24
Any ice-age telepaths out there? Please explain why Netflix is revisiting Ancient Apocalypse
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
24 points (85.3% liked)
Skeptic
1302 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about this series in particular. These pseudo documentaries have been around forever, and I don't remember so much animosity. Just have fun. Nobody hated on Nimoy for In Search Of.
That show opened with a firm disclaimer that it was all speculative.
Hancock does say his ideas aren't mainstream, but it's framed more like a conspiracy by academics to hide the truth.
I agree with you in general that you can have light entertainment shows about "unsolved mysteries" without falling into the trap of peddling pseudoscience.
Because it is a step down the pseudoscience pipeline that gets you to not trust scientists (Hancock's whole thing is that elitist archaeologists won't accept his ideas) and that leads to things like vaccine denial.
It is dangerous.
He definitely does highlight the fact that his ideas aren't accepted in academia and he's right. Academia requires evidence and Hancock is long on theory but comes up short on evidence.
I think he does bring a lot of imagination and wonder to what can often be a dull subject matter, and even if it's all bullshit I see value in that.
No, he highlights the lie that archaeologists are conspiring against him.
Also, there is no value in lying to people about science. None.