This is the danger of celebrity endorsement. It will bring so much more attention to an unworthy ‘cause’, and so many fans will now absorb this information without critical thought. It is truly a situation where a well-intentioned person does not know enough to understand that this supposed expert is talking nonsense and the world at large slips that much further into disinformation.
Is it disinformation or merely misinformation here? The former seems to imply someone knowing what they are talking about but lying to the recipient, while the latter is someone clueless what even they themselves are saying.
Oh, but maybe you meant that falling for the misinformation opens people up to therefore be more receptive to actual disinformation.
Either way I thought I would share that I was being tripped up by that word, in case that feedback helps you to reach a wider audience without having to encounter such barriers.
I was torn between the use of misinformation and disinformation. And comments on Lemmy are often speaking into a void, so I honestly did not think it would matter. I appreciate the clarification and agree that misinformation is more appropriate. But agree that falling for misinformation leads to disinformation.
Comments in Lemmy are also sometimes like talking to a spiky wall, so I am glad that you took this in the spirit that I intended!:-)
At this point I’m sure there’s been numerous people who have written in to correct him and advise him of the inaccuracies. I’m sure by now he’s had enough time to properly investigate the facts and why the modern consensus is the modern consensus, because of the available evidence.
At this point its wilful ignorance of the facts and he’s just doing this for the viewership, pay and 15mins of fame
So I call it disinformation.
Ooh good point.
Although still, if I see a 5-year-old toddler saying something b/c it garners them “attention” (either positive or negative), then I wouldn’t call what they are saying as “information”, of any kind, so much as mere “noise”. (scene below is from Babadook, a fantastic film btw)
It gets more difficult to describe when the situation escalates to that person being elected as the leader of the free fucking world (well… not as much that as Hillary Clinton was voted against - but still, someone had to go in, and it ended up being him, b/c of Electoral College hijinks etc.). Telling people to go out into the sun, in the dead of winter below freezing, after they are already sick, to soak up sunlight… is the height of irresponsibility, but he managed to top it further by telling people to brutally mutilate their bodies and die of diarrhea by taking Ivermectin (even people with MDs or PhDs did this!!!). So is Trump then the toddler in the above scenario, and thus excused by reason of mental… ah… “whatever”?
I would say “no” b/c the chief distinction is not age - either physical or mental - but rather the position of authority. A child throwing a hissy fit, even outright lying, is one thing, but e.g. a Supreme Court Chief Justice of the land doing the same thing? THAT is WRONG, and should be punished somehow (ignoring for the moment that it will not be:-().
Therefore it falls to: who is the one “responsible” for this TV show’s existence? If he made it, then arguably him yeah… but also someone paid for him to do it, so wouldn’t that make them more so, like even in a purely legal sense, plus possibly other senses too? If a postal worker carries a letter containing anthrax, we don’t blame them, so much as the person who sent the package - so shouldn’t we blame the originator of this show? Which ultimately may even fall onto the audience, for watching it, or the leaders of our nation to allow democracy to continue to be decided by people who refuse to read a book - e.g. like Starship Troopers, we could limit citizenship to those who either (a) engage in military service, or (b) have a degree, the latter of which must be one certified to have included at least the briefest, barest mention of the fact that there are 3 branches of government. Oh and… maybe the names of those 3 branches. Although as of now, there are so many Americans who don’t even seem to know the former, much less the latter.
Sorry for the long-winded way of saying: it is not this guy’s fault that he is contributing to the moral and possible literal physical decay of our entire nation, just by being a greedy fucker who ignores all “facts” and gives the people whatever “entertainment” that
theywe want. Or… then again… is it?Anyway, I am less certain of anything here than when I started, but this is at least fun to think about!:-)
(Edit: and yeah, I think I’m switching sides now, you convinced me that either way, if he knew, then it would be closer to disinformation than mis-. Although even more pertinent, now I don’t think it’s either one really, so much as mere performance theater, so as to get paid. The distinction may fall down to: is the channel that he is put onto something that has an “expectation” of containing truthful, factual content? Sorry, I have no idea who this guy is really or what channel that show would be on, nor do I particularly care:-D. This is why I no longer watch TV really, except pure fantasy shows - I personally don’t like this blurring of the line between “reality(/-istic) TV” and pure fiction ones, I will take the likes of Breaking Bad over “Real” Housewives or whatever junk any day.)
