Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson debate skeptic Michael Shermer on Alternative Earth Geology

[CurEus]

3 hour of EPIC awesomess Hancock at his BEST. Joe Rogan experience recorded live. Grap some popcorn!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ

[Bill Ryan]

This is fascinating. Highly entertaining... and also a whole, in-depth seminar on an enormous bunch of stuff. Popcorn indeed.

[Spellbound]

I watched all the previous Rogan / Hancock (and Carlson) interviews (there's 3 or 4 previous ones before this one) over last Christmas and was completely blown away. The idea that mankind has been rebooted several times over the tens of thousands of years is really quite intriguing (to me anyways). Add in the skeptic this time was a nice touch. Hancock and Carlson know their sh*t!!

Dave - Toronto

[7alon]

Yep I always watch the ones with Graham and Randall. Always fascinating discussion.

[sunwings]

Michael Shermer ruined it for me! I am all for a sceptic but he refuses to listen to the other guests.

[Jantje]

Posted by sunwings (here)
Michael Shermer ruined it for me! I am all for a sceptic but he refuses to listen to the other guests.

I think it's really interesting this way. Just by putting a skeptic (which has nothing to do with critical thinking IMO) in the room, it actually adds something.
Without the skeptics this would be a very different and less engaging conversation. Great stuff !
You can see the passion that drives Graham Hancock.

It's great to see these types of debates. A lot better than putting 3 guys in a room who agree with each other on every single topic anyway.

I think this way you get a lot more info out of guests

[Bill Ryan]

One of things I'm particularly appreciating here (still not got to the end! ) is Joe Rogan's depth of knowledge in this arcane and specialized subject.

He's done a lot of reading, and listening. Impressive. Kudos to him.

[ScorpION]

Yeah,rogan is a well read guy! He always has facts...like him as a comic,sport caster and podcast is my fave since it started..which Hancock and a host of interesting people were on his early shows!

[Spellbound]

Rogan has said many times that Graham Hancock is one of his favorites guests. Every time Graham shows up, he blows Rogan's mind (and ours as we view the clip afterwards). They are must-see episodes.

Dave - Toronto

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Been a fan of Hancock's for years, and this really is a fascinating debate. Only a couple of hours in and I think perhaps the word showdown might be a better word for it. A real clash of personalities, backgrounds, and opinions here, and I can sense a lot of emotion swelling to the surface of Hancock's words on a number of points. He is extremely passionate about his subject, no doubt about that, but his strong reactions are I think the result of years and years of wearily swimming against the current of mainstream views and judgements, as well as the stubborn, often hostile attitudes of the sceptics. I think he possibly lets himself down here and there with a number of hefty f-bombs, but I certainly understand his frustration.

I would also love it if Hancock would go the extra step, just a tiny little bit, and talk about the spiritual aspect of this lost civilization, and their high-technological capability, which he seems to write off and scarcely even broach, except in dismissal. But ofc I understand this is not his area of expertise, or probably even interest.

[Billy]

I finished work tonight and started listening and a few hours later I cannot stop listening. What an incredible interview and gathering. I just wanted to say, thank you for posting this video before I continue.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by sunwings (here)
Michael Shermer ruined it for me! I am all for a sceptic but he refuses to listen to the other guests.

It was fine with me, and I think his presence squeezed far more juice from the multiple encounter.

I like Richard Dolan's Critical Thinking checklist, which I posted here. One of his items is

• Are there alternative ways of interpreting the same information? What do skeptics say about the claim?
  (You don’t have to agree with the skeptics, but it can be very valuable to know what they say.)

[7alon]

I have to say, while I appreciate what Bill is saying about skeptics, I'm not really enjoying Michael Shermer's presence. His logic behind hunter gatherers building things like göbeklitepe is absurd in my opinion. Moments like this is why I have little patience for skeptics.

[neutronstar]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by sunwings (here)
Michael Shermer ruined it for me! I am all for a sceptic but he refuses to listen to the other guests.

It was fine with me, and I think his presence squeezed far more juice from the multiple encounter.

I like Richard Dolan's Critical Thinking checklist, which I posted here. One of his items is

• Are there alternative ways of interpreting the same information? What do skeptics say about the claim?
  (You don’t have to agree with the skeptics, but it can be very valuable to know what they say.)

I agree he was fine in this podcast, but he has annoyed me on many of other occasions. I also agree that it is good to get other peoples opinions.

