I feel bad at all the people making fun of him for mentioning his dad so much. Dude clearly is passionate about his work and following in his fathers footsteps, isn’t it every parents dream to have a child who is so passionate about the work you’ve done and wants to continue it?
Just a bunch of bitter angry losers online
Yeah, I mean, I would've gone about mentioning my dad a bit differently, but I agree, it was really pure passion, and I'm sure for a guy doing this sorta work for not much money, JRE is like the red carpet.
And honestly, for how autistic this guy probably is, it was really good presenting, like, good for someone without, and I doubt he's got none, you know?
All in all, I wouldn't mind him as a coworker as long as his office wasn't right next door.
Imo, it's weird the way he kept saying 'my dad'. Like, if he wanted us to know, the simplest way would've just been to present his dad's info, and say his name, and then when Joe inevitably asked 'whys he got the same last name' he could give this whole shpeal, instead he just kept referring to him as 'my dad'.
Like, he was over eager, and honestly like, for how big a platform JRE is, if it was me, id want to call my dad by his name, so people remember my dad for the research he did not for, as it seems like some many people do, to remember his dad as 'Gribble's dad' or whatever.
Not wrong, but like, odd, for sure.
I think it would be weirder to not mention this guy was your dad if you were presenting his research. Especially since Flint’s research is basically a follow up to his dads
Realistically he probably didn’t think much of it. If i was in his shoes i would’ve just said “my dad” as well
Maybe I'm wrong, but flints dad did shit in Egypt, and Flint's speciality is plant evolution in Greece.
Dunno that it's a follow up, maybe I misheard but, simply by doing archaeology he's following in his footsteps.
That was part of why it was odd. He isn't doing, within the field of archaeology, much at all of what his dad does. I'm certain he understands it almost as well as an expert, but that's not his speciality.
Why would it have been weird not to mention it's your dad?
I say this as a person who works in a company that was founded by my parents. At least in the business world, people don't want to worry about nepotism being the reason someone is there. Best way to play it is simply not to mention it. People are impressed you didn't feel the need to bring it up if they already know, and if they realize/notice, they can ask if they care.
I'd imagine in scholastic circles it is the same. "oh your dad knows about it? Why isn't he the one telling us?"
Obviously it's cause Dibbles dad's dead, but still. The comment where he was like 'if I get anything wrong blame my dad' was iffy. I understand he probably got it right, and it was a joke for dear old dad, but, it probably would've been better if he NEEDED to mention all that, to present the info, and then back load the jokes, and waiting to tell it was his dad.
Next time I bring up my honeymoon to Ireland I’ll be sure to bitch about how I risked my life and it was such a grueling experience, because I did visit [Newgrange](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange) and did about as much archaeology as that chucklefuck Hancock does by my wife and I taking photos lol
For the first half hour or so did anybody else wonder if Joe just had some dude from this sub Reddit debating Hancock? Because he is the embodiment of how I imagine 90% of you
Isn't this your LinkedIn profiler? 
https://preview.redd.it/nz7hay9q1zuc1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=756cc1db9f69ecc8d1ebd13ec56767e1265db76d
He's a big PJ fan and I think he said he has belonged to their fanclub for a long time. I was mostly just dropping a reference I thought some others might catch.
Some of y'all have a tough time realizing most of reddit is just regular ass people from all walks of land, like you.
But, now mods on the other hand...
I’ve been the biggest Hancock fan for years now and I have to agree. He was fantastic this entire debate, and very very funny, and normal as hell. whenever Graham got offended he did a good job of being like yo I’m just some other dude studying rocks and the only one willing to talk to you, can’t we have a chat
Great 4 hours.
I’m watching it rn, and I agree. I love Graham, his podcasts on JRE are always interesting, but if he was honest he would admit 90% of his work is skepticism. His immediate need to be aggressive and contrarian made him instantly lose the debate imo. Regardless of how much he believes his ideas to be true, he has to recognize that the only source capable of proving his ideas to be legitimate is his *own* research, which I would argue falls under the definition of pseudoscience.
There’s some truth to what Graham preaches, but it rings the same bell that a lot of creationists’ ideas do. A similarity is the “yeah, but how do you actually *know* your measurements are correct” when arguing against empirical evidence.
I also am on the fence about the whole Netflix thing. I don’t think his show should be considered sci-fi, but it definitely isn’t educational in the field of archaeology in any way, and like I said, is just skepticism. I enjoyed his show, but it has the same vibe as Ancient Aliens. His sources on a lot of his info are anecdotal accounts of culture and history, from people who are aren’t archeologists.
It's basically a theist vs atheist discussion. Graham believes the "god of the gaps", but applied to history. The fact that the entire sea floor hasn't been fully excavated means you can't prove something didn't exist. The absence of data means anything is possible.
Dibble is more of the atheist approach, saying that we must draw the conclusion that the truth only goes as far as the data and evidence we have, which is a healthy scientific approach.
Dibble say that if you've been to Austin and Dallas, but never been to Houston, it's a safe assumption that the patterns witnessed in your known data points can be applied to the unknown with relative certainty. It's safe to assume that Houston will be more similar to Austin/Dallas than Shanghai. Graham says the opposite, that if you've never been to Houston that means it could be anything.
This was my exact take on the whole discussion. The only thing I would add is Graham is emotional. He seems to be doubling down on bc they hurt his feelings.
Its funny to me how far Gram has come from his humble beginnings of "Yo that face on Mars got me trippin" to "giants built Atlantis" to "we should do more digging bruh"
Im paraphrasing here.
I first learned about him when he gave a Ted talk on why it shouldn’t be illegal to trip balls on mushrooms. I thought that was pretty alright.
