User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:03:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214]
I'm an hour into it and it's a fun watch. Flint Dibble seems like an internet troll more so than an archaeologist. His counter to Graham is just "no, you're wrong" way too often and he refuses to consider alternatives.
 Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:11:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Does he at least go into detail as to why he feels the other guy is wrong with counter-details/information, or is it just "You're dumb. Nah nah nah not listening to you more" kind of crap?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:28:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gone_are_the_days]
[#2]
You can tell he is a serious archeologist because he has the correct hat. /sarcasm
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:09:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gone_are_the_days: You can tell he is a serious archeologist because he has the correct hat. /sarcasm  I was waiting for that observation. (Dr. Jones...)
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 9:02:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: Does he at least go into detail as to why he feels the other guy is wrong with counter-details/information, or is it just "You're dumb. Nah nah nah not listening to you more" kind of crap? He laughs before most of his responses to Graham and keeps defaulting to "we've only found evidence of Hunter/gatherers" and "we don't NEED more evidence to know there wasn't an advanced civilization" when pressed. Graham questions him about all the areas that haven't been excavated and he just repeats "but we've searched X areas a lot!" It wasn't a very genuine debate on the part of the archaeologist. He came into it convinced he's right and all of Graham's ideas are batshit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:13:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By erazor55: I was waiting for that observation. (Dr. Jones...)He's missing the bullwhip so he's a total fraud 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:15:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: He laughs before most of his responses to Graham and keeps defaulting to "we've only found evidence of Hunter/gatherers" and "we don't NEED more evidence to know there wasn't an advanced civilization" when pressed. Graham questions him about all the areas that haven't been excavated and he just repeats "but we've searched X areas a lot!" It wasn't a very genuine debate on the part of the archaeologist. He came into it convinced he's right and all of Graham's ideas are batshit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By brass: Does he at least go into detail as to why he feels the other guy is wrong with counter-details/information, or is it just "You're dumb. Nah nah nah not listening to you more" kind of crap? He laughs before most of his responses to Graham and keeps defaulting to "we've only found evidence of Hunter/gatherers" and "we don't NEED more evidence to know there wasn't an advanced civilization" when pressed. Graham questions him about all the areas that haven't been excavated and he just repeats "but we've searched X areas a lot!" It wasn't a very genuine debate on the part of the archaeologist. He came into it convinced he's right and all of Graham's ideas are batshit. I sound like a broken record at this point, but that's the problem with archaeology as a discipline, and a large reason I quit (besides shitty pay and fact the only stuff I was ever going to work on was boring). New ideas are NOT allowed. They just aren't. For over a century, academics/professors built entire careers on their own ideas and interpretations of site/cultures/whatever, and to question that is heresy of the highest order. They taught their grad students, who then taught theirs, and so on. The people alive today are mired in the dogma of decades ago, and have staked THEIR professional reputations and often their very jobs on being "right." When you speak out with something contradictory and/or new, you threaten that foundation, and you get ignored, lose your funding, won't be published or taken seriously, and will either toe the line, leave the field, or be labeled "fringe" and a "whackjob." Change DOES occur, it's just at a glacial pace. An example is the continuous pushing back of the settlement date of the Americas. When I was in college, even suggesting a date over, say, 14,000YA or so was literally laughed at. It's taken decades and piles of substantial evidence to change those ideas, and it's still not "official" in some people's minds. This is no different. The dude in the hat is the literal embodiment of this problem. |
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:45:02 PM EDT
[#7]
I have about 1 hour and 3 minutes left to finish the episode. Flint Dibble specializes in agricultural archeology, so part of the problem with this "debate" is Dibble isn't willing to get into the details of fields outside his specialty. Where I'm at in the episode, they are getting into agricultural archeology, which is Dibble's expertise, and he's providing much more substantive information that refutes Hancock's lost civilization theory.
