this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
25 points (85.7% liked)

Skeptic

1313 readers
37 users here now

A community for Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Things we don't like:

Other communities of interest:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
kabe@lemmy.world
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
25
Any ice-age telepaths out there? Please explain why Netflix is revisiting Ancient Apocalypse (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/skeptic@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Diary note: it may seem a while off, but the end of the world is still scheduled for 2030, precise date TBC. After once suggesting that nameless devastation could be upon us in 2012, the evergreen eschatologist Graham Hancock subsequently updated his advice to a comet, now six years off. Or thereabouts. MailOnline, which has been exhuming an ancient Hancock text, reminds readers of his “dire warning for our age”.

What is certain, anyway, is that a great and horrifying catastrophe will occur as soon as 16 October. This is the day Netflix will launch something astounding, almost beyond belief, something sceptics said could never happen: series 2 of Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse. And stranger still: this terrible event stars, along with Hancock, the Hollywood actor Keanu Reeves.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about this series in particular. These pseudo documentaries have been around forever, and I don't remember so much animosity. Just have fun. Nobody hated on Nimoy for In Search Of.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Nobody hated on Nimoy for In Search Of.

That show opened with a firm disclaimer that it was all speculative.

Hancock does say his ideas aren't mainstream, but it's framed more like a conspiracy by academics to hide the truth.

I agree with you in general that you can have light entertainment shows about "unsolved mysteries" without falling into the trap of peddling pseudoscience.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because it is a step down the pseudoscience pipeline that gets you to not trust scientists (Hancock's whole thing is that elitist archaeologists won't accept his ideas) and that leads to things like vaccine denial.

It is dangerous.

[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He definitely does highlight the fact that his ideas aren't accepted in academia and he's right. Academia requires evidence and Hancock is long on theory but comes up short on evidence.

I think he does bring a lot of imagination and wonder to what can often be a dull subject matter, and even if it's all bullshit I see value in that.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

No, he highlights the lie that archaeologists are conspiring against him.

Also, there is no value in lying to people about science. None.