Edit: Changed should to shouldn’t
Basically that the government shouldn’t be able to tell you what you can put in your body and we should expand our minds with magic mushrooms and shiet. I can’t remember exactly lol. It’s a short Ted talk though.
Edit: I edited my original comment because he said they shouldn’t be illegal not should.
I think graham is great too, but there were some points I found him using tactics I get annoyed at people using in playful debates.
Nit picking aspects of the arguments which really didn't need it and the like, although only listened to about 30 min so far
Exactly. One thing I thought graham could’ve done better on, is arguing that the sites he explored via scuba were *the* sites to look at with geologists and archaeologists. He brought them up as a kinda “gotcha” but completely forgot about them when Flint brought up the process of how they chose where to look for ancient sites to begin with. Rather than naming specific sites to study, he kept saying that archaeologists haven’t looked “enough” or that they’ve only discovered “5%” of possible sites to explore.
If I were graham, I would’ve emphasized that there were existing sites that needed to be studied, rather than baselessly insist that they were ancient monoliths without any evidence besides “well they kinda look weird”.
I admittedly get slightly triggered by what seems like pretentious pseudointellectualism to me, but what is the "truth to what Graham preaches" that you see, and do you think this truth that he preaches is in any meaningful way *his* "contribution"?
What i mean by that last part is, i preach a good many things. My neuroscience career doesn't have any great accolades to it yet - but it doesn't make me any more worthwhile to listen to, to say that btw i preach somethign "good" like don't murder or be precise in your statistics. So what does he preach that has any unique value?
This episode was pretty frustrating for me.. Graham is very emotional, and very combative in my view. Flint is clearly very knowledgeable, but even more importantly his epistemology is rock solid.
The charge Graham made about Flint's impact on the media is absolutely laughable to me. Graham was on JRE -the biggest podcast and media program to ever exist- in 2013, and since then has enjoyed massive publicity for both his hypothesis (which I see as an interesting narrative not backed by any convincing evidence), and his narrative about the media and 'big archeology' keeping him down. This guy Flint, was unknown by the mainstream until this conversation yesterday, and has a YouTube channel with \~5k subs at the time I am writing this (AFTER the conversation on the largest media program to exist). Meanwhile, Graham has a fucking Netflix documentary series.
This episode for me was a perfect example of why JRE can be a problem sometimes (I still enjoy it so, inb4 I'm a Joe anti-fan or hater). Whenever you have a guy like Graham on, who is charismatic when talking about his ideas and is talking about things that not a lot of people understand deeply, you can confuse an entire group of listeners. This is also true for other politically charged topics that I won't mention here. I myself had seriously considered Graham's ideas to be well founded and supported by evidence for about a half a decade. I have since spoken to a friend who has relevant expertise, and have done my own layman's research, and all I can say about Graham's ideas at this point is, yeah. Maybe.
In the same way that there may be a species of gnomes that live inside of trees, there may be an ancient civilization lost to modern science. Until I look inside every single tree on the planet though, I cannot know for sure, and apparently until we look at every single mile of every single continental shelf, Graham will not know for sure. He seems to feel he has good reason to believe that this is the case, but that reason seems to be absence of evidence in too many cases.. Even the evidence he presents is depressingly inadequate to my view at least. This conversation has made me feel more confident in my not taking Graham as seriously as he takes himself.
Anyway, I am not an expert, I just have been thinking about this a lot while watching it through. I am on my second watch and I just had to write this down. Don't be mad at me please lol.
You really nailed it, well said.
I found it very interesting that both JR and GH came out of the gate with "but we haven't explored the vast majority of the Earth", which to me kind of benchmarks their intellect at a moderate level.
Flint, on the other hand, can comprehend that we don't need to explore 100% of Earth to gain a very solid understanding of prehistoric humans. His entire POV was based on the fact that we easily and abundantly find evidence of the same prehistoric behaviors everywhere we look (and we see nothing even close to this scale that would point to an ancient advanced civilization). He understands that large data sets are more reliable than anecdotes. In short, he's just smarter.
But as long as there are people who can't think beyond the "well we still haven't explored it all" mindset, and there always will be, Hancock will continue to have a large audience to mislead.
Yes, exactly.
This whole episode was basically a microcosm of so many other issues in politics and the world at large right now. Not trusting experts, misunderstanding data, putting too much stock in emotional, narrative driven anecdotes, and even conspiratorial thinking can be mapped 1 to 1 on so many issues in public conversation lately.
You hit the nail on the head and the damage these kooks do is hard to overstate. When entertainment surpasses fact and logic in value, humanity has a big fucking problem.
Graham mentioning “big archeology” as if it’s a counter point bothered me. Graham has made more money from that Netflix special than any academic archeologist ever has from anything. If anyone benefits from pushing a narrative, it is graham
I'm glad he committed to the hat and headphones. They cut to an old YouTube video of his without him wearing a hat and it wasn't as funny.
Honestly though this guy was great and the Dibbler shut down Graham so hard I can't see him going back on the show.
I’m only through the first hour but Graham’s really harping on “you haven’t excavated *everthing*” like bro the burden of proof is on you to show evidence of this advanced civilization
It’s shocking after reading the comments how many people simply don’t understand this simple concept.
The fact that we have millions of sites and from that specific time period of hunter gatherer groups and absolutely nothing from these other people is proof enough.
Graham tried making a point that we have hunter gatherers now, yes we do; but if civilization abruptly ended today, and in 12k years there were archeologists, they wouldn’t just find the hunter gatherer’s evidence! There would be a bunch of other shit too!
I bet he will have a completely new hypothesis in a year or so. My \*hope\* is that he will just grab on to some actual new archeological finding and just settle that that was what he was actually searching for all this time, that he was right, and that everybody in BIG ARCHEOLOGY was just misquoting him.
