It seems to be an arrogance of intelligence thing, "some will believe it but I won't because I'm very clever, it's dangerous and that's why it needs to be shutdown"
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
So you haven't even watched the interview?
You are kidding right? If you don't think that the scientific community is every bit as dogmatic as the religious crowd then you are very much mistaken. It's the same as all academia. I can't think of any specific examples right now, but potential scientific breakthroughs are only celebrated when they fit the current working model. Anything even remotely misaligned with our current understanding is scoffed at or utterly avoided.
Take my diet for example ( come to think of it) I consume predominantly nothing but fatty meat, salt and water, apart from some cheat meals I always end up regretting. Conventional Scientific wisdom says I should be constipated, metabolically unwell, malnourished etc. But, despite always eating until full, cooking in butter and beef dripping and eating almost exclusively red meat. I continue to lose a healthy amount of weight each week, continue to be in remission from type 2 diabetes and several other conditions. Sleep better, higher testosterone etc etc all while having zero signs of hearts disease or any other coronary issues except high cholesterol which it seems isn't actually a bad thing. In a word I feel great.
I'm not some freak of nature, there's tens of thousands of people online all with similar stories. It shouldn't be anecdotal at this stage but a working hypothesis but no scientific studies are being carried out, why? Because it goes against Conventional wisdom.
Nobody debunks him really, tho, because he speculates about things we really know very little about. Nobody has Facts about early human civilisation. it's like getting all frothy and posting angry debunking videos about how alien life might exist in the universe, it's funny that that doesn't happen.
I think he's wrong and takes giant leaps to his conclusions from the little evidence we have, but that's the problem we have very little evidence to claim anything as fact.
I think people get hung up on him banging on about "advanced civilisations" like it must mean there was some pew pew laser flying car drug smoking people 50,000 years ago.
Modern humans have been around 200,000 to 75,000 years, maybe longer depending on definitions, we can't even really decide on that I don't see the harm is speculating why nothing seemed to happen technologically for 95% of that time.
A real debunk would be to prove and explain what changed in humans 5,000 years odd ago to allow for a rapid acceleration in technology and understanding, be careful tho nearly everyone that has done that ends up doing a racism
Unchartered X do some very good work, and show that the older Egyptians were more technologically advanced, especially in their ability to work work with granite.
Writing graffiti on something means that it was made by said king according to academia.
Writing graffiti on something means that it was made by said king according to academia.
Maybe the settlement of large urban areas made possible by agriculture/intensive animal domestication required engineering to resolve a load of problems which just so happens to have been useful for vanity projects.Nobody debunks him really, tho, because he speculates about things we really know very little about. Nobody has Facts about early human civilisation. it's like getting all frothy and posting angry debunking videos about how alien life might exist in the universe, it's funny that that doesn't happen.
I think he's wrong and takes giant leaps to his conclusions from the little evidence we have, but that's the problem we have very little evidence to claim anything as fact.
I think people get hung up on him banging on about "advanced civilisations" like it must mean there was some pew pew laser flying car drug smoking people 50,000 years ago.
Modern humans have been around 200,000 to 75,000 years, maybe longer depending on definitions, we can't even really decide on that I don't see the harm is speculating why nothing seemed to happen technologically for 95% of that time.
A real debunk would be to prove and explain what changed in humans 5,000 years odd ago to allow for a rapid acceleration in technology and understanding, be careful tho nearly everyone that has done that ends up doing a racism
Last edited:
'We have domesticated too many animals, we must build giant triangles!'
I think the bigger mystery lies around the adoption of agriculture by societies after the globe warmed from the end of the ice age... did everyone all just give it a try at around the same time? Did knowledge, passed down through traditions, survive the ice age? Did a surviving agricultural society travel the world after the Younger Dryas imparting "wisdom"? There's debatable "evidence" for all three.
e: I think Hancocks theory revolves around remnants of a civilisation, impacted (somehow) by the Younger Dryas, seeking out hunter-gatherers for survival, leading to a share of information and resultant shift.
