It's clear that Graham Hancock's theories are not well-substantiated. And anybody watching the documentary, will probably agree.
But he is doing something that archaeologists and historians are deeply afraid of. He is weaving a grand narrative of history, superficially supported by archaeological artifacts. And I believe that much of the criticism of him, is less because of his misunderstanding of historical artifacts, and more because he dares to weave this grand narrative.
If academic scholars dared to create a grand narrative of history and archaeology, I'm sure that they could do a much better job than Graham Hancock. But they don't. And so we are left to people like Hancock to fascinate us with the magic of the past and give meaning to the events that occurred.
I wouldn't call it a grand narrative of history. It is grandious and it is a narrative that holds the episodes together, but it isn't even beginning to narrate history because the narrative is explicitly speculative.
So, a narrative of grand speculative hypotheses bound together by deus ex machina.
In other news, reports of the Azores settled by 2000 BCE.
Dr. Félix Rodriguez: "The oldest dating we have is from 4200 years ago" in a recent BBC documentary. I never heard of the University of the Azores until today.
> It isn't that we "hate him" as he claims, it is simply that we strongly believe he is wrong.
Then please write up a dispassionate rebuttal citing published findings that dispute his claims. This piece is not that. It's mostly links to smug twitter posts and material that debunks really old "race science" that has nothing to do with Hancock's claims. The author claims scientists have "repeatedly addressed" Hancock's ideas, yet doesn't really provide that material. It feels super lazy and reactionary since most of the "refutation" is to other peoples' ideas not echoed by Hancock. I don't even care if Hancock is wrong or right and I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm smart enough to take his show at face value as a fun speculative "what if". Sorry, just not buying the white supremacy/race science angle here. Feels like the easy straw man attack.
Any time someone purporting to be a scientist includes references to "white supremacy" in their "argument" they can and should be dismissed and ignored.
Many of us lay-people strongly suspect that there was some sort of catastrophe around 12,000 BC. The disappearance of the Clovis people, the disappearance of the North American mega-fauna, the unequal sophistication of culture between the old and new world, point to something drastic that happened in North America. The clock was reset. Whatever happened, it affected Europe and Asia to a degree as well. The flood myths which many cultures seem to incorporate, points to something very profound. I look forward to future developments in this area.
Sitting back, reading the comments, and using '~>' to indicate a paraphrase.
This conversation seems to have gone like this:
Ancient Apocalypse ~> Archaeologists are lying/participating in a conspiracy of suppression
Archaeologists ~> _Ancient Apocalypse_ -- and therefore, Netflix -- is not only lying, but profiting from lying. These lies directly hurt science and scientists.
(Some) Hacker News ~> OK, fair, but you did not account for how fascinating and entertaining those lies are! Marketplace of ideas!
My take:
The extent to which the sociopolitical circumstances of the pandemic have incited otherwise-rational engineers to entertain conspiracy theories about vaccinations, masking, woke intellectuals and mind virii, 'mass formation psychosis,' etc. is disheartening.
One is reminded forcefully that while intelligence may be generalized, _talent_ is subject-matter-specific, and that good epistemology is, in fact, a talent, and one moreover that is always rare, especially when not selected for.
Let me put it for you another way.
Netflix -- the 'N' in FAANG -- is making money by willfully undermining belief in science and scientists at a particularly vulnerable moment for the civilization. *Our industry is doing something as bad as fracking, and we are not univocal and unequivocal in our repudiation.*
I concur with what you observe, with one caveat: I think this was true before COVID. It parallels the partisanship of American society, which has ramped up since (at least) the 1990s.
One might expect technologists to do better, but we've all noticed that scientists are actually not very good outside their discipline. Worse, they're bolstered by their success within the discipline, leading them to believe that their biases are based in fact and therefore their conclusions can be firmly held.
One other thing: Netflix is, in this aspect, not a tech company, but a movie distributor. It doesn't endorse its content; it just feeds the gaping maw of people seeking entertainment. It's not great that people will get the perception that a big, successful tech company is endorsing conspiracy theories, but I don't think they've ever considered whether content is good before making it available.
12 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 39.1 ms ] threadBut he is doing something that archaeologists and historians are deeply afraid of. He is weaving a grand narrative of history, superficially supported by archaeological artifacts. And I believe that much of the criticism of him, is less because of his misunderstanding of historical artifacts, and more because he dares to weave this grand narrative.
If academic scholars dared to create a grand narrative of history and archaeology, I'm sure that they could do a much better job than Graham Hancock. But they don't. And so we are left to people like Hancock to fascinate us with the magic of the past and give meaning to the events that occurred.
So, a narrative of grand speculative hypotheses bound together by deus ex machina.
In other news, reports of the Azores settled by 2000 BCE.
https://www.archaeology.org/news/10038-211006-azores-islands...
Very circular and super focused on Hancock's race, while acknowledging he doesn't even suggest these ideas.
I enjoy Hancock's narrative and it has some plausibility to it. The grand Canyon being a result of the fast melt of the glacier is interesting.
We do know the land mass was super different during the past ice age, which is pretty cool to imagine what that was like to live during
The implication is racist regardless of Hancock's argument, it's anthropological and philosophical more than archaeological.
You had me at "Netflix".
Then please write up a dispassionate rebuttal citing published findings that dispute his claims. This piece is not that. It's mostly links to smug twitter posts and material that debunks really old "race science" that has nothing to do with Hancock's claims. The author claims scientists have "repeatedly addressed" Hancock's ideas, yet doesn't really provide that material. It feels super lazy and reactionary since most of the "refutation" is to other peoples' ideas not echoed by Hancock. I don't even care if Hancock is wrong or right and I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm smart enough to take his show at face value as a fun speculative "what if". Sorry, just not buying the white supremacy/race science angle here. Feels like the easy straw man attack.
This conversation seems to have gone like this:
Ancient Apocalypse ~> Archaeologists are lying/participating in a conspiracy of suppression
Archaeologists ~> _Ancient Apocalypse_ -- and therefore, Netflix -- is not only lying, but profiting from lying. These lies directly hurt science and scientists.
(Some) Hacker News ~> OK, fair, but you did not account for how fascinating and entertaining those lies are! Marketplace of ideas!
My take:
The extent to which the sociopolitical circumstances of the pandemic have incited otherwise-rational engineers to entertain conspiracy theories about vaccinations, masking, woke intellectuals and mind virii, 'mass formation psychosis,' etc. is disheartening.
One is reminded forcefully that while intelligence may be generalized, _talent_ is subject-matter-specific, and that good epistemology is, in fact, a talent, and one moreover that is always rare, especially when not selected for.
Let me put it for you another way.
Netflix -- the 'N' in FAANG -- is making money by willfully undermining belief in science and scientists at a particularly vulnerable moment for the civilization. *Our industry is doing something as bad as fracking, and we are not univocal and unequivocal in our repudiation.*
One might expect technologists to do better, but we've all noticed that scientists are actually not very good outside their discipline. Worse, they're bolstered by their success within the discipline, leading them to believe that their biases are based in fact and therefore their conclusions can be firmly held.
One other thing: Netflix is, in this aspect, not a tech company, but a movie distributor. It doesn't endorse its content; it just feeds the gaping maw of people seeking entertainment. It's not great that people will get the perception that a big, successful tech company is endorsing conspiracy theories, but I don't think they've ever considered whether content is good before making it available.