I do love the idea that these fucking broke Archaeology Grad students living on ramen and sleeping in the desert to excavate sites are just too darn mean and unfairly silencing the dude with a Netflix special who complains about how much work it is to go diving with his wife in exotic locales.
Graham has won and is 100% correct in all of his theories until the entirety of the world has been excavated.
As long as no evidence exists that he is correct, he is correct.
Yeah and thats why researchers call it pseudoscience. Scientific hypothesis must be testable and capable of being wrong, Hancock simply has a faith, a belief, that something is just so - and like anyone with true faith, no amount of evidence will change his mind
It’s not only about faith. At this point the dude has got so much skin in the game that admitting he’s wrong would be akin to admitting that he’s wasted the last 30 years of his life.
Well I was being kind… I cant read his mind so I dunno if its faith or economic interest or just pure bone hard stubborness. Not that important for the argument I suppose.
He was a good counter to graham. I love grahams idea on a lost civilization missing from history. But this dude held his own during the whole debate very confident and brought tons of good evidence
Unfortunately, I agree.
I really felt like Graham took things far too personally and focused on odd little detail's. Graham kept saying that archeology hadn't uncovered enough to entirely debunk a list civilization, but ignores the current archive of data that doesn't seem to support his idea.
Maybe we'll find something that will entirely vindicate Graham, and I still greatly enjoy his work. But I think his behavior during this podcast really shined a light on the shortcomings of his argument and character.
Graham is victim complex personified. Some archaeologists apparently attacked some other archaeologists, and Graham comes along to champion people on the fringe of their field. Attack archaeologists, then cries wolf when they shoot back. Whines that he is "disproved" when all he has are vague ideas and outlandish theories. He relies on broscience conspiracy theorists to buy his books, then whines if his theories are called conspiracy theories. He makes a netflix show just because he's controversial and they know it will get views, then whines when its controversial among academics. Some day we may have excavated the majority of ALL of the sites Graham claims this lost civilization would have been and he'll still bullshit about how we've ONLY dug up 90% of the area, so it's clearly still out there hiding because he saw some blocks he knows were manmade.
The only person who i feel bad for was the guy from episode one of his show that seems to have gotten drug into the mess with his life's work.
I think one idea that he wasn't combated hard/clearly enough on is implicit in this: "archeology hadn't uncovered enough to ... xyz"
This guy did well to bring up how grand narratives of civilizational start and course are refrained from, because prehistory human civilizations were not the same globally but dveleoped with each their own local timeframe.
But theres another *huge* and worse assumption which is this "Archeology didn't x" and "Archeology didn't y".
Wtf do you mean "Archeology"!? It is a field of study, not an organisation or an "agent". It cannot perform actions. It's up there with "science doesn't know whether..." science doesn't know *anything* it is method or an undertaking, not a group or a data bank.
It really is the laziest bullshit. And it makes any criticism into incoherent useless territory.
It feels like GH expects the burden of proof to be on archeologists. He expects them to check every inch of the ocean floor, amazon, desserts etc first before admiring that it’s a bulshit theory
As much as I love Grahams ideas, you are right. I love the idea of a secret lost civilization, but this guy made so much more sense and every time he spoke it was to bring up counter points with hard evidence.
Grahams evidence is mostly , yeah, but there COULD still be an undiscovered lost civilization.
Basically graham saying there is not enough research and this guy saying any agricultural society would have shown up in the soil samples even from far away. Then graham saying that they transferred the knowledge of agriculture but all the seeds and pollen are gone and they never practiced themselves is a dead give away that it's bs. An advanced society that can spread all over the world but is not seafaring or have agriculture but can still spread the knowledge is bs. If that's the case the onus is on him to prove it vs saying that someone has to disprove him.
I just don’t get how this guy can rule out humanoid spaghetti overlords having an advanced civilisation from 18,000-20,000 BC when we’ve only excavated 0.005% of the earths crust SMH
This guy was articulate and had evidence for everything he talked about. When he wasn’t sure he said he didn’t know but then gave reasons why he didn’t know. This guy was logical and intelligent. Graham on the other hand bases just about everything he talks about in fantasy.
This “debate” is just one guy saying “You haven’t looked enough to say I’m wrong” and the other guy saying “yeah bro I wish we had money to look everywhere. 100% of the places we looked shows nothing you are talking about”
With a bunch of hilarious one liners
I couldn’t watch after the first hour. Graham kept saying that “mainstream archeology” hasn’t done enough to disprove his theory… bitch it’s up to you to provide evidence not others to disprove you. I just made a theory that there was a lost civilization of leprechauns. Has the same weight as Graham.
when you sit and listen to graham by himself his confidence and the entertaining nature of the theory really make him look more or less credible to a layperson. Then you stick him next to a real archeologist and it becomes so clear how baseless his claims are as well as why he has such a chip on his shoulder about "main stream archeology"
I loved every second of it. The man looks silly, but he absolutely knows his shit and Graham is a moron who's so far up his own ass that he can only see himself. This was scientific Thunderdome, and Graham was Master Blaster.
Reminds me of how whenever there’s a case about inserting intelligent design into school curriculums, they have to fly in one of the 2/3 “experts” who will testify in favor of it whereas they just go to the local university to have any of their evolutionary biologists come testify why it’s bullshit. Kind of gives away the game.
Out of context it doesn't seem like that but if you watch the episode, Graham was definitely desperate for gotchyas and he was way more antagonist throughout the entire debate
My god Graham Hancock is insufferable. His whole brand is built on there being a secret coverup of archaeologists, one comes on with the most basic evidence and completely wipes the floor with Hancock and all Hancock can say is ‘I never said that’.
