Re:Göbekli Tepe
by nafey on Friday July 03, 2020 @03:56PM
(#23726957)
He does make persuasive arguments about existence of human civilization during younger dryas period (Gobekli Tepe happens to be one of his major evidence for this) but he tends to emphasise or deemphasise their sophistication depending on the kind of audience he is talking to. This is where he loses me. He tries to make much more reasonable claims when he is on mainstream shows like JRE, but he tends to get a lot more hyperbolic when speaking to his core audience.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Göbekli Tepe
by sebastialonso on Friday July 03, 2020 @04:28PM
(#23727228)
To me, the alarms sound way before that. You can change the tune of your idea if you need to persuade people, while at the same time being honest about it.
What I don't like about Hancock is that he uses Gobekli Tepe as a prop: we don't know the whole story/history about it, but he will gladfully use it to support his claims, without actually producing evidence that furthers our knowledge on what Gobekli was!
I can surely entertain the idea of lost civilizations, but that doesn't imply I validate the dishonest handling of unknowns as "evidence".
This is what pseudoscience and con men do to appear respectable.
You can manipulate your knowledge as though it were an object, but you cannot manipulate your ignorance.