a subject that is easy to be hijacked by theorists that equate their theory as being level with an actual archaeologist's theory because the product of the theory is given more public focus than the evidence and moreso the investigative framework that builds from the evidence to the product. And wacky stuff is just more interesting.
There is also a culture war element. Anti intellectualism and a rejection of anything that appears to 'pander' to modern sensibilities e.g pluralistic genders and *gasp* rejecting the really poor practice of sexing skeletons by grave goods (both a slight tangent from your points but I'm reminded of Alice Roberts' recent-ish pop-archaeology books which touch on both points and would be ordinarily uncontroversial but for the political climate - and both endorsed by Neil Oliver lol).
I don't have an answer other than focussing on the interesting and novel elements of the field and slyly squeezing in the science.
Absolutely. Interesting observations.
For me, this podcast came along at the same time I've been asking big questions of myself and 'public archaeology'. I do have plans to return to interviews, site visits, artefact show cases and trivia exploration/ connections between ideas...
But the context of all of that, as you describe, has been of crucial interest to me and I suspect I'm not done thinking about it.
@@Archaeos0up it's no job for one person! For all the archaeology on TV at the moment there hasn't been a breakthrough definitive educational TV programme or host or author. I used the Alice Roberts stuff as an example as it's the closest mainstream introduction into archaeology. Everything else book wise is dumbed down or descriptive or moderately complex or more complex. Even Gamble's Archaeology: the basics is a relatively dense theory book. I suppose Bahn's Archaeology book captures something in the middle but it's relatively pricey.
Where is the Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould or Feynman or Chown for archaeology? I.e. content creators for the average level reader. Short themed essays that can be anthologised may be the access point?
But is that a misdirection? Is the 'problem' for accessibility innate. Science and logic is all good and well but it's essentially the exploration of the human story through objects and through incremental discovery and study. So the inevitable missing pieces mixed with interpretation are what brings us back to the charlatans getting their foot in the door. There is also then a foundational incompleteness that we don't have for, say, physics. We can have some fringe interpretations of theoretical physics but the basics of practical physics aren't seriously in issue. Post processual archaeology is fundamentally interpretative and theoretical. I don't dislike post processual archaeology, because I don't think we're doing proper archaeology if archaeology is just the study of artifacts and not ultimately a storytelling discipline.
Anyway, you'd think I was going somewhere with this ...
Who decides what theory is the better theory? What do you mean hijacked? You are kind of the problem. You are coming from this point of "THIS iS THE TRUTH" and anyone that questions your truth is now "hijacking" your truth. There are literal instances of archeologists dating something and then the "authorities" saying "couldnt be, that doesnt match with our timeline".
I don’t know whether I have misread Alice Roberts on this but regarding mirrors and swords as Iron Age grave goods I’m pretty sure only one sex identification was wrong (I am happy to be corrected, if I am wrong). It is a reasonable hypothesis in the absence of other data to consider things in that way. What was interesting, however, was the relationship between women and chariots which showed you can talk about gender roles that aren’t classically conservative (women as leaders even in war) without resorting to tedious wokery. I suspect she is more on the objective side of the argument than you might think.
@@AllotmentFox I see I might have disconnected my points. Alice Roberts is pretty objective in Buried and Ancestors. The objective points she makes might be considered wokery in the climate of people saying 'you can't change the sex of your skeleton'. The mention of Neil Oliver was really just the irony of him praising her book when he does take a more 'this is wokery' stance these days.
As to the sexing on grave goods, I don't remember the exact way it was said, in whichever of those two books in which it was said, but I do remember that it was said. I am sure you are right if it said that there was one example of this testing proving mis-sexing. But it's not a new issue that she's raised but one that has gone on for years. Unless we go back and check it all out then we just don't know how many we're mis-sexed. The guardian has an article with a few examples 'archaeologies sexual revolution' 2022. It might be a good rule of thumb to use grave goods but it gets a bit haphazard to assume male on the nature of the grave goods and then apply that rule over and over again (although they suspect we're less likely to do that these days).
Beneath it all it is a battle between left and right. I would say a pox on both your houses but I regret to say you archaeologists with your precious professional status and wokery are mostly right about the past and therefore I sadly have to stand shoulder to shoulder with you at least until we have seen the purveyors of poppycock off. You do know your emphasis on professionalism alienates us amateurs don't you?
Professionalism only as a byword for standards of best practice and evidence based research. I'm all for open access and working across the board with the public and the interested. That's what my career is all about.
I don't like elitism.
Though professionalism within the profession... It's important. So too are volunteers and interested amateur research!
I do slightly roll my eyes at your use of the word 'wokery' however, it's a problem that folks perceive perfomativism and policing.
One more thought : Both your houses?
I'm not concerned about left and right. I'm concerned about observable reality and how it can inform us about the past and ourselves.
I have no clue about Hancock's politics and I don't particularly care.
Nothing wrong with being an amateur, but being an amateur doesn’t mean ignoring the scientific process
@@Archaeos0up The SAA letter to Netflix about Hancock deployed standard left-wing insults (r- ism, x - phobia, white s- y etc etc). Today, in the US, these terms are deployed basically by default, by any leftist disagreeing with anything. Did you know that knitting, math and classical music (yes) have been branded r- ist, too, by left-wing activists? No, I'm not kidding, search for it. Deploying cheap lefty agit-prop tactics in what should be a scientific debate is cringy and makes it hard to take the rest of the speaker points seriously. Following Netflix' Cleopatra (played by a b- woman) a woke Dutch museum created an exhibit linking Egypt to Af-Americans, heavily implying that pharaohs were sub-Saharan black (false, except for one invading dynasty), for the same left-wing ideological reasons. Oddly, SAA did not write a letter to Netflix informing Netflix that Cleopatra wasn't a b - woman. On BBC, British queens, Vikings are now played by b - actors without any academic pushback at all (too scared to speak up). Do you per chance detect a certain selective, ideological bias in how academics react to history-oriented popular content? I certainly do. I'm in the same boat as OP. I want cranks debunked but I have no interest in associating with academic wokism, either. The hard-line wokism in modern academia begins to border on quasi-theocracy, the way religious dogmas ruled medieval universities.
@Archaeos0up The SAA letter to Netflix about Hancock deployed standard lefty insults (r. ism, x. ph, w s. y etc etc) (my strange spelling explained below). Today, in the US, they're deployed by default by any leftist disagreeing with anything. Did you know that knitting, math and classical music have been branded r. ist, too, by left-wing activists? I'm not kidding, search for it. Deploying cheap lefty agit-prop insults in a scientific debate is cringy and makes it hard to take the speaker seriously. Following Netflix' Cleopatra (played by a b woman) a woke Dutch museum created an exhibit linking Egypt to b people, implying ancient Egyptians were sub-Sah b (false, except for one invading dynasty), for the same left-wing ideological reasons. Oddly, SAA did not correct Netflix that Cleopatra wasn't a b woman. On BBC, British queens, Vikings are now played by b actors, with no academic pushback, as academics are too scared to speak up against left-wing narratives. Do you detect this selective bias in how academics object to historical misinfo? I do. I'm in the same boat as OP. I want cranks debunked but I have no interest in associating with wokism, either. In modern academia, this wokism borders on quasi-theocracy, the way religious dogmas ruled medieval universities.
PS: I have to use odd spelling, otherwise the YT algo would just delete this post, as it removes any post on certain topics unless it meets left-wing criteria. Of course, you don't see this censorship, since your views are on the "correct " ideological side :) In theocratic terms, censorship used to be called "Imprimatur" :) Funny how history repeats itself. :)