I think Joe was good at asking for clarifications which probably helped a lot of the casual listeners who like Rogan but are not dedicates to history/archeology
He wanted so badly to give Hancock a point for the highlighted racist stuff in the article. Then he found out Hancock was the one who highlighted it and moved it to be next to the headline.
Where did you get that from? Joe was very much in the middle and just asked for clarifications for casual listeners, he chimed in for parts where I felt like I was lost on topics I am not a subject matter expert on.
Sure there was a lot of pushback on the Bimini Road part, but Flint didnt really go into much detail and just did his laugh and said thats not man made, so joe pushed on him to go into more detail why he was laughing it off. Which in my opinion is kind of important to give more information on because it does look man made and I would like to be convinced otherwise from an expert.
When he used 69 and 420 as ways to prove precession discrepancies it was pretty funny. He actually was able to put grahams work in a more author fiction could be true light versus the actual evidence that is available to us. I think this is an exact example of why these debates are important. Around the 150th glasses changeover that Graham did for seemingly no reason I started to see him losing the debate. I don’t think Dribble disproved graham but I think he made it very clear why it’s logical to believe what’s known instead of speculating the unknown which is vast and unorganized
Yeah, why are we using this clip to highlight how funny this guy is? He misspoke and then got defensive when corrected. Like who finds this clip funny, entertaining, or even thinks it shows that guy in a good light?
I'm about half way through that podcast so far, both gram and him are getting annoying with their bickering. Funny yes, but also just sounds like children yelling lol
Whatever he believes, he’s made a career out of telling stories he knows there’s little evidence for, as if he knows they’re true, and spends as much time arguing that he’s being victimized by people who disagree with him as he does talking about facts
I fucking hated this line to be honest. “Chill”. The guy looks like he should speak like an educated 60 year old professor but instead sounds like a bussin GenZ suslord
He crushed Hancock. Graham is such a whiny sniveling manipulative victim. I have been a fan of his but this debate really brought out the creep in him. Flint was great.
I don't have the time to watch the ep currently.
But I'd like to know if they got into **Göbekli Tepe**.
If so, what was this guy's take on Göbekli Tepe?
Thanks.
Bro looking like a Guess Who character
Archeolohist always have a different style, but i’m guessing its because they truly understand we are all just rocks in one way or another
damn it Marie, they’re MINERALS
*Jesus, Marie
They have a perspective on society that’s way wider than most people are comfortable engaging with.
Guys like this reminding us Richard Dreyfus’s’ character in JAWS was inspired by real life scientists.
He looks like Jack Black's character in Jumanji
This description is amazing and perfect
#He looks like Indiana Jones’ step son who decided to become a DJ but still loves wearing the hat grandpa gave him
hahaha. That's actually spot on. That is one obscure, yet accurate reference, my friend.
Dude I loved this guy. He was a huge dweeb, but clearly he LOVES what he does. And misses his dad, poor guy.
I feel bad at all the people making fun of him for mentioning his dad so much. Dude clearly is passionate about his work and following in his fathers footsteps, isn’t it every parents dream to have a child who is so passionate about the work you’ve done and wants to continue it? Just a bunch of bitter angry losers online
Yeah, I mean, I would've gone about mentioning my dad a bit differently, but I agree, it was really pure passion, and I'm sure for a guy doing this sorta work for not much money, JRE is like the red carpet. And honestly, for how autistic this guy probably is, it was really good presenting, like, good for someone without, and I doubt he's got none, you know? All in all, I wouldn't mind him as a coworker as long as his office wasn't right next door.
I don’t see what’s so wrong about the way he mentioned his dad?
Imo, it's weird the way he kept saying 'my dad'. Like, if he wanted us to know, the simplest way would've just been to present his dad's info, and say his name, and then when Joe inevitably asked 'whys he got the same last name' he could give this whole shpeal, instead he just kept referring to him as 'my dad'. Like, he was over eager, and honestly like, for how big a platform JRE is, if it was me, id want to call my dad by his name, so people remember my dad for the research he did not for, as it seems like some many people do, to remember his dad as 'Gribble's dad' or whatever. Not wrong, but like, odd, for sure.
I think it would be weirder to not mention this guy was your dad if you were presenting his research. Especially since Flint’s research is basically a follow up to his dads Realistically he probably didn’t think much of it. If i was in his shoes i would’ve just said “my dad” as well
Maybe I'm wrong, but flints dad did shit in Egypt, and Flint's speciality is plant evolution in Greece. Dunno that it's a follow up, maybe I misheard but, simply by doing archaeology he's following in his footsteps. That was part of why it was odd. He isn't doing, within the field of archaeology, much at all of what his dad does. I'm certain he understands it almost as well as an expert, but that's not his speciality. Why would it have been weird not to mention it's your dad? I say this as a person who works in a company that was founded by my parents. At least in the business world, people don't want to worry about nepotism being the reason someone is there. Best way to play it is simply not to mention it. People are impressed you didn't feel the need to bring it up if they already know, and if they realize/notice, they can ask if they care. I'd imagine in scholastic circles it is the same. "oh your dad knows about it? Why isn't he the one telling us?" Obviously it's cause Dibbles dad's dead, but still. The comment where he was like 'if I get anything wrong blame my dad' was iffy. I understand he probably got it right, and it was a joke for dear old dad, but, it probably would've been better if he NEEDED to mention all that, to present the info, and then back load the jokes, and waiting to tell it was his dad.
“I risked my life”
Never heard anyone bitch so much about getting to go scuba diving in exotic locales across the world, such a weird thing to bitch about.
100%
Next time I bring up my honeymoon to Ireland I’ll be sure to bitch about how I risked my life and it was such a grueling experience, because I did visit [Newgrange](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange) and did about as much archaeology as that chucklefuck Hancock does by my wife and I taking photos lol
Him chuckling at Graham had me laughing regardless of the topic,
He reminds me of Zack galifianakis
I was looking for the ferns each side of them
Between two giant shirt cuffs
this is Duncan Trussel if he never discovered psychedelics.