But I mean nothing Graham Hancock says is that damaging. He suggests that there really was an ancient Atlantis type civilization, which has been suggested by thousands of people including Plato. No one who listens to him talk is actually gonna be swayed against their beliefs one way or the other
Plato did not suggest ancient Atlantis existed. He was very clear that he was illustrating a hypothetical “great society” to discuss his views on effective and beneficent government.
When he discussed it sinking it was a divine punishment from the gods of Olympus because they had strayed from a righteous path. All of it is meant to be a parable.
I mean that’s our interpretation of a translation of something said thousands of years ago. But if they want to they can choose to believe what they want. IMO an ancient island sinking due to gods is no different than saying “high tech civ nuked itself out of existense” but with less context. I’m not saying this really happened, but its not like its impossible, just extraordinarily unlikely to be true.
I’m not sure if you’re arguing that it being fictional is an interpretation or that its demise from the ire of the Gods is an interpretation.
If it’s the former, you are incorrect. The single best primary source being his own protege and student Aristotle who also makes it clear the whole thing is didactic invention. (There are debates that some individual events within the story are inspired by actual events in Egypt and Athens, but its existence is never presented as fact. The entire idea that this was some historical account came mostly from a judge writing his own history books in the 19th century.)
This is also not debatable due to translation. It’s Plato. The best scholars of all time in both language and history have studied this, literally for centuries. There is not any serious or scholarly debate about his intentions with this story. And multiple, equally capable translations of Aristotle corroborate that.
If you’re talking about the destruction of Atlantis, it’s been too long for me to argue that specifically, but the idea that it was divine punishment is the prevailing view of that story.
Even if all the scholars think it wasn’t literal doesn’t mean he didn’t mean it literally, that could just be how we have been interpreting it
It’s damaging because it adds doubt to any kind of scientific consensus.
“They” don’t want you to know that vaccines are dangerous.
“They” are only pushing chemo for big pharma.
“They” don’t want to admit that this was where ancient civilizations had some global empire.
It’s the same kind of attitude of “fantastical claim you can believe if you just dismiss all the evidence that you don’t like”
And that is very damaging because it further erodes understanding of the scientific method.
A slight distrust in government is healthy I think
The belief in the existence of a super-race (or whatever term Hancock uses) is dubious. While the idea on its own may seem harmless, it opens the door for racist idealogies. Everything has to be taken in context, and crackpot archeologists have been making this argument for ages in order to justify later arguments for eugenics.
I know it may appear that Hancock questioning the established historians and “big archeology” is above suspicion, but it is done in an unambiguously dishonest way. He refuses to acknowledge sound logical arguments put forth by multiple well-respected sources and hand waves things away as common sense. Essentially, he is frustrating because his arguments muddy the waters of logical discussions and introduce doubt in a community that certainly does not get paid enough for this shit.
He never talks about a super race
The survivors of the cataclysm that brought their advanced knowledge to the ancient peoples is the super race.
Right, cause super race is when people travel and share knowledge
Yes, if those people are technologically so advanced as to be indistinguishable from wizards. In Graham Hancocks mythology, these people brought the secrets of agriculture and advanced maths to indigenous peoples around the world. A lot of his evidence for this comes from ancient religious texts and artifacts. So, if these people are so advanced that they are worshiped by the natives I think it’s fair to say he is describing a super race.
technologically
Not only that, according to his lore they also had psionic powers and could make stuff levitate.
Wonder if they were friends with the lost civilization on Mars (yes, he also believes this)…
Sure techno wizards sound cool AF. Still don’t see how this is a super race when its just people who travel to other places after their civilization gets flushed. If we collapse and I move to south america am I a “super race” or did I just move a bit lol
ELI5?
Who was ever turning to Keanu for scientific knowledge? Lost him? We never had him! Chill dude, entertaining actor, but absolutely wrong person for science.
NNOO!!! Matrix was a documentary though!! /s But seriously though, if I were Keanu I would steer really wide and far from anything like this because of the semi-cult following he got from the movies. There was borderline problems with people conflicting the metaphors of the movie to actually say it’s reality and we are trapped. Like it’s a cool hypothesis and explains some things easily like religion, but takes all the fun out of actually researching or discovering something universe shattering like that.