It seems Dibble's overall point is that there is a lack of evidence/no evidence to support Hancock's conclusion of this lost world-wide civilization. Hancock's counter argument is that there are extremely large areas across the globe that have not been searched, so you can't rule out the existence of this civilization. Dibble's response is that of the areas they have searched/excavated, they have not found evidence supporting a lost world-wide civilization, and if such a civilization existed then they would have found evidence for it by now. So far it has been interesting to listen to, although I both Hancock and Dibble to be frustrating/annoying to listen to during certain parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:53:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FriskyDillo: I have about 1 hour and 3 minutes left to finish the episode. Flint Dibble specializes in agricultural archeology, so part of the problem with this "debate" is Dibble isn't willing to get into the details of fields outside his specialty. Where I'm at in the episode, they are getting into agricultural archeology, which is Dibble's expertise, and he's providing much more substantive information that refutes Hancock's lost civilization theory. It seems Dibble's overall point is that there is a lack of evidence/no evidence to support Hancock's conclusion of this lost world-wide civilization. Hancock's counter argument is that there are extremely large areas across the globe that have not been searched, so you can't rule out the existence of this civilization. Dibble's response is that of the areas they have searched/excavated, they have not found evidence supporting a lost world-wide civilization, and if such a civilization existed then they would have found evidence for it by now. So far it has been interesting to listen to, although I both Hancock and Dibble to be frustrating/annoying to listen to during certain parts. I get that Dibble is an "evidence-based archaeologist", but he's refusing to consider any evidence that doesn't fit the mainstream dogma. He has the mindset of "if that evidence was legit, it would already be accepted" so his argument is circular. Basically, his whole debate is built on "any evidence that's questionable isn't evidence but my evidence that's questionable is legitimate because it's widely accepted as true." His constant laughing at every one of Graham's statements was obnoxious and shows he wasn't there for a legitimate debate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 3:32:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brass]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kagetora: I sound like a broken record at this point, but that's the problem with archaeology as a discipline, and a large reason I quit (besides shitty pay and fact the only stuff I was ever going to work on was boring). New ideas are NOT allowed. They just aren't. For over a century, academics/professors built entire careers on their own ideas and interpretations of site/cultures/whatever, and to question that is heresy of the highest order. They taught their grad students, who then taught theirs, and so on. The people alive today are mired in the dogma of decades ago, and have staked THEIR professional reputations and often their very jobs on being "right." When you speak out with something contradictory and/or new, you threaten that foundation, and you get ignored, lose your funding, won't be published or taken seriously, and will either toe the line, leave the field, or be labeled "fringe" and a "whackjob." Change DOES occur, it's just at a glacial pace. An example is the continuous pushing back of the settlement date of the Americas. When I was in college, even suggesting a date over, say, 14,000YA or so was literally laughed at. It's taken decades and piles of substantial evidence to change those ideas, and it's still not "official" in some people's minds. This is no different. The dude in the hat is the literal embodiment of this problem. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By brass: Does he at least go into detail as to why he feels the other guy is wrong with counter-details/information, or is it just "You're dumb. Nah nah nah not listening to you more" kind of crap? He laughs before most of his responses to Graham and keeps defaulting to "we've only found evidence of Hunter/gatherers" and "we don't NEED more evidence to know there wasn't an advanced civilization" when pressed. Graham questions him about all the areas that haven't been excavated and he just repeats "but we've searched X areas a lot!" It wasn't a very genuine debate on the part of the archaeologist. He came into it convinced he's right and all of Graham's ideas are batshit. I sound like a broken record at this point, but that's the problem with archaeology as a discipline, and a large reason I quit (besides shitty pay and fact the only stuff I was ever going to work on was boring). New ideas are NOT allowed. They just aren't. For over a century, academics/professors built entire careers on their own ideas and interpretations of site/cultures/whatever, and to question that is heresy of the highest order. They taught their grad students, who then taught theirs, and so on. The people alive today are mired in the dogma of decades ago, and have staked THEIR professional reputations and often their very jobs on being "right." When you speak out with something contradictory and/or new, you threaten that foundation, and you get ignored, lose your funding, won't be published or taken seriously, and will either toe the line, leave the field, or be labeled "fringe" and a "whackjob." Change DOES occur, it's just at a glacial pace. An example is the continuous pushing back of the settlement date of the Americas. When I was in college, even suggesting a date over, say, 14,000YA or so was literally laughed at. It's taken decades and piles of substantial evidence to change those ideas, and it's still not "official" in some people's minds. This is no different. The dude in the hat is the literal embodiment of this problem. That's what all the pseudo-science followers say! Labels. When they throw labels