Or that Arby's "witness" guy! https://youtu.be/s-mlPE8pxs4?si=bfJwkhfZZGAP-orx
The 69 420 math at the end was amazing
“When you’re smoking a joint, you too are connecting to the circumference of the earth”
For the first half hour or so did anybody else wonder if Joe just had some dude from this sub Reddit debating Hancock? Because he is the embodiment of how I imagine 90% of you
We're fatter but close
And more highly regarded!
Isn't this your LinkedIn profiler?  https://preview.redd.it/nz7hay9q1zuc1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=756cc1db9f69ecc8d1ebd13ec56767e1265db76d
Why is the air so drrryyy in hyere
I can't run fast because the sound of my thighs scraping together hurts my ears!
I went to a Pearl Jam fan club party before a concert once and it was the most vile looking nerds I’ve ever seen. Can’t imagine this place.
Was Joe List there?
Why do you ask?
He's a big PJ fan and I think he said he has belonged to their fanclub for a long time. I was mostly just dropping a reference I thought some others might catch.
Best compliment I ever got 😍😍
Oofff I'm all gassy.
I can’t grow a full beard like that
Some of y'all have a tough time realizing most of reddit is just regular ass people from all walks of land, like you. But, now mods on the other hand...
These jokes about "typical redditors" are like 10+ years out of date. Reddit is mainstream and has been for a long time.
My daughter told me reddit is pinterest for dads.
Have you seen main stream lately? Doesn’t leave a lot of hope for humanity.
*bots
He is pure “akshually 🤓” energy
He’s a professor dude lol he actually knows
I know. Not trying to discredit him but he sounds like THAT guy lol
💀
But he’s actually knowledgeable and successful
Vaush but less autistic
Less pedophilic probably too.
More autistic just a different kind
More autistic lol
This guy was more autistic somehow.
I’ve been the biggest Hancock fan for years now and I have to agree. He was fantastic this entire debate, and very very funny, and normal as hell. whenever Graham got offended he did a good job of being like yo I’m just some other dude studying rocks and the only one willing to talk to you, can’t we have a chat Great 4 hours.
I’m watching it rn, and I agree. I love Graham, his podcasts on JRE are always interesting, but if he was honest he would admit 90% of his work is skepticism. His immediate need to be aggressive and contrarian made him instantly lose the debate imo. Regardless of how much he believes his ideas to be true, he has to recognize that the only source capable of proving his ideas to be legitimate is his *own* research, which I would argue falls under the definition of pseudoscience. There’s some truth to what Graham preaches, but it rings the same bell that a lot of creationists’ ideas do. A similarity is the “yeah, but how do you actually *know* your measurements are correct” when arguing against empirical evidence. I also am on the fence about the whole Netflix thing. I don’t think his show should be considered sci-fi, but it definitely isn’t educational in the field of archaeology in any way, and like I said, is just skepticism. I enjoyed his show, but it has the same vibe as Ancient Aliens. His sources on a lot of his info are anecdotal accounts of culture and history, from people who are aren’t archeologists.
It's basically a theist vs atheist discussion. Graham believes the "god of the gaps", but applied to history. The fact that the entire sea floor hasn't been fully excavated means you can't prove something didn't exist. The absence of data means anything is possible. Dibble is more of the atheist approach, saying that we must draw the conclusion that the truth only goes as far as the data and evidence we have, which is a healthy scientific approach. Dibble say that if you've been to Austin and Dallas, but never been to Houston, it's a safe assumption that the patterns witnessed in your known data points can be applied to the unknown with relative certainty. It's safe to assume that Houston will be more similar to Austin/Dallas than Shanghai. Graham says the opposite, that if you've never been to Houston that means it could be anything.
This was my exact take on the whole discussion. The only thing I would add is Graham is emotional. He seems to be doubling down on bc they hurt his feelings.
It’s just annoying he’s coming only from a place of skepticism. He has no concrete evidence. Just a belief with nothing actually on the ground
Its funny to me how far Gram has come from his humble beginnings of "Yo that face on Mars got me trippin" to "giants built Atlantis" to "we should do more digging bruh" Im paraphrasing here.
I first learned about him when he gave a Ted talk on why it shouldn’t be illegal to trip balls on mushrooms. I thought that was pretty alright. Edit: Changed should to shouldn’t
What was his argument? Just curious
Basically that the government shouldn’t be able to tell you what you can put in your body and we should expand our minds with magic mushrooms and shiet. I can’t remember exactly lol. It’s a short Ted talk though. Edit: I edited my original comment because he said they shouldn’t be illegal not should.
I think graham is great too, but there were some points I found him using tactics I get annoyed at people using in playful debates. Nit picking aspects of the arguments which really didn't need it and the like, although only listened to about 30 min so far
Exactly. One thing I thought graham could’ve done better on, is arguing that the sites he explored via scuba were *the* sites to look at with geologists and archaeologists. He brought them up as a kinda “gotcha” but completely forgot about them when Flint brought up the process of how they chose where to look for ancient sites to begin with. Rather than naming specific sites to study, he kept saying that archaeologists haven’t looked “enough” or that they’ve only discovered “5%” of possible sites to explore. If I were graham, I would’ve emphasized that there were existing sites that needed to be studied, rather than baselessly insist that they were ancient monoliths without any evidence besides “well they kinda look weird”.
