A sub for "scientific skepticism." Scientific Skepticism is about combining knowledge of science, philosophy, and critical thinking with careful analysis to help identify flawed reasoning and deception.
"How I took on Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock – and won" [Flint Dibble speaks]
📚 History
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Hancock is like astrology for Rogan bros. Ancient apocalypse is absurd, he’ll say something like “see this pyramid. Well there was a pyramid twice as big over it once!” And a blueprint thing will superimpose over the one you can see. Then he’ll say there’s evidence if you go down into these tunnels underneath but he’s not allowed to go down there because the archaeological elite won’t let him let the cat out of the bag. He offers no serious evidence whatsoever and thinks people are trying to silence him (he knows they aren’t, but like UFOs if you claim someone is trying to silence you it’s a great excuse as to why you can’t prove anything). It’s really concerning that people watch ancient apocalypse and don’t have alarm bells going off.
Poor poor Graham Hancock he is being silenced by big archeology that's why he's a multi millionaire with a half dozen best selling books and instant media access on practically any outlet he wants with his own Netflix documentary series
Truly, he is suppressed by the deep state
BUT, poor poor Graham risks his life scuba diving to 30 meters to uncover BigArch's lies! /s
"Have you been there, Flint?"
"Well no but -"
"THEN U CANT SAY SHIIIIIT"
That was the first sign of insanity in that interview debate
It reminds me a lot of Eric Weinstein, whose ideas would lead to an entire paradigm shift in the way we understand physics/reality. Not to mention his brother Bret who is the only person on planet earth right now who can see that the two leading theories of evolution are both wrong. Both guys are Nobel worthy but the gated institutional narrative just shuts them down.
I have no doubt Eric has figured this stuff out, if only he could remember the solutions he came up with 30 years ago that the science world ignored. A true tortured genius if ever there was one. /s
Brett Weinstein would be the guy who still thinks poppers cause aids? A certified crackpot
Ha, I think that’s Duesberg. Who in fact did some incredible work in viral causes of cancer I believe. It’s how he got so prominent prior to his pretty discredited ideas about HIV. Whereas the weinbergs never published a single interesting thing in their lives.
You forgot the /s
No. He didn't.
Are they really? Have any sources?
Check out the big brain on Bret
He is the modern day equivalent of Galileo. Being persecuted by Big Archaeology for his persistence of the truth.
Enjoyed watching this milo guy do a deep dive on ancient apocalypse. Has great archeology content. https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A?si=tMAgFc434eR4Fv-K
Milo has great content.
Milos my main man
Hancock made me stop listening to Rogan. I heard “Everyone is wrong about Egypt but me and they want to silence me” and Joe was like “…true” and I was done.
That's one of the big problems with Rogan. For certain guests, he is too much of a foil. I also thought he was way too easy on Alex Jones.
Actually same! Hancock came on and I listened as a young person and thought it was cool so looked more into him and realized he was a fraud and in that moment I started to question all of Rogan's guests and quickly lost interest.
There were a few times in this most recent Hancock debate that even Rogan reined him in by half agreeing with Flint.
He always offers Hancock an off-ramp if he says something too crazy though.
That’s because it isn’t a debate. It isn’t a news show, although some information is traded. It’s a conversation. Guests which are more controversial can be more interesting, as can be people with different or strange theories. Even Rogan doesn’t take half of his guests seriously, but it doesn’t mean he is going to spend 3 hours drilling them.
The Potholer54 videos about Ancient Apocalypse were great. Just shreds the show to pieces.
Potholer54 is the best!
I have a bigger pyramid. She's from Canada though, you wouldn't know her.
Oh the bass pro pyramid in Vaughn.
People are trying to silence him, but just because he's being annoying. If some crazy guy kept coming around my work telling at me that I didn't know what I was doing, I would tell him to shut the fuck up too.
If you don't have evidence (because it's being suppressed) then how do you know your claim is true? How does he even concoct these ideas??
My biggest pet peeve with humanity is that full grown adults are more than comfortable with just making shit up and believing it.