He may not have been fully aware of what he was being filmed for. This wouldn’t be the first time a famous actor had been tricked into being part of an anti-science video:
Link without trackers:
https://youtu.be/icwDF8wRgF4Thanks friend!
True, there was even that creationist “documentary” that got Richard Dawkins to “look like a fool” in it
I’m OK with this dickhead claiming the things he’s claim but he doesn’t have EVIDENCE just speculation.
That’s what’s frustrating
“Isn’t it a cool idea that we might have lost the details of an ancient human civilization?”
“Yes, absolutely, and we keep finding new evidence that behavioral modernity started earlier than thought, so it’d be awesome to find proof that-”
“THE PROOF CAME TO ME IN A DREAM (OF GETTING A NETFLIX SPECIAL)”
Please let it be AI.
Wow, Graham Hancock is still around?
Unfortunately.
shame. i hope he was duped and didn’t know what he was in for.
that being said, can’t wait for the miniminuteman video.
Why Keanu… why… 🤧
Whatever. As long as he keeps doing good action movies I don’t give a damn of his beliefs. I still like Tom Cruise’s movies and he’s a scientology’s nuts.
Keanu must really believe in this stuff because we know he’s no good at pretending.
Graham Hancock has a history within Ancient Apocalypse of very selectively editing people’s appearances on his show in order to make them appear more supportive of his crackpot theories than they actually are. Look up MiniMinuteMan on youtube for a complete breakdown and dissection of every episode of Ancient Apocalypse season 1. So, there is hope that Keanu is not actually that supportive of Hancock’s theories.
Ah fuck
I don’t get the racism argument. Claiming there was an ancient civilization existed that taught early civilizations isn’t racist. That an ient race doesn’t exist anymore. The early civilizations they claim to have taught don’t exist anymore. Modern day Egyptians have as much to do with ancient Egyptians as they do with modern Polynesians. At a certain point, we have to recognize that we’re talking about so long ago that race is out of the equation.
Like, don’t get me wrong, his claims aren’t scientific and he definitely seems like someone with a theory in search of facts. But I seriously do not get the racism claim. It doesn’t belittle modern societies because no modern society can really claim ownership of shit that happened over 10,000 years ago. It’s insane to think otherwise.
Yeah, I don’t understand the hate that guy gets on Lemmy group think. He’s not a scientist, but so long as people dont view his ideas as absolute truth, I don’t see what is wrong with pointing at some unexplained mystery and asking ‘what if’
And to say it’s truly racist to state anything like that there might have been some ancient culture is just absurd.
People have their minds made up so he apparently falls into the heretic camp. I doubt many of the people here have actually read or watched his stuff. There are of course people that take what he says as gospel and that is also problematic.
That said, he’s been on more and more of woe is me the victim and it’s getting old.
I don’t see how getting more people interested in ancient history and geology is a bad thing. Part of the reason Graham has the wiggle room to make the claims that he makes is that the subject is relatively unstudied.
Obviously there is actual science taking place in the field and has been forever but funding for that kind of thing is notoriously difficult to come by compared to many other fields. Getting grants to study the distant past for essentially no reason other than curiosity is not a priority within an economic system that prioritizes profit over all else. The best way to break through that particular obstacle is getting more people to pay attention and ask questions. If we need a benign conspiracy theory about “big geology” hiding the truth from us to make that happen then where’s the harm in that? The vast majority of people prone to conspiratorial thinking are already farther down that rabbit hole than Hancock’s ideas will take them.
Additionally, actual scientists would do well to learn something from Graham about presentation. Despite what you may think of him, the way he talks about the subject resonates with people. People don’t want hear a regurgitation of facts in a research paper. Speculate a bit and get people excited about your future work. You don’t need to go to the extremes that he does but don’t refuse to branch out from what can be conclusively proven today either. Talk about your theories and what you’re hoping to find / learn just as much as you talk about the results of your research.
“What if every star was a human soul?” is not an interesting astronomy question to get people into astronomy. “Big Astronomy” not awarding grants to study that, is not a conspiracy. It’s due diligence.
Using a platform to say “What if [random speculation that has no basis and can’t be tested]” is not useful science outreach. It’s someone pretending to be science-y.