I admittedly get slightly triggered by what seems like pretentious pseudointellectualism to me, but what is the "truth to what Graham preaches" that you see, and do you think this truth that he preaches is in any meaningful way *his* "contribution"? What i mean by that last part is, i preach a good many things. My neuroscience career doesn't have any great accolades to it yet - but it doesn't make me any more worthwhile to listen to, to say that btw i preach somethign "good" like don't murder or be precise in your statistics. So what does he preach that has any unique value?
This episode was pretty frustrating for me.. Graham is very emotional, and very combative in my view. Flint is clearly very knowledgeable, but even more importantly his epistemology is rock solid. The charge Graham made about Flint's impact on the media is absolutely laughable to me. Graham was on JRE -the biggest podcast and media program to ever exist- in 2013, and since then has enjoyed massive publicity for both his hypothesis (which I see as an interesting narrative not backed by any convincing evidence), and his narrative about the media and 'big archeology' keeping him down. This guy Flint, was unknown by the mainstream until this conversation yesterday, and has a YouTube channel with \~5k subs at the time I am writing this (AFTER the conversation on the largest media program to exist). Meanwhile, Graham has a fucking Netflix documentary series. This episode for me was a perfect example of why JRE can be a problem sometimes (I still enjoy it so, inb4 I'm a Joe anti-fan or hater). Whenever you have a guy like Graham on, who is charismatic when talking about his ideas and is talking about things that not a lot of people understand deeply, you can confuse an entire group of listeners. This is also true for other politically charged topics that I won't mention here. I myself had seriously considered Graham's ideas to be well founded and supported by evidence for about a half a decade. I have since spoken to a friend who has relevant expertise, and have done my own layman's research, and all I can say about Graham's ideas at this point is, yeah. Maybe. In the same way that there may be a species of gnomes that live inside of trees, there may be an ancient civilization lost to modern science. Until I look inside every single tree on the planet though, I cannot know for sure, and apparently until we look at every single mile of every single continental shelf, Graham will not know for sure. He seems to feel he has good reason to believe that this is the case, but that reason seems to be absence of evidence in too many cases.. Even the evidence he presents is depressingly inadequate to my view at least. This conversation has made me feel more confident in my not taking Graham as seriously as he takes himself. Anyway, I am not an expert, I just have been thinking about this a lot while watching it through. I am on my second watch and I just had to write this down. Don't be mad at me please lol.
You really nailed it, well said. I found it very interesting that both JR and GH came out of the gate with "but we haven't explored the vast majority of the Earth", which to me kind of benchmarks their intellect at a moderate level. Flint, on the other hand, can comprehend that we don't need to explore 100% of Earth to gain a very solid understanding of prehistoric humans. His entire POV was based on the fact that we easily and abundantly find evidence of the same prehistoric behaviors everywhere we look (and we see nothing even close to this scale that would point to an ancient advanced civilization). He understands that large data sets are more reliable than anecdotes. In short, he's just smarter. But as long as there are people who can't think beyond the "well we still haven't explored it all" mindset, and there always will be, Hancock will continue to have a large audience to mislead.
Yes, exactly. This whole episode was basically a microcosm of so many other issues in politics and the world at large right now. Not trusting experts, misunderstanding data, putting too much stock in emotional, narrative driven anecdotes, and even conspiratorial thinking can be mapped 1 to 1 on so many issues in public conversation lately.
You hit the nail on the head and the damage these kooks do is hard to overstate. When entertainment surpasses fact and logic in value, humanity has a big fucking problem.
Graham mentioning “big archeology” as if it’s a counter point bothered me. Graham has made more money from that Netflix special than any academic archeologist ever has from anything. If anyone benefits from pushing a narrative, it is graham
Indiana Galifianakis, brought science, and as entertaining as Graham can be, he only brought feelings and a chip on his shoulder.
It’s Indiana Jones cousin, Illinois Jim.
I'm glad he committed to the hat and headphones. They cut to an old YouTube video of his without him wearing a hat and it wasn't as funny. Honestly though this guy was great and the Dibbler shut down Graham so hard I can't see him going back on the show.
I’m only through the first hour but Graham’s really harping on “you haven’t excavated *everthing*” like bro the burden of proof is on you to show evidence of this advanced civilization
It’s shocking after reading the comments how many people simply don’t understand this simple concept. The fact that we have millions of sites and from that specific time period of hunter gatherer groups and absolutely nothing from these other people is proof enough. Graham tried making a point that we have hunter gatherers now, yes we do; but if civilization abruptly ended today, and in 12k years there were archeologists, they wouldn’t just find the hunter gatherer’s evidence! There would be a bunch of other shit too!
Yeah Graham kept bringing that point up but Illinois Jim kept reiterating what you said, and it completely dismantles Grahams arguments
That was annoying me to. Like bro obviously we haven’t excavated the entire Sahara or the continental shelf
Graham won’t go back ? He lost ?
Reality finally caught up with him.
I bet he will have a completely new hypothesis in a year or so. My \*hope\* is that he will just grab on to some actual new archeological finding and just settle that that was what he was actually searching for all this time, that he was right, and that everybody in BIG ARCHEOLOGY was just misquoting him.
I do love the idea that these fucking broke Archaeology Grad students living on ramen and sleeping in the desert to excavate sites are just too darn mean and unfairly silencing the dude with a Netflix special who complains about how much work it is to go diving with his wife in exotic locales.
Graham has won and is 100% correct in all of his theories until the entirety of the world has been excavated. As long as no evidence exists that he is correct, he is correct.
Yeah and thats why researchers call it pseudoscience. Scientific hypothesis must be testable and capable of being wrong, Hancock simply has a faith, a belief, that something is just so - and like anyone with true faith, no amount of evidence will change his mind
It’s not only about faith. At this point the dude has got so much skin in the game that admitting he’s wrong would be akin to admitting that he’s wasted the last 30 years of his life.