Graham Hancock’s books were instrumental in helping me learn to spot bullshit. I found Fingerprints of the Gods kind of entertaining — in much the same way that I find the worldbuilding of Stargate SG-1 entertaining — but he started to lose me for good when the most convincing argument in the book was the letter of resignation from the research assistant who’d had enough of his crap. I don’t know why he thought it was a good idea to include that in the book.
Then I read The Mars Mystery, which was just him misinterpreting photos from Mars for a few hundred pages. It lacked any of the plausible deniability of Fingerprints of the Gods.
Hancock got dibbled
I went into Ancient Apocalypse thinking that it would be about the bronze age collapse. What a disappointment. Didn't even know who Hancock is.
I don't really agree with you at all. I don't think he's the modern messiah of ancient history, and his sentiment is only that we should always explore the unexplained. Which plenty of modern archaeology does not.
Also, let's detour and do some math. Anyone know how long the dinosaurs were alive? 165 million years.
No high intelligence as far as we can tell. No technology.
What about humans? The earliest "hominims" were around maybe 7 million years ago, with what we consider modern humans to be only 200,000 years.
With our high technology only coming in the last 10,000 years.
So our current explanation is that we now can go to space with AI and virtual reality because our brains randomly in 0.0061% of the time decided to get smart.
Well if our brains were developed as early as 200,000 years ago with the same biology as 10,000 years ago. Why would we have been so feral for 190,000 years?
I am totally open to good science on this explanation, but mathematically it makes no sense. This is like Fermi Paradox 2.0.
But yes Graham has been very loud and very wrong many times. I still don't think he's as nutty as you describe though.
There is a lot of scholarship on all of these questions, though. It’s just that the answers seem boring compared to “ancient aliens” or whatever.
You being ignorant of information that exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't claim "big Archaeology" isn't exploring the right questions when you yourself have no clue about the field. You and Hancock are no different than a rando running in to a grandmaster chess match, moving the pawn all the way to the enemy king in one move claiming to have the secret "super pawn", and yelling "Checkmate bithces!"
It's so funny. Because all the responses to my comment provide zero evidence. It's almost like... No one knows what the fuck they're talking about.
Your putting effort in to keeping yourself ignorant, that a significant part of why no one wants to go off and do 30+ minutes of free research for you. You're just going to dismiss anything given to you. You could easily take any discreet subject that Hancock talks about, and go find an actual archaeologists report, paper, or lecture on the topic and actually educate yourself.
You're not going to do that because you've already chosen to believe in conspiracy.
Miniminuteman on YouTube did a full and thorough dive on Hancock's Netflix series with full research/citations evaluating all his claims one by one. If you care even a single bit about the subject, and you're not just being a contrarian, go watch that then come back.
"What about humans? The earliest "hominims" were around maybe 7 million years ago, with what we consider modern humans to be only 200,000 years.
With our high technology only coming in the last 10,000 years."
O.K. But what are you missing ? What happened ?
(wiki) "The Younger Dryas, which occurred circa 12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present (BP),[2] was a stadial (cooling) event which marked a return to glacial conditions, temporarily reversing the climatic warming of the preceding Late Glacial Interstadial (also known as the Bølling–Allerød interstadial, which spanned from 14,670 to 12,900 BP.).[3] The Younger Dryas was the most severe and longest lasting of several interruptions to the warming of the Earth's climate. The end of the Younger Dryas marks the beginning of the current Holocene epoch."
Warmer, longer growing seasons, Ma Nature woke up from her long winter nap, plants started to thrive, as well as herbivores and birds,, everything. And everything got easier for humans, more food less time gathering in a sparse food environment, more leisure time,, take it from there, that is why things started hopping for humans and this was global, agriculture started in North and South America close to the time as it did elsewhere . Everything sprang from global warming.
I have no expertise, this is what I think.
I'm familiar with it. But here's some actual mainstream science which disputes your idea:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem
The climate has gone through several phases including similar conditions to now during this 200,000 year period.
