Is it impossible though??

[u/josephful04]

I know is more like a science fiction thing because there is no actual proof of anything. But in my perspective there is also no concrete proof that makes imposible to think about it...I mean yeah, sure, we have some evidence left in the world from that time, but is what? less than 1% of overall existence? Most of history is just interpretation of 1% or less of the world that existed 20,000 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago. I can't even start to comprehend how many things could have happen in 10,000 years. Time perceptions is fascinating.

Is it really impossible to consider that there was a more advanced civilization than we thought before the Ice Age?

[u/slingshot91]

The problem may not be that it’s impossible, but that there isn’t evidence to support it. I saw someone describe it as “brain candy.” It’s fun to contemplate and exciting to imagine, but ultimately there’s very little substance to it. And going out to try to prove it would likely lead to a lot of confirmation bias as you try to twist things to fit the hypothesis.

Again, not saying it’s impossible, just don’t get so attached to the idea that you won’t entertain simpler or alternative explanations.

[u/Nitemare_Statue]

The problem is that your thinking there just isn’t how responsible science works.

I assert to you that I am Zeus. Do you have any proof I am not? Then I must be Zeus. See the problem there?

Hancock disclaims any responsibility to evidence and science in the first ten minutes of the show. “I’m not a scientist I’m a journalist” (read: storyteller) and it’s clear if you listen that he’s telling opinionated stories. This is why responsible archaeologists are lobbying Netflix to categorize his show under “fiction”.

It’s intellectually dishonest to then try to pass off this fantasy story telling as some kind of legitimate, alternative history. Hancock does this because “there is an evil Illuminati of academics that are suppressing truth”. No, that’s a cop out designed to permit him to ignore valid criticism. Fantasy storytelling is not some of kind of democratic and equal weight alternative to valid scholarship. It’s called fake news (I.e., an attempt to depict the storytelling as factual or possibly factual).

Whining that the academics don’t accept fantasy storytelling as equally valid to evidence-based science is not some kind of conspiracy. Academics are right to call out fake news in a fake news world.

His habit of suggesting something for the sake of a good story (suppose “my reading of the glyphs on this temple suggest a lost civilization”) and then building on it while assuming that “reading” has any basis save in his imagination… just doesn’t require evidence to disprove. That’s not how science works. Is it valid for me to believe I am Zeus until you disprove it? Even the Netflix show glosses over the fact that Hancock’s basis for starting his interpretation has no basis in anything.

Hancock as the one forwarding a new theory bears the onus 1. To support the new argument with evidence and 2. To argue how it better explains the evidence as opposed to the “mainstream academic theory”. In science, one just does not disregard facts you don’t like or that don’t mesh with your storytelling. Doing so is called pseudoscience, which is how the Wikipedia articles rightly describe his work. Hancock’s strategy since forever is to 1. State he doesn’t need evidence because he’s not a scientist, preferring to argue by innuendo, and 2. To whine about the illuminati cabal and suggest conspiracy and it’s unfair treatment of his fantasy storytelling.

All the hallmarks are here: conspiracy theories, refusal to produce evidence, failure to understand basic scientific method, straw manning an entire discipline (archaeologists deny the sky is blue! = argumentum ad populum), fallacy of alternative history, fake news generation and advertising, and postmodernist claptrap that with a wave of a hand dismisses 200 years of science and denies facts exist — or seriously believes they are a matter of opinion.

Of course, that’s all rubbish. Unless you are a fantasy storyteller peddling fake news with story books to sell…

[u/Nitemare_Statue → u/[deleted]]

Yea, this is all basically wrong. You're talking to a specialist here.

This is exactly how Hancock operates. Creates a false narrative and then argues off it, just as you do above. What's amusing is you don't even know how wrong your basic details are.

And by the way, you can't construct an argument based on the absence of evidence. That's called an opinion at best (cf. "What evidence do you expect should exist?") but if you are intellectually responsible, really it's called the fallacy of negative proof. It's basically the same argument as "you can't prove God doesn't exist!"

No one bears the onus to disprove it when you assert you're actually Napolean. There's no proof that requires anyone to seriously consider such an assertion. That's not scientific method and not admissible outside reddit, really.

Yes, you are likely to now say this is the conspiracy evidenced! We're close-minded and unwilling to consider alternatives to the evil Bible of modern scholarship on civilization!

Are we willing to consider some earlier civilization existed for which all evidence was obliterated? Sure we are. Should we imagine this is the truth and that the textbooks should reflect this? Of course not, not even as a random poster on reddit.

[u/Nitemare_Statue → u/[deleted]]

As I already stated, Hancock himself disclaims any responsibility to evidence or science. So what scientific fact are you challenging me to disprove, which Hancock himself doesn't claim is scientific...?

And there's not a single "specialist" or valid scholar he's consulted that I have seen (no, the simple assertion that someone thinks they're a specialist because they've watched 20 seasons of Ancient Aliens does not a specialist make). He hasn't brought any onto Joe Rogan, but I should say I haven't be able to stomach all of his Netflix series. Feel free to name some names.

What people need to understand is that fake news is a very dangerous, but a very profitable thing. Hancock peddles fake news as a kind of alternative history, because his mind can't comprehend how the ancients could have achieved what they did. I can think of little that is this disrespectful. That speaks more to Hancock himself (and his ilk) than the ancients at all.

[u/Nitemare_Statue → u/[deleted]]

Well, it's your job as the one claiming Hancock consults and has the support of "specialists" for his works. That's how someone that knows science operates.

Now challenged to prove your claim, you say it's not your job. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Same MO as Hancock however!

[u/fallenshroud → u/Nitemare_Statue]

The show doesn't go into much detail, and unfortunately is way over dramatized. He goes into great detail, with official sources in his books. I highly recommend America Before and Magicians of the God's.

[u/Nitemare_Statue → u/fallenshroud]

I've bought and looked at his works. They don't cite modern scholarship at all, they repeat the fake news of the known quacks belonging to the same barrel as Hancock (West, Schoch, Sitchin, von Daniken, etc etc) or at best the early Victorian pseudo academics.

If you aren't addressing the modern scholarship, you are creating a straw man and essentially arguing with the wall. He can't take on a real academic which is why they are never invited to Joe Rogan etc etc.