Comments by "nozrep" (@nozrep) on "Premodernist" channel.

lol he has definitely stopped us odd people from talking about oddities that we observe are possibly odd. That would be the scientific “consensus” people. The scientific establishment, disparaging us for offering odd, possibly new ideas for why some of the hard evidence in the world even exists in the first place.
11
just as the Catholic church imprisoned Galileo in his own home for what he observed in the sky and proven correct with benefit of time; so also today, the atheist scientific establishment dogmatically disparages and attacks those presenting potentionally confounding and upending ideas using plainly observable evidence, such as precision drilled perfectly cylindrical holes in the pyramids in Egypt. Although, I suppose it is true that they have not been able imprison Hancock, yet.😳😁
8
yep
5
yah but they gonna attack is anyway, unfortunately. even if you are like that. even if I am like that. One of my other comments was specifically about how it’s like, ummm yah Hancock says crazy stuff. And it is fun to listen to and think about the possibilities. Even if there is no evidence, or, whatever. Dude’s a book writer, a storyteller. Fine. The failure of real scientists or real archaeologists to see that not everyone is a pseudo historian or a pseudo scientist just because we like to listen to Hancock’s fun and entertaining but unproven theories is exactly that: a failure on their own part. So yah, man, screw them. I know that I am not a pseudo whatever. And so do you. And we gonna get lumped in and overgeneralized into that, anyway. fuck it.
4
i pay. I pay my internet service bill every single month. Yep. I pay too. Anything else over and above it an extra tip. Well earned! Well earned indeed. Anyway, dude’s a literal historian and gets paid a salary wherever he’s professor at. So, therefore, I pay my internet service bill, and I don’t feel bad about not paying him any membership money or tip money. Nevertheless it is very good that you, however, do!
4
@williamchamberlain2263 lol, nope, haven’t read that one! in fact, I’ve never read any of his books. I just like trying to make trigger comments. As you can see, I was able to trigger the guy that called me a “schizoposter”😂 mission accomolished!
3
@williamchamberlain2263 so you are saying that, a hypothesis does not offer potentially unexplained theories about evidence that exists, without ignoring said evidence?
3
well that may be your opinion, and that is good. However it is not one of the top ten according to the numbers or analytics which we the viewers have to see. And this point is tertiarily relateable to the points he also talking about. To make such a strong statement, which turns out is just your opinion, can be viewed and, or, interpreted as fact by an innocent bystander. Thereby causing the opinion to become a “pseudo fact”, in lieu of some peoples’ inability to separate strong statements of belief or opinion from empirically meaurable facts. Unfortunately, such is life, in this life of ours, due to varying intelligence levels and critical thinking abilities across individuals in all of humanity.
3
all of his educational background is public record. And not him and not nobody ever forced anyone to buy any of his books. He just talks and entertains. Either you listen or you don’t. Either you buy a book or you don’t. Nah. He’s not a grifter in my opinion. I suppose if I had actually bought a book of his, and read it, and had been disappointed, then that would fit a potentional definition of what grifting is. Seems like a whole lotta people these days are calling people grifters even when the “grifter” is giving complete freedom to everyone to freely choose whether or not to buy a book or not buy. Or to freely choose to watch or to not watch. That’s not what grift is. Of course maybe I am wrong too. Anyways. Comments sections are fun!
3
but you clicked anyway just so you come on out and participate and comment the comment, ‘boring’ ? K. ok ok. Cool.
3
main issue I have is with the real scientists and the real archaeologists, apparently, sometimes being unable to see that some theorists are not actually claiming something is fact. Yes, Hancock is a book writer and a story telller, for sure. And a persuasive and entertaining one. But even if he did, or has in the past, he does not nowadays claim that all the things he says are in fact, fact. The real scientists, and the real archaeologists, are SUPPOSED to be proponents of the the Five Steps of the Scientific Method, are they not? Does not one of the five steps involve coming up with ideas? Even “crazy” ideas? In order to then take the next step of TESTING the theory? TESTING the idea? to either prove it or disprove it with empirical evidence? Yes this is the way of the scientific method I do believe. And some things, we cannot prove. And therefore, we must always be careful to acknowledge that alas, some things that appear to be real still, alas, remain theory in lieu of empirical measurements, even if we do have observational or, circumstancial evidence.
3
@Everson33 yes. haha. indeed selling is a form of pushing😅. I suppose that, the least pushy way might be, in a very general way… like, “i have something to sell, sir. I believe it can be of use to you. I would like to ask you to give me money for it, and I shall transfer full and complete ownership of it to you when you give me money. Would you give me money, sir, for this thing that I personally believe can be of use to you? The decision is completely yours, of course, and you are free to decide, freely. Yet, it is also true that I am very much hoping that you decide that it may of use to you as, I believe it will be.”. 😂 that’s the way I’d characterize not-pushy salesmanship as opposed to the opposite. The central theme and idea of Free Market Capitalism, as it were.
