You're viewing part of a thread.
Very good explanation, and I respect your point of view.
Even with that in hand, scientists can still be sometimes too precious. Being the official and truth holder of all things can also keep gifted amateurs out of the running. I'm not anti-science, I'm a fan. There is a long history of professionals jealousy guarding a patch that is not necessarily always ethical.
Anyway, that is the exception.
"According to Hancock, the ancient pyramid Gunung Padang in Indonesia and the ruins of Nan Madol in Micronesia were both built by an “advanced civilization” more than 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. However, present-day Pohnpeians say their oral histories passed down through generations describe the city of Nan Madol as being built by their ancestors beginning around 1,000 years ago – a timeline supported by historians and archaeologists.
Professor Patrick Nunn, who specializes in researching Pacific geography and archaeology at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Hancock’s theories about who built Nan Madol strip Indigenous peoples of their rich histories and can be traced to “racist philosophies” and “white supremacist” ideologies of the 19th century."
So criticise Hancock's theories. Nobody is saying that archeologists can't do that scientifically.
What I'm suggesting is that acting all butthurt when confronted with alternate theories and banning amateurs from entering the field is akin to protecting the priesthood.
Once again, not defending Hancock's ideas, but I'm being critical of science's reaction to them. Anyway, you guys are not very adroit in doing so. We are about to start watching the third season and he's using your actions to fuel the fire.
Nobody is banning amateurs or being butthurt when confronted with alternative theories that make sense in any way, shape or form. His so called theories make zero sense, have no evidence and investing all that time and effort debunking for free, when he is actively being paid to produce that bullshit, is something that most people don't have the time or resources to do.
And such disinformation butchers critical thinking, but it is great to produce revenue for Netflix and himself, so since he is financially motivated not to change course or even acknowledge his bullshit views, then he can not be considered as a valid source of theories.
Sounds like a whole lot of butthurt to me?
Science isn't perfect either, a fact which scientists tend to push under the rug.
I'm an old fart, so I can remember the great scientific scare campaign of the 1970. Global cooling. It didn't come from the great unwashed masses either, it can from professional researchers in white coats and worried brows. They got it wrong, and contributed to the beginnings of scientific distrust we have today.
Spare me the whole diatribe about intellectual fraud. You guys need to get your act together and communicate better rather than just sit in the friggin clouds and tut tut against the hoi polloi.
Yeah, I am done engaging with you, you are either trolling for a reaction, or literally unable to understand what I am saying, so cheers.
If that sounds like "a whole lot of butthurt" to you, I am certainly glad I don't need to engage with you.
As you like.
I would say that you continue to litigate a point that I never made in the first place. I have no opinion about the rights or wrongs of Hancock's theories/claims. My entire point - my only point - is that if he is making entertainment, so what? Not allowing him to film in national parks because it offends science is wrong on so many levels.
Lastly, I didn't ask you to chime in, so I'm not bothered if you beg off. See ya!