So, there would need to be an explanation as to why this didn't occur 100,000 years ago.
Well as I said I have no expertise, but when you look at the temperatures, only after the Younger Dryas did the temperature rise and stay that way.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
It would seem odd to me that an advanced culture would rise during a time of a frigidity and disappear during a far more favourable time. Also keep in mind this drowning of the "advanced" culture is pure conjecture and somewhat silly in my opinion, it's just stuff made up out of whole cloth.
If you look at this chart the water level showed a faster rise from about a little before 15,000 BP to a little after 14,000 BP and no great spikes at the end of the Younger dryas. (11,500 BP) I don't see anything to support Hancock's guesses. But I am just spitballing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Do you all not know how to science properly!? Hancock is saying even though there is no proof for ANYTHING he claims, conversely there is no proof AGAINST his claims because the mainstream archeologists are lazy diggers. That's science
/s
Why haven't they explored the entire Sahara desert yet? They've had several years now to work on it!
/s
“If they would just look all the places I haven’t looked myself either there might be proof. Isn’t that proof enough?” “How can I prove my theories if these mainstream archeologists I don’t trust won’t do all this work for me?”
Because they don’t wanna. Because then they’d know everything Graham Cracker says is true. Duh. I mean it’s just sand. Give a gaggle of three year olds a bucket and a shovel. You wouldn’t have to pay them.
jokes on him, they ain't gonna find nothing because the MiB already took the gate n all away to area 52 years ago
neighbour that was into that told me one day when he got high, before pissin on a big power trasnsformer n dying 😌
This is known as the Airbud Scientific Principal.
love that
You need to do your own digs, pal!
This was a south park episode already about the history channel ancient aliens lol
My Joe Rogan loving friend, who knows absolutely nothing about geology, apart from the utterings of Hancock, doesn't know enough to know enough to know that this guy dunked on Hancock, and even if he did, he would still believe Hancock.
My same friend, who didn't even know about the cowpox vaccine, never heard of Jonas Salk, and other extremely basic facts, has memorized every Robert F. Kennedy "fact" about vaccines (and also believe AIDS is a hoax).
He collects ridiculous bullshit like one would collect baseball cards. You can't reach these people.
What's even more frustrating is how did they get that way to begin with? What is in their head that's not in ours? It's like they have no bullshit detector whatsoever. A used car salesman's dream customer. I genuinely think it goes hand in hand with religious doctrination.
My friend, who many of us suspected was a closeted gay (or possibly asexual) for years, was cheated on by his wife about 15 years ago. The humiliation and subsequent overcompensation for that combined with discovering AM talk radio and "finding God" and a new, safe Christian trad-wife (their kids were still sleeping in their bed when they were 10, he refused to change his daughter's diapers, he made his wife change college majors at least 3 times and sometimes lets her work, we can't go to their house without hearing about Disney's gay agenda etc.) has led to this. There is literally no conspiracy theory he doesn't accept, often moving from one to the next in rapid fashion and saying things like "I know this is gonna make me sound like a conspiracy theorist...". What is truly sad is that he is a smart person and is fully capable of empiricism (but only when it comes to inanimate objects so long as it doesn't conflict with his agenda), but he is also one of those people whose intelligence largely consists of memorizing things and that combined with an authoritarian bent and ability to rationalize anything he does with all kinds of comically faulty logic is how he keeps going. He surrounds himself with people who generally believe likewise which isn't hard to do in my area of the US.
Good on you for staying friends with him. Too many people end friendships over the pettiest of things lately.
You're too kind and maybe I'm too petty. I tolerated this for nearly 25 years and once he basically let me know that he was perfectly fine with me being sent to a work/re-education camp for my beliefs and supporting Christian Nationalists who literally call for the death of anyone non-Christian so long as he can (his explanation for supporting Trump) get a break on his taxes (even though he wants to believe he is in the tax bracket that will benefit him despite not being in that bracket), I kinda decided it was time to pull back. I feel like I paid my dues and reached my limit. I'm not the only one. His wife will call periodically and beg some friends from the old group to hang out with him (he needs to get out of the house) and it inevitably results in him saying terrible stuff about minority groups that could never affect him. Jeez...now that I think about it, over the past 15 years, the following groups have been plotting to take over America:
Muslims
leftists
Globalists
Communists
Obama/Soros/Hillary etc.
