Great excerpt, really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this. The whole podcast Lex Fridman did is really good. I think if archaeologists pushing back against Graham Hancock et al are missing one thing (at least in some cases), is getting straight to the 'you're wrong and here's why' part, and missing the 'yes, this is a really interesting thing you've noticed, I can see why that might look strange or odd or anomalous to you, I can see why you might think that rock looks like it's been melted, or why you would wonder how on earth they could move such huge stones' from there you can move on to the 'and this is how we think they did it, I was amazed when I learned this'. Just being able to share in the amazement, curosity and wonder first and using that as a segue to the 'can I tell you what we think it is' part would work wonders for the defensiveness on the part of some alt-history types, as well as satisfy the clear need for 'civility'. People at least want to hear that their wonder/awe/curiosity is understood, and also don't want to be made out to be an idiot for having these impressions. I think a lot of people in the alt-history space love the mystery. They love the sense of awe and wonder it inspires in them, and so ideas like Hancock's, which explain little and just bring more questions, is so appealing. To explain how Egyptians moved massive stones in some ways deflates the baloon a bit. It's a kill-joy move, even if it's correct. That's one of the barriers that has to be got past/around/climbed over when communicating about this. How to retain that sense of excitement or at least not be seen to ruin the fun.
20 years ago people like gram would be laughed off the face of the earth a la psychics and mindreaders, what a time to be alive its like progress is going backwards
20 years ago he was cranking on about NASA hiding evidence of Egyptians on mars because he swore he could see pyramids and a Sphinx in a photo when he squinted his eyes at it for a while. And how dare NASA not take him seriously.
Communication is indeed key. Most of us aren't even aware of what the scientific method is (8:10), what conditions need to be met, etc. Hence it basically gets reduced to a debate. It's as if everyone could say "Oh I have this theory about ..." and as long as it sounds convincing and you have some arguments to go along with it, it becomes true. Off topic: even the word theory has a different meaning when used in science or our daily language. Try having a debate when it's considered "just a theory".
In the continuous process of sorting information from naked assertions and conjecture there isn't time to disprove nonsense point by point so broader assessments of credibility are handy for keeping one's attention from drifting towards the incredible whether through intrigue or disgust. Knowing a thing and wanting to prove it to someone who refuses that knowledge for any reason is a frustrating position from which to be gracious.
Everyone is far too kind and respectful towards Graham. He is a crank and a grifter. Maybe he started out as misguided but there is no excuse for his nonsense at this point. The amount of time that has been wasted on his whole cloth fantasy is a crime against archaeology and society, a pox upon his house.
I think you need to consider whether you care about getting the truth to as many people as possible or just about being right and feeling superior. I don't see how personal attacks and disrespect do anything to convince people who disagree with you, all it does is signal to the people who already agree with you how much you disagree with Hancock and drives away the people who believe in his ideas. It achieves nothing of value in any sense.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem is when you're still chugging the metaphorical white lightning at 74.
Looking forward to the whole discussion. Wonderful discourse here.
It's available now over Dane's channel. Link is in the video description 😀
Great excerpt, really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this. The whole podcast Lex Fridman did is really good.
I think if archaeologists pushing back against Graham Hancock et al are missing one thing (at least in some cases), is getting straight to the 'you're wrong and here's why' part, and missing the 'yes, this is a really interesting thing you've noticed, I can see why that might look strange or odd or anomalous to you, I can see why you might think that rock looks like it's been melted, or why you would wonder how on earth they could move such huge stones' from there you can move on to the 'and this is how we think they did it, I was amazed when I learned this'.
Just being able to share in the amazement, curosity and wonder first and using that as a segue to the 'can I tell you what we think it is' part would work wonders for the defensiveness on the part of some alt-history types, as well as satisfy the clear need for 'civility'. People at least want to hear that their wonder/awe/curiosity is understood, and also don't want to be made out to be an idiot for having these impressions.
I think a lot of people in the alt-history space love the mystery. They love the sense of awe and wonder it inspires in them, and so ideas like Hancock's, which explain little and just bring more questions, is so appealing. To explain how Egyptians moved massive stones in some ways deflates the baloon a bit. It's a kill-joy move, even if it's correct. That's one of the barriers that has to be got past/around/climbed over when communicating about this. How to retain that sense of excitement or at least not be seen to ruin the fun.
20 years ago people like gram would be laughed off the face of the earth a la psychics and mindreaders, what a time to be alive its like progress is going backwards
20 years ago he was cranking on about NASA hiding evidence of Egyptians on mars because he swore he could see pyramids and a Sphinx in a photo when he squinted his eyes at it for a while. And how dare NASA not take him seriously.
Communication is indeed key. Most of us aren't even aware of what the scientific method is (8:10), what conditions need to be met, etc. Hence it basically gets reduced to a debate. It's as if everyone could say "Oh I have this theory about ..." and as long as it sounds convincing and you have some arguments to go along with it, it becomes true.
Off topic: even the word theory has a different meaning when used in science or our daily language. Try having a debate when it's considered "just a theory".
Yes! Theory as hypothesis, and hypothesis as something to be proven, not tested.
👍
In the continuous process of sorting information from naked assertions and conjecture there isn't time to disprove nonsense point by point so broader assessments of credibility are handy for keeping one's attention from drifting towards the incredible whether through intrigue or disgust.
Knowing a thing and wanting to prove it to someone who refuses that knowledge for any reason is a frustrating position from which to be gracious.
I'd rather bathe in White Lightning than watch his show.
Thanks for letting us know Michelle !
Please bath in white lighting for the rest of your days.
Free us from the blight of your existence !
Everyone is far too kind and respectful towards Graham. He is a crank and a grifter. Maybe he started out as misguided but there is no excuse for his nonsense at this point. The amount of time that has been wasted on his whole cloth fantasy is a crime against archaeology and society, a pox upon his house.
I think you need to consider whether you care about getting the truth to as many people as possible or just about being right and feeling superior.
I don't see how personal attacks and disrespect do anything to convince people who disagree with you, all it does is signal to the people who already agree with you how much you disagree with Hancock and drives away the people who believe in his ideas. It achieves nothing of value in any sense.