The Science and Philosophy Forum

This is a guy I want desperately to sympathise with yet his level of humility seems to be around zero. He makes relevant points about a so called “dogmatism” in archeology, but he NEVER mentions how wrong he was about so much and attaches everything he said decades ago with the phrase “I was saying this! Now there is evidence.”

It is like he dismisses the basic principles of archeology/science. That is not to theory craft and then dish for evidence to back up the claim. That said, it is worth The Scientist being more open to possible unrealistic interpretations in order to explore more alien ideas and to not so quickly dismiss outright ideas simply because current evidence doesn’t fit the deeply speculative theory.

Fro me Hancock does more harm than good for both positions - the skeptical theory crafter and the authority of the scientific method over wishful thinking.

Note: please don’t place this in “pseudoscience” even though Hancock is clearly a pseudoscientist.

i had to look him up as I had never heard of him. Sorry but I don't think he is worth the effort.

Forest_Dump » April 25th, 2019, 7:09 pm wrote:i had to look him up as I had never heard of him. Sorry but I don't think he is worth the effort.

Sadly he is quite populat and has the habit of going around with a dismissive attitude toward archaeologists. Basically he’s trying to sell books and has a big enough audience to do some damage to the field now (in the public eye that is).

There have always been people like that around andalways will be. Sometimes it is worth while to educate people about the bottom feeders if and when you can.