Hacker News Reader

Comment by dTal | Hacker News Reader

>I've read many critiques of Hancock's work and there are always arguments and evidence left over that critics don't address.

It is much easier to generate nonsense than to debunk it. That is why we have the notion of "burden of proof". If someone overwhelmingly writes pseudo-scientific BS, the correct course of action is to dismiss all their writings as potential cognito-hazards - it is certainly not to read them "with an open mind". You know what we call people who let known bullshit artists tinker with their brain? Gullible.

View on HN

Just open one of his books. He travels the world with his partner and takes incredible photographs, scuba dives submerged ruins, interviews locals and mainstream archaeologists like Klaus Schmidt, digs very deep into mythology and cross references with science, gives almost exhausting levels of citations and references. Not to mention dealing with incredible levels of vitriol and threats while doing so. Not so easy to generate such nonsense! :)

Gullible means believing something. Believe nothing. This is what an open mind is.

Klaus Schmidt, who died around 5 years ago, was the director of excavations at Gobleki Tepe. I highly doubt he would have allowed Hancock to perverse the legitimacy of his work. To read more about how Gobleki Tepe has been abused by pseudoarchaeologists, check out the Tepe Telegrams blog, which is produced by archaeologists who actually work at the site: https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/

> Gullible means believing something. Believe nothing. This is what an open mind is.

Umm what? If you can't believe anything is true then you can't retain or formulate any knowledge at all. Seriously, this is a really bad take.

Hancock has at least one transcribed interview with Klaus. Look it up for yourself. They had an interesting relationship. Klaus definitely did not agree with many of Hancock's ideas. It's admirable, an open exchange of ideas with people you disagree with. Just like we're doing here! Good on us.

> It's admirable, an open exchange of ideas with people you disagree with. Just like we're doing here! Good on us.

Well there are disagreements stemming from different perspectives or opinions, and then there is the distinction between proper research and conclusions drawn from wilful ignorance, cherry picked data and wild presumptive leaps of imagination that masquerade themselves as legitimate research. Graham Hancock's work is pseudoscience, period. My disagreement with you is not a matter of exchanging perspectives, it's a matter of exposing lies.

Ok, thanks for your reply and perspective.

So which exact lie have you spotted where?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com