A person’s sole redeeming aspect being “being an engaging speaker” doesn’t make them a useful object lesson, it makes them yet another snake oil salesman. That’s not new or unique. That’s being a charlatan. Which is what people don’t like about Graham.
You’re ignoring the interesting questions he asks in favor of the easy to hand wave away stuff and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. To be clear, I’m not defending the things he says. I’m pointing out that his more outlandish theories gain more traction because the scientific community doesn’t lean into the softballs and use them as an opportunity to both teach people actual science and understand what different groups of people want to learn about.
Ignore the star / soul example and focus in on the possibility of an ancient and semi advanced civilization existing. That’s the part grabbing people’s attention. Talk about what that would change about our understanding of the past and what sort of evidence we would expect to find if it were true. Showcase people working in related fields and what they have found already. Propose other locations we could look for that evidence and discuss other topics we could study while looking for that evidence in those places. Engage the curiosity, don’t dismiss it. Anyone listening to Graham is likely uneducated in science but interested in it so use that as your jumping off point instead of judging those people for not being farther down the path.
Star Trek is attention grabbing. It doesn’t mean we should depend on time travel to save the whales. Not being able to separate fantasy from reality is not a scientific viewpoint. Actual education about any of this would be steering away from it, not into it.
The answer to all questions about advanced ancient civilizations existing is “probably not”. There are interesting examples that push back the earliest evidence of some things, like the Antikythera mechanism, but the only thing that is evidence of is that gears are older than previously thought. “Could there have been an ancient globe spanning civilization that only used wood or was on Antarctica or for some other reason has surviving no evidence?” is the same level of question as “Could there be a Discworld?”. The infeasibility of proving a negative is not the same as “yes this existed”.
Ancient Aliens level speculation on ancient civilizations is religion without a sacred text, inventing fantasies of a utopian past out of whole cloth because of an imagined fragment of a thread.
Star Trek is a great example of what I’m talking about actually. How many legitimate scientists do you think are out there right now who either had their interest in science first sparked by or at least significantly influenced from watching some version of Star Trek? I would bet it is a lot of them. Not every concept in Star Trek is worth diving into from a scientific perspective but not trying to do that at all would be a huge mistake.
Now, Graham Hancock isn’t writing Star Trek but people listen to what he’s saying for the same basic reasons they watch Star Trek. They are curious about a science based approach to the world. They don’t know he’s exaggerating some things and taking other things out of context. Use the opportunity to teach them.
In other words, don’t call them idiots for watching Star Trek, start a conversation about space travel.
You are describing Indiana Jones. Graham is talking about getting funding for what is effectively Crystal Skull research. These are not opposing sides of the same coin. Ancient Apocalypse is not an outreach program for more general archeology funding.
This is not about calling the people watching the show idiots. It’s about Graham and his ilk being more beholden to their pet stories than actual research and trying to convince people that they are the One True Archeologist.
A conspiracy theorist complaining about how “the establishment” won’t take him seriously is not a gateway to people seeking out education. It’s an avenue for those people to mistrust actual research in a field because it doesn’t mesh with their preconceived notions. Much like Flat Earthers the problem is not a simple misunderstanding that will self correct. It’s a belief that the “Truth” is being hidden for nefarious purposes because a story is more intriguing than knowledge.
This is not how people get more interested in Archeology, or whatever discipline, or what drives funding for that discipline. This is what cuts budgets and drives people away because “the establishment is a hidebound in-crowd.”
- It’s not understudied.
- It causes us problems when we do try to educate people.
- We’d do better with funding to do these kinds of things. It’s very expensive to do it right.
I’m not one for Joe Rogan, but cannot recommend the interview with Handcock and Flint Dibble enough if you want to see how quickly his narratives fall apart. The real story is a lot cooler anyway.
May I ask for an interesting archeological piece/story?
Go listen to the podcast.
Fine by me. I enjoy a good hypothesis. And I enjoy getting academics all riled up over theory.
Lay on, MacDuff!
You’ll love Milo Rossi’s MiniMinuteman
Here’s his series on Hancock’s last “special”
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb
And the shorts are a good quick “riled up session” about some of the stupid things people “postulate” online
Those meddling Google Debunkers!