at you to pigeonhole something it's "para-" or "pseudo-" and then laughed at rather than actually discussed. Kind of like 2015 whenever Trump was brought up, they'd laugh like that possibility was impossible and a joke. They even denied it after the election. Mocking and fear of labeling is a widely used manipulation/misleading technique from politics to archaeology to UFOs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:28:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kagetora]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brass: That's what all the pseudo-science followers say! Labels. When they throw labels at you to pigeonhole something it's "para-" or "pseudo-" and then laughed at rather than actually discussed. Kind of like 2015 whenever Trump was brought up, they'd laugh like that possibility was impossible and a joke. They even denied it after the election. Mocking and fear of labeling is a widely used manipulation/misleading technique from politics to archaeology to UFOs. Well, to be fair, proof is required to change the paradigm. The reason we've pushed back the peopling of the Americas to 23,000YA or so now is because we've found proof of such. 35 years ago, that notion was labeled as crazy. Graham Hancock has very interesting ideas, he just usually takes them too far. He also always has a convenient "out." If, at the end of the Younger Dryas, there was an advanced coastal civilization that was wiped out, he can posit or theorize anything he wants to simply because you can never actually find proof. It's all under hundreds of feet of ocean and has been for 15,000 years. It's gone. Anything left over is circumstantial and speculation. It's one thing to have a situation as in Turkey with the out-of-timeline sites like Gobekli Tepe and others, that could have been a local phenomenon. It's another thing entirely, and extremely speculative, to say what Hancock says. Still, it's far from impossible, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I wish certain branches of science could keep a much more open mind to new or potentially challenging ideas. They just...don't. And being casually dismissive of such ideas is nothing even approaching science, it's just regurgitating dogma at that point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:00:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaGoose: Cross posting from the GD thread. List of all of the papers that I could find copies of online. May have missed some. Really? I doubt that. But, on a more serious note...could you throttle down your argument a bit? What, exactly, are you trying to tell the average reader here? 99.9% of them aren't going to thumb through those links to glean your meaning. Not trying to be a dick here, but...tighten up the argument a bit. I see a wall of click(bait?) like that and just ignore it, except for this response. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:00:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kagetora]
[#13]
>Double Tap erase<
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:09:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DaGoose]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kagetora: Really? I doubt that. But, on a more serious note...could you throttle down your argument a bit? What, exactly, are you trying to tell the average reader here? 99.9% of them aren't going to thumb through those links to glean your meaning. Not trying to be a dick here, but...tighten up the argument a bit. I see a wall of click(bait?) like that and just ignore it, except for this response. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By DaGoose: Cross posting from the GD thread. List of all of the papers that I could find copies of online. May have missed some. Really? I doubt that. But, on a more serious note...could you throttle down your argument a bit? What, exactly, are you trying to tell the average reader here? 99.9% of them aren't going to thumb through those links to glean your meaning. Not trying to be a dick here, but...tighten up the argument a bit. I see a wall of click(bait?) like that and just ignore it, except for this response. Don't have an argument for or against. Was posting the links to the papers that both sides displayed during the discussion, so that if you were interested in the content, you could go to the actual papers and make a decision yourself. If you aren't interested in the actual papers, then ignore it and scroll on by. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:43:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaGoose: Don't have an argument for or against. Was posting the links to the papers that both sides displayed during the discussion, so that if you were interested in the content, you could go to the actual papers and make a decision yourself. If you aren't interested in the actual papers, then ignore it and scroll on by. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaGoose: Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By DaGoose: Cross posting from the GD thread. List of all of the papers that I could find copies of online. May have missed some. Really? I doubt that. But, on a more serious note...could you throttle down your argument a bit? What, exactly, are you trying to tell the average reader here? 99.9% of them aren't going to thumb through those links to glean your meaning. Not trying to be a dick here, but...tighten up the argument a bit. I see a wall of click(bait?) like that and just ignore it, except for this response. Don't have an argument for or against. Was posting the links to the papers that both sides displayed during the discussion, so that if you were interested in the content, you could go to the actual papers and make a decision yourself. If you aren't interested in the actual papers, then ignore it and scroll on by. Fair enough. I asked because most of the time people are presenting a position or arguing, and I couldn't suss yours out.
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:30:26 PM EDT
[#17]
*soy voice* "noooooooooo Graham "
listened to it, good on em for being civil iguess |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