I think the bigger mystery lies around the adoption of agriculture by societies after the globe warmed from the end of the ice age... did everyone all just give it a try at around the same time? Did knowledge, passed down through traditions, survive the ice age? Did a surviving agricultural society travel the world after the Younger Dryas imparting "wisdom"? There's debatable "evidence" for all three.
e: I think Hancocks theory revolves around remnants of a civilisation, impacted (somehow) by the Younger Dryas, seeking out hunter-gatherers for survival, leading to a share of information and resultant shift.
Last edited:
That's not an explanation, why was no group of humans with a mental capacity no different to you or I, able to achieve anything more than hunting and gathering for 100,000 years give or take? no basic maths, no understanding it seems of nature and the world around them, no philosophy or group think or exchange of ideas that would constitute civilisation however basic it seems no desire to learn anything of consequence or for discovery.
And again what were the factors that changed that 5000 odd years ago ?
aliens is a better answer than some Nazi rise of the pure Aryan bloodline I suppose
This is the problem I have the Age of Enlightenment was all about thinkers asking questions, philosophers speculating on answers to those questions leading to scientists seeking to discover those answers.
Hancock does a good job of the first, and bad job of the second and doesn't claim to be the third, while the 3rd group seem to spend more time shutting down questions and screaming grifter.
It's like NASA calling freemen Dyson a grifter and spending lots of time debunking the Dyson sphere, because there is no evidence of one ever existing, so he's obviously a dirty fraud grifter.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,286
- Location
- The South
Just for clarity, ol' comb-over did suggest disinfectant...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...fectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216
Last edited:
He never said the word bleach though, bleach is a type of disinfectant, but you can disinfect a surface with UV light as well, almost like this:
UVA Light Reduced Virus Loads in COVID-19 Patients
Ultraviolet light treatments introduced into the tracheas of five critically ill COVID-19 patients appeared to be safe and associated with a reduction in the respiratory load of SARS-CoV-2—the virus responsible for COVID-19—in all but one patient, according to a study conducted by...
I'm reading new studies around keto/carnivore/paleo on a near weekly basis, have been for over a decade since I first dipped into ketogenic dieting - there are loads of studies out there, it's just not part of mainstream thinking yet. Reddit ketoscience if you want to get bombarded.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,286
- Location
- The South
No he didn't specifically say the word bleach but, he did mention the use of a disinfectant which you could argue is typically assumed to be a chemical rather than non. Moreso in this case given he mentioned UV light prior to his disinfectant statement during his brain dribbling ramble -
Either way it's way off topic so i'll end it there
I can't stand Donald Trump but the way people latched onto that seems a bit disingenuous to me.
His comment was so dumb but landed the way it did due to where and when he said it.
Unlike seasoned public speakers who stick to scripts he just let his brain go off on a strange tangent and said the first thing his mind came to.
When we were all using alcohol hand sanitiser I imagine I probably have thought something to myself like "if only this kinda stuff could work like an anti viral too!".
He has no filter and just says the first bit of crap that comes into his head without pause for thought.
Unfortunately that's actually why a lot of people misread that as him being an honest person.
The media holds just as much accountability with 'dangerous' statements, quote often they'll take something out of context or chop elements out. Quite amusing that folks who bang on about misinformation etc repeat things that are false due to media coverage.
Thanks for this, I'll check it out
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Yet:
So you want an uninformed host to shut this guy down, rather than an expert in the field? You make so much sense....
Kennedy isn't an expert in vaccines, he's an expert in conspiracy theories. Why would a world renowned expert sit down with someone dishonest and with no expertise in the subject?
And stop putting words in my mouth "shutting down". Either argue with some honestly or don't bother. I said "push back", as in question what they are saying. See the difference?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Seriously where have I said that? I said push back, that isn't silencing anyone, its simply questioning what they are saying.