The problem I have with many skeptics, including Shermer at times, is they will belittle people for thinking outside the box so to speak. They cling to mainstream science as if it is absolute law, when if fact it is just another belief system. It is good at describing this reality, but we have no way of proving that this reality is even real or just an allusion, and we certainly don't know if it is all that exists. Many of truths that science has about the world are proven wrong with time and they simply don't want to acknowledge that at times, and it is really frustrating.

My views on someone who says that they are a skeptic is someone that has a fixed belief about the world and is skeptical about anything that challenges their view.

On a side note, I think both Shermer and the other guy didn't realize going into to this podcast that Randell Carlson was as knowledgeable on this subject as he is. I think they thought that they were going to make them look like fools. The tables kinda turned on them.

[Billy]

Posted by neutronstar (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by sunwings (here)
Michael Shermer ruined it for me! I am all for a sceptic but he refuses to listen to the other guests.

It was fine with me, and I think his presence squeezed far more juice from the multiple encounter.

I like Richard Dolan's Critical Thinking checklist, which I posted here. One of his items is

• Are there alternative ways of interpreting the same information? What do skeptics say about the claim?
  (You don’t have to agree with the skeptics, but it can be very valuable to know what they say.)

I agree he was fine in this podcast, but he has annoyed me on many of other occasions. I also agree that it is good to get other peoples opinions.


My views on someone who says that they are a skeptic is someone that has a fixed belief about the world and is skeptical about anything that challenges their view.

On a side note, I think both Shermer and the other guy didn't realize going into to this podcast that Randell Carlson was as knowledgeable on this subject as he is. I think they thought that they were going to make them look like fools. The tables kinda turned on them.

I also think the tables were turned on the good cop bad cop sceptics. Randall Carlson was first class. Graham was awarded with a public apology with a promise that the character assassination within the article posted online will be amended. Both sceptics were given food for thought. The geology segments and pictures were just fantastic.

@Herve, if you have not yet watched this interview, I highly recommend it and would love to hear your take on it.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Yes, Sherman I've seen in action many times before...Sometimes I just don't get sceptics. Healthy scepticism is fine, it is in fact most necessary in this field. But when confronted with overwhelming mountains of evidence? Why do they continue to resist? Is there something psychologically or physiologically wrong with them, or are they simply playing the role of a professional sceptic - perhaps paid to do so by some higher agency?

Anyone remember Phillip Klass? Used to make my skin crawl. I enjoyed seeing him put in his place. If he were still alive, what I wouldn't give to see a little sit down with Richard Dolan. That would make for some viewing..

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
Yes, Shermer I've seen in action many times before...Sometimes I just don't get sceptics.

Right. I even watched Shermer's 15 minute TED talk a couple of days ago, called Why People Believe Weird Things. This was also the title of his book.

• http://ted.com/talks/michael_shermer...strange_things

I was genuinely hoping for some insights. I too sometimes ask this question!

Instead, he was snarky and clever-clever, playing for cheap audience laughs. He wasted an opportunity. It beats me why many (but not all) skeptics have to be nasty, snide people. That's just not needed, and never serves them well.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Sometimes I feel Sherman and his ilk are mouthpieces of the Official Position, paid not just to be a sceptic, but a debunker of a given subject or theory. Dr Susan Blackmore and Dr Chris French are a pair of famous British sceptics who commonly do a turn on mainstream TV and radio. They have done a great deal of harm debunking and actively ridiculing UFO and abduction phenomena, and even life-after-death (it's all a trick of the brain you see, misfiring neurons and temporal lobe hallucinations - nothing to see here, move along please).

[Spellbound]

If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong here)....Hancock doesn't give much credence to ET's and the ancient alien theory. Is this true??

Dave - Toronto

[Ewan]

It was for the most part an enjoyable listen, very informative.

Randall Carlson was excellent I thought, very likeable, very knowledgable. Never allowed himself to be sidetracked and would not engage in speculation.

Michael Shermer was at times quite reasonable I thought, conversely I thought his label as a skeptic forced him to be contentious many times just for that sake of it, to the point of obstinancy, he was never willing to concede a single point if he could deflect onto another example - often unrelated.

Graham got a little heated at times, but a goodly portion of his life's work was being ridiculed rather than debated and he had to endlessly explain he was quoting others.

Marc Defant, oh dear, obnoxious springs to mind.

Here is his hatchet job article.

And here he is telling a TED Talk audience that 'We are alone in the Galaxy'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_nCOhrYV7eg