Socialists
Immigrants from South of the border
Chinese immigrants
Jews
I'm sure I'm leaving some out.
That’s far from a petty thing to end a friendship over.
Willfully encouraging your own brainrot on topics a 3rd grader has no problem understanding to the detriment of society isn't really petty.
people are really good at being "skeptical" of everything except their own biases
Tbf I think most rogan fans and rogan himself accept hancock is full of shit after flint dibbled him.
I never really followed hancocks work but I appreciate a good debunking beatdown. But it only highlighted my dislike of professional skeptics. Shermer went on rogan vs hancock and because Shermer is a professional skeptic as opposed to an expert in the field hancock came out of it fine. But when you get an actual expert to go against hancock he gets obliterated.
To many people think being a skeptic makes you an expert on everything. From now on let actual experts destroy these people not random who learn the Latin words for types of arguments and know the woo is wrong but have no knowledge beyond that.
I was very disappointed when Shermer went on.
I don’t know if he was just underprepared or underestimated Hancock, who despite his stupidity, is extremely articulate and charismatic with his presentation style, and tbh does know his shit.
I’d go as far as to say Shermer made Hancock look better, and did a disservice to science and rationality.
I remember anxiously expecting the same with Dibble, without knowing anything about him, and then watching the entire thing and being pleasantly surprised at just how effectively he took Hancock apart. And without falling victim to Hancock’s little traps or resorting to any kind of attack on him or his character.
Just pure facts, layed them out very clearly, and the audience can see for themselves. Very impressed, 10/10 and a gold star.
Dude Shermer’s a bit of a joke; he treated David Graeber, the most influential 21st century anthropologist, like Graham Hancock when he interviewed David Wengrow. Sure, there are issues with The Dawn of Everything but to compare them like he did shows his ignorance. I honestly think Shermer didn’t do well because he thinks of mainstream archaeology and anthropology in a negative light and kinda agrees with Graham in that way. Probs cuz he’s friends with certified loon James Lindsay…
Yes well, I didn’t think much of him after that appearance.
Who's James Lindsay?
One of the grievance study people; but of the three he’s probably the most unhinged, particularly in regards to his claims about Gnosticism. They’re completely divorced from the actual Gnostic texts we’ve found, and based on a early 20th century German historian, Eric Vogelin, who wrote before any Gnostic texts were discovered and was basing his entire thesis on secondhand Christian sources that were heavily biased against Gnosticism. Throw in like some “Übermenschen” and wanting to make “spiritual men” and how Marx and Hitler are both secretly Christian gnostics and how trans = Gnostic and you get James Lindsay’s historical method.
I guess that’s what happens when you try to apply street epistemology to history, a field which requires rigorous sourcing
Hancock is not a stupid man, I would be surprised if he actually believes half the shit that comes out of his own mouth.
His lies make him a lot of money, he is also a professional at keeping his lies consistent.
Well, I did say he was clever and articulate and charismatic, and he does his homework on his subjects.
But I do think he genuinely believes what he says, which makes me think he’s also stupid. He is ridiculously passionate about it and seems to have dedicated his life to it.
I think Hancock knows it is bs, look at the Bimini "road" that has been disproved 8 ways to Sunday , a rational mind simply cannot accept that as man made. But he keeps on it because these underwater evidences have great draw for his audience. Same with the comet strike, big appeal for his peeps but totally unnecessary for his narrative. The water was in huge lakes above sea level that was one way or another going to get to the ocean why does need to argue a comet strike ? Sensationalism !
He dropped Antarctica as Atlantis because it was unnecessary, any other place would do in it's stead for sensationalism. With the fact that his civilization needed trees to build wooden boats and there has not been trees on Antarctica for 65 million years(or whatever) it became untenable and he didn't need to cling to it when it wasn't something that was a big draw for his fans.