3
3:51: yessir, that is of course what he is doing. That is, of course what all scientists who, for really reals follow the five steps of the scientific method, do! They START with a conclusion! It is known as: a theory, an abstract, a hypothesis. Yes, that is correct. And while Hancock may not be a scientist, STARTING with a conclusion or hypothesis is THE first step of the Five Steps of the Scientific Method!😅 And then we test the evidence and gather the evidence, if any. Alas, Hancock had indeed formed many of his entertaining stories upon evidence that definitely exists, but which there is no apparent explanation for. Therein lies the consternation, I posit.
2
10:00; unfortunately, i definitely do not assume good faith anymore, but I am typing in an overall sense, in general. Going wayeee of topic here. Being a political conservative, during the pandemic I saw just too much blatant and illegal abuse of powers by politicians that, I realized I could no longer assume that they were doing things in good faith. All lockdowns were demonstrably illegal, for example. A blatant abuse of the fourth amendment. And the first amendment. So, no, I will not assumed good faith any longer, in any way, shape, or form. Across all intellectual subjects. Across all individuals. Across all politicians regardlessof party. Across all scientists. Nevertheless: good faith DOES still exist!!! Therefore, I shall definitely NOT assume good faith. Neither shall I definitely assume bad faith. But I will absolutely question question question. Yes. I AM that high maintenance person. And if it ever told me that I am wrong to question anything, for ANY reason at all. THAT is the moment I always choose tp assume bad faith in anyone. Including Hancock, including Dibble. Including Hawas. Including Trump and Newsome and Obama and other repubitards and libtards. Nevertheless again: good faith does exist. Be careful out there.
2
that’s not at all what premodernist said. Not at all. May I encourage you to re-listen. When he brought up Sagan, he was specifically referring to the “pseudo history” side of things, not the pseudo archaeology side. He specifically referred to some the things Sagan stated about history, pointing out that they were unproven statements about history, not backed up by primary sources, thereby rendering them to be historical theory or, if you must, pseudo history. Premodernist did not at all say that Sagan promoted pseudo archaeology. And here, we see in action the specific point that Premodernist made: how easy it is for many of us even most of us to inadvertently, unintentionally fall into the socalled “trap” of pseudo anything. For example as you incorrectly thought that he said Sagan was promoting pseudo archaeology, when in fact he did not say that at all. Listening carefully is hard though! And I know, because I am ADHD, and forgetful!
2
k, but he just has conversations with anyone who he is interested in. For example, he’s had on hardcore leftist politicals who hate trump, and talked them for many hours. He’s also had on some trump humpers, and talked to them for many hours also. Equally, he’s had on some crazy pseudo ufo alien theorists. And he’s also had on real, actual astronomers and mathematicians who point out the silliness of many of the alien folklorists.
2
2:44; foundation in the actual evidence and the actual primary sources. Yes absolutely. And before that, did an archaeologist not have an idea, or a theory, or a hypothesis as the first step in the scientific method that led him or her to such easily observable or easily measurable foundational evidences?
2
oh hell yah my guy! you are my people!!!😂
2
this is your theory. And now the theory must be tested, and proved or disproved, in order to ensure that it is not pseudo.
1
terms abound. whatever it actually is remains the same. fake archaeology, fake history, historical theory, archaeological theory, pseudo archaeology, pseudo history. Pseudo theories based on observed phenomenons. Pseudomic pseudomyns. Antonyms. Synonyms. Homonyms. Ad hominem.😂😅😂😅 Terms abound! Gloriously, and thankfully.
1
believe nothing. But DO be entertained and intrigued! This is the approach and point of view that I myself as only one man in the world try to take out here on these dangerous and precarious interwebs.
1
i theorize that Dibble does not fall into the category of pseudo archaeology fan. Like at all. Not even a smidgeon. But, I do!🎉🎉
1
what is your definition of normal? Because as I have come to realize about my own personality, a lot of the thoughts that I have and things I say that seem obvious to me are not considered normal by most people that I have encountered in my life’s experience, including my friends who accept me as a friend anyway.
1
banger of a thread, my fellows and fellettes, a banger!!😆
1
awww man come on. I do not know what a nominative determinism is?! Help a guy out! Me I’m the guy!
1
@williamchamberlain2263 i dunno, never watched it. don’t know any episode names. I do not even have a netflix subscription. I do hulu.
1
what is jargon?
1
no sir. A hypothesis is based on an observation. Thereafter, it is tested. And may be proven, or disproven. I encourage you to read about the five steps of the scientific method. A scientist observes a thing. A scientist then hypothesizes about why that thing is what it is, or why it is doing what it is doing. A scientist then formulates an experiment to test whether or not his or her hypothesis is correct. When the hypothesis is disproven, the scientist formulates a differenr hypothesis via their thoughts, and then formulates a different experiment to yet again test whether or not a thing is the way it is. Or if why a thing is doing what it is doing.
1
certainly a paradox!😂
1
or evidentiary treatment of observations observed to actually be. Like for example cogito ergo sum.
1
oh oh oh! read my comments while you slurp! they, and their replies, I theorize and hypothesize, shall entertain you all the more!
1
haha that is a fun epithet!😂 ima use that. Also, I even also actually like Hancock!
1