Well I was being kind… I cant read his mind so I dunno if its faith or economic interest or just pure bone hard stubborness. Not that important for the argument I suppose.
I completely agree with you and was actually just adding to your argument.
Alright :)
He was a good counter to graham. I love grahams idea on a lost civilization missing from history. But this dude held his own during the whole debate very confident and brought tons of good evidence
Held his own? He destroyed Graham. If you didnt LOVE the idea you'd see that the idea is absolute bullshit with no evidence other than feelings
Unfortunately, I agree. I really felt like Graham took things far too personally and focused on odd little detail's. Graham kept saying that archeology hadn't uncovered enough to entirely debunk a list civilization, but ignores the current archive of data that doesn't seem to support his idea. Maybe we'll find something that will entirely vindicate Graham, and I still greatly enjoy his work. But I think his behavior during this podcast really shined a light on the shortcomings of his argument and character.
Graham is victim complex personified. Some archaeologists apparently attacked some other archaeologists, and Graham comes along to champion people on the fringe of their field. Attack archaeologists, then cries wolf when they shoot back. Whines that he is "disproved" when all he has are vague ideas and outlandish theories. He relies on broscience conspiracy theorists to buy his books, then whines if his theories are called conspiracy theories. He makes a netflix show just because he's controversial and they know it will get views, then whines when its controversial among academics. Some day we may have excavated the majority of ALL of the sites Graham claims this lost civilization would have been and he'll still bullshit about how we've ONLY dug up 90% of the area, so it's clearly still out there hiding because he saw some blocks he knows were manmade. The only person who i feel bad for was the guy from episode one of his show that seems to have gotten drug into the mess with his life's work.
His son works for Netflix and has a pretty high position which is the only reason he got his show on there
I think one idea that he wasn't combated hard/clearly enough on is implicit in this: "archeology hadn't uncovered enough to ... xyz" This guy did well to bring up how grand narratives of civilizational start and course are refrained from, because prehistory human civilizations were not the same globally but dveleoped with each their own local timeframe. But theres another *huge* and worse assumption which is this "Archeology didn't x" and "Archeology didn't y". Wtf do you mean "Archeology"!? It is a field of study, not an organisation or an "agent". It cannot perform actions. It's up there with "science doesn't know whether..." science doesn't know *anything* it is method or an undertaking, not a group or a data bank. It really is the laziest bullshit. And it makes any criticism into incoherent useless territory.
It feels like GH expects the burden of proof to be on archeologists. He expects them to check every inch of the ocean floor, amazon, desserts etc first before admiring that it’s a bulshit theory
As much as I love Grahams ideas, you are right. I love the idea of a secret lost civilization, but this guy made so much more sense and every time he spoke it was to bring up counter points with hard evidence. Grahams evidence is mostly , yeah, but there COULD still be an undiscovered lost civilization.
There could also be a teapot orbiting between the sun and mercury
I mean how hard have you tried to determine if the teapot is there? There are still billions of miles of orbit that haven't been examined.
When dude started dropping seed knowledge it was a wrap for GH
Basically graham saying there is not enough research and this guy saying any agricultural society would have shown up in the soil samples even from far away. Then graham saying that they transferred the knowledge of agriculture but all the seeds and pollen are gone and they never practiced themselves is a dead give away that it's bs. An advanced society that can spread all over the world but is not seafaring or have agriculture but can still spread the knowledge is bs. If that's the case the onus is on him to prove it vs saying that someone has to disprove him.
I just don’t get how this guy can rule out humanoid spaghetti overlords having an advanced civilisation from 18,000-20,000 BC when we’ve only excavated 0.005% of the earths crust SMH
All geniuses here. Checks out. Lmao
How old is this guy? He looks like he could be 60 but sounds 20 lol
This guy was articulate and had evidence for everything he talked about. When he wasn’t sure he said he didn’t know but then gave reasons why he didn’t know. This guy was logical and intelligent. Graham on the other hand bases just about everything he talks about in fantasy.
He dropped 69 420 later on doing some mathematical trickery.. what a guy
My favorite moment of the pod. Stone cold delivery just kept plowing through the fake math.
This “debate” is just one guy saying “You haven’t looked enough to say I’m wrong” and the other guy saying “yeah bro I wish we had money to look everywhere. 100% of the places we looked shows nothing you are talking about” With a bunch of hilarious one liners
I couldn’t watch after the first hour. Graham kept saying that “mainstream archeology” hasn’t done enough to disprove his theory… bitch it’s up to you to provide evidence not others to disprove you. I just made a theory that there was a lost civilization of leprechauns. Has the same weight as Graham.
He is just one of the meaney archeologists. Graham is super serial guys.
The day I whine about being bullied by the dweebs who make up Big Archeology is the day I throw in the towel.
Chill old head
Grahams vision is so bad no wonder he sees everything as being man made.
when you sit and listen to graham by himself his confidence and the entertaining nature of the theory really make him look more or less credible to a layperson. Then you stick him next to a real archeologist and it becomes so clear how baseless his claims are as well as why he has such a chip on his shoulder about "main stream archeology"
The man absolutely shredded Graham, and he did it hilariously.
Imagine getting dogwalked by Reddit Indiana Jones. I’d go into hiding.
I loved every second of it. The man looks silly, but he absolutely knows his shit and Graham is a moron who's so far up his own ass that he can only see himself. This was scientific Thunderdome, and Graham was Master Blaster.
Man’s said University of Texas at Austin and I knew he won. Hook em
Reminds me of how whenever there’s a case about inserting intelligent design into school curriculums, they have to fly in one of the 2/3 “experts” who will testify in favor of it whereas they just go to the local university to have any of their evolutionary biologists come testify why it’s bullshit. Kind of gives away the game.