I think much of this is calculated towards fan appeal. The woe is me, Big Archaeology, racist crap depicting himself as a martyr gets shoved in the same box as well, calculated, plays to his audience.
Follow the money.
Decoding the Gurus did an interview with Flint Dibble about this Joe Rogan episode. He explained how he prepared and they discussed how his strategy differed from Shermer's. This where I first learned about him.
Very well said.
Shermer's attempt was almost insulting to Hancock. He has no idea what he was talking about and he was oddly confrontational. Dibble had knowledge instead of arrogance.
Shermer has a long and storied history of making the philosophy look bad on Rogan. I like him but he needs to give it a rest.
I think (as a professional skeptic) one of the problems you're going to run into is that a lot of people are suspicious of people with 'normal' credentials, e.g. scientists, archaeologists, etc.
I don't know how much Rogan and his audience was impacted by Shermer or Dibble, it seems like Rogan's audience mostly like to dab on Dibble (understandable)
Shermer was not prepared well and what he probably counted on, the call with the actual expert, was not as conclusive as he had hoped for because Hancock is articulate and can easily cast doubt in the minds of non experts like Rogan or his listeners.
Dibble came prepared.
But it’s a British accent with intrigue! It’s honey for the ears!
It really wasn't a debunking beatdown. This would mainly consist of Dibble responding (debunking) to points raised by Hancock.
Instead, Dibble took the stage and actively posited new points to highlight what archaeology is really all about.
I would NOT interpret this as a debunking beatdown at all.
Don’t get me started on Rogan’s fawning over Bob Lazar and Jeremy Corbel ( see: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/oyxuok/bob_lazars_story_is_it_believable_here_is_some_of/ )
This is interesting because in Flint’s interview with Decoding the Gurus, he said Rogan was more siding with him in the debate. That doesn’t sound like “taking on” Joe Rogan.
I listened to the debate and have to agree that Joe seemed more convinced by Flint than Hancock, and he pushed back against Hancock’s tactics.
I would say Joe was around 50/50.
He definitely gave Hancock a few off-ramps when he was getting dunked on and saying crazier stuff than normal, Hancock graciously took the lifelines Joe threw him to get out of a few tight spots in the debate.
People love to look at things as adversarial
The heroes of society battling it out
Yet, Dibble did not look at it this way at all. He highlighted that he did NOT look at it as a debate. But as a chance to showcase proper archaeology to the huge Rogan audience. A science communication opportunity he seized with both hands (after recovering from cancer).
Dibble did say he felt he won.
He did call it a debate, albeit an informal one.
Oh, I must have misheard him in the podcast....
I am talking about the decoding episode he did after the Rogan one.
Millions of people still hang on Joe's every word. I don't know what this guy thinks he accomplished. Hancock will keep publishing and Rogan will keep talking.
I think the title misrepresents what he actually said. He says inside the article that Joe Rogan agreed with a lot of what he was saying, so he didnt really go against Rogan too. He was a really good moderator actually. Title makes it seem like Rogan had it in for him too, which isnt what the article says inside.
Giving them content kinda feels like a loss tbh.
I think the title of this article is misleading. As someone who listened to the whole thing, Rogan did a great job moderating this debate, especially considering him and Hancock are friends. Dibble is even quoted in this article as saying that he was surprised by how much Joe agreed with him during the discussion. I think the title is an editorial choice rather than a direct quote from Dibble
It was less Rogan being anywhere near a decent moderator and more Hancock absolutely botching this with his dishonesty and bitterness.
Don’t let your bias influence your objectivity. Rogan clearly didn’t pick a side, and forced Graham to stay on topic multiple times, it was clearly a fair hearing for both sides
Hancock started to drift away from their preliminary agreement: No personal name calling, stick to talking about the evidence.
That Dibble then bit back a little bit was only warranted.
Rogan, ever the Silverback, adjudicated surprisingly fairly indeed.