Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "Lex Clips" channel.

Peddling a successful grift does still require intelligence. It just also requires a lack of integrity.
2
No archeologist is refusing to look for new discoveries. Hancock makes completely baseless claims and complains when no actual scientist or academic takes him seriously.
1
The entire point of doing research of any kind is to discover new things. Scientists and researchers want to be able to rewrite the books.
1
For some amount of time, I thought Hancock may actually believe what he’s saying. With the smear campaign he’s embarked on, I find it most likely he’s just a grifter.
1
⁠ @jaimewest7161 The messaging Hancock spreads does have consequences though. He’s actively eroding people’s trust in actual science and convincing them to believe pseudoscientists, grifters, and anyone else who peddles an antiestablishment narrative. Also, he is engaged in a smear campaign against Flint Dibble that is being platformed by Rogan. That’s not exactly an admirable endeavor.
1
@notreally2406 Hancock doesn’t do actual research. He goes to sites, looks at things, and speculates. That’s why he has no evidence for his claims despite being at this for decades now.
1
@Joseph-yw6rs The guy here is incorrectly using the word theory as it relates to science. It would be more accurate if he used “hypothesis” instead. And facts and theories have different purposes in science. Scientific laws are effectively just facts. They state things that happen. Theories are explanatory and predictive models that are formed from facts.
1
Some scientists and academics are as you just described, but it would not be accurate to say all are like that. Hancock receives criticism because his claims are entirely baseless and he bashes actual science.
1
@Georgedunkin7473 At best, Hancock has hypotheses. And you understand that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, so you should understand that Hancock is the one that needs to show that there is evidence for a lost advanced civilization. Simply saying that you can’t prove there wasn’t one doesn’t cut it.
1
@Georgedunkin7473 I’d argue that Hancock is not actually trying to prove his claims. If he was, he’d be funding and partaking in actual archeological work. Instead he uses his show budget to just look at archeological sites and speculate. He’s been preaching the same narrative for something like 30 years and he has literally no evidence to support his claims that there was a lost advanced civilization. He even directly admitted this. After all this time, if his best argument is “you can’t say there wasn’t one because we haven’t explored every square inch of the earth yet,” then it’s much more likely that there wasn’t such a civilization. And the argument against Hancock isn’t that there wasn’t a civilization as he describes. The argument is that the current evidence doesn’t suggest that such a civilization existed.
1
@notreally2406 He has literally zero evidence and even admitted it. By definition, his claims are baseless. It’s all just speculation.
1
That’s not true. Both archeology and psychology are scientific fields. They conduct research and form and test hypotheses. When information is incomplete, results can be up for interpretation.
1