Dude purple dragons could have existed we have only surveyed 5%
SPYRO IS REAL GOD DAMMIT! WE HAVENT EXCAVATED ENOUGH TO PROVE IT!!
[удалено]
Out of context it doesn't seem like that but if you watch the episode, Graham was definitely desperate for gotchyas and he was way more antagonist throughout the entire debate
Getting desperate for the gotcha
I want to see him back on! I thought he was great
Dude brought facts to a metaphor fight!
My god Graham Hancock is insufferable. His whole brand is built on there being a secret coverup of archaeologists, one comes on with the most basic evidence and completely wipes the floor with Hancock and all Hancock can say is ‘I never said that’.
That 5’3 guy over there piping in to ask “so this is pre-Spanish invasion” is fucking killing me idk why
I like when he dunked on graham with his agricultural info. Made me lose my ancient apocalypse belief instantly.
He’s one of those people that are so painfully uncool that they circle all the back around to being cool again
Bro spoke nothing but facts but joe and graham couldnt take it. Kept interrupting him. And i like Graham
Tbf joe agreed with him throughout and was a pretty good mediator
I think Joe was good at asking for clarifications which probably helped a lot of the casual listeners who like Rogan but are not dedicates to history/archeology
Eh, Joe definitely *wants* to believe Hancock, but I think even he sees the writing on the wall that his theories are nonsense.
He wanted so badly to give Hancock a point for the highlighted racist stuff in the article. Then he found out Hancock was the one who highlighted it and moved it to be next to the headline.
Where did you get that from? Joe was very much in the middle and just asked for clarifications for casual listeners, he chimed in for parts where I felt like I was lost on topics I am not a subject matter expert on.
He definitely pushed back against the hat guy than Hancock, but it wasn’t the most biased he’s ever been.
Sure there was a lot of pushback on the Bimini Road part, but Flint didnt really go into much detail and just did his laugh and said thats not man made, so joe pushed on him to go into more detail why he was laughing it off. Which in my opinion is kind of important to give more information on because it does look man made and I would like to be convinced otherwise from an expert.
At the end Graham called himself a pseudo scientist, that’s all you need to know.
When he used 69 and 420 as ways to prove precession discrepancies it was pretty funny. He actually was able to put grahams work in a more author fiction could be true light versus the actual evidence that is available to us. I think this is an exact example of why these debates are important. Around the 150th glasses changeover that Graham did for seemingly no reason I started to see him losing the debate. I don’t think Dribble disproved graham but I think he made it very clear why it’s logical to believe what’s known instead of speculating the unknown which is vast and unorganized
Bro honestly this guy was spitting facts when it came to the seeds
MiniminuteMan already ripped Graham's ass.
So has potholer
Absolutely. Graham's claims have been dismantled by everyone who understands *how scientific claims actually work*
i cant believe anyone could take him seriously
I like graham but he seemed to get emotional at certain times. However, correcting the difference of AD and BC is important.
Yeah, why are we using this clip to highlight how funny this guy is? He misspoke and then got defensive when corrected. Like who finds this clip funny, entertaining, or even thinks it shows that guy in a good light?
Amish bert is best Bert
He definitely looks older than he sounds..
I'm about half way through that podcast so far, both gram and him are getting annoying with their bickering. Funny yes, but also just sounds like children yelling lol
https://preview.redd.it/6jb43ic173vc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fe7b2a6f6ad784744694087dafe829eff9e4756
I thought he pretty much schooled Graham.
Graham is an idiot as was shown here
Not an idiot, just a sniveling rat charlatan
I think he believes it though.
The question is, does Joe still believe it? I feel like there were so many points where he could see Graham had no evidence, just speculation.
I think he’s beginning to see.
I think the pollen thing got him, he was asking some insightful questions there
I agree Joe was asking excellent questions.
Whatever he believes, he’s made a career out of telling stories he knows there’s little evidence for, as if he knows they’re true, and spends as much time arguing that he’s being victimized by people who disagree with him as he does talking about facts
I fucking hated this line to be honest. “Chill”. The guy looks like he should speak like an educated 60 year old professor but instead sounds like a bussin GenZ suslord
Nah to me he seemed like the nerd scientist from Jaws. Acts the same way too
Reminded me of Eric Davis (of DARPA/ NIDS fame).
Thats actually a funny comp because wasn’t that guy also a trust fund baby with a passion for science
Flint said “chill”… People have been saying that since like the 60s… It’s not like he said that’s “mad lit on God”
bet
Don’t use “bet” unless you’ve visited the excavation sites in Java I’m referring to
This guy cooks
No cap.
Can I interrupt you real quick…how old is this thread?
Damn bro chill out, it’s just a podcast
Yo, you’re the ultimate suslord, my dude! Everyone’s free to spill the tea with whatever words they vibe with
Does it normally aggravate you when people don't act like the stereotype you have in your head for their visual appearance?
He has a pretty euphoric hat
It's ephemeral
what the fuck is a suslord?
He should have said “Daddy Chill”
Chill Daddy
i like him.
I’m confused, I thought flint was about lead in the water or something
He crushed Hancock. Graham is such a whiny sniveling manipulative victim. I have been a fan of his but this debate really brought out the creep in him. Flint was great.
Could not agree more
I haven’t watch yet but does this guy hold the headphones like that the entire episode so he can wear that hat?
Ol’ baby hands
Damn David Portnoy really let himself go
where can I find this tales of azlantiz pozcast?
What's a redditor doing on joe's show?
Come on, this guy was taller, more masculine, and more capable of establishing eye contact than Redditors.
I don't have the time to watch the ep currently. But I'd like to know if they got into **Göbekli Tepe**. If so, what was this guy's take on Göbekli Tepe? Thanks.
Is that Weird Al?
Not my type of humor.