Fact-checking science communicator Flint Dibble on Joe Rogan Experience (Graham Hancock)

On 16th April 2024 Joe Rogan hosted a debate between archaeologist Flint Dibble and author Graham Hancock. Dibble said he came to debunk "pseudoarchaeology" with a "truth sandwich". What were its ingredients?

CHAPTERS
00:00 Shipwrecks
15:22 Metallurgy
23:45 Racism
47:15 No evidence?



You don't have to agree with everything Hancock pushes when it comes to his argument for an Ice Age civilisation, but his rebuttal here is very good in many respects. 

Expanded comment/Editor's note:

Whatever you might think about Hancock, this video is important as it shows you (teaches) the process of investigating issues when you find them debated online, or anywhere else. It's simply not good enough to watch one rebuttal video to something without looking to see if there is any feedback to the rebuttal. A lot of people are complacent and simply take whatever the mainstream rebuttal says at face value when such things can be actual disinformation (clever lies), or misinformation (it is actually less likely the mainstream is making a mistake).

This video is a response by Graham Hancock to being rebutted in a live debate and then realising that he'd been ill prepared to address what was put it him, and also realising he'd been grossly misled or lied to in the rebuttals.

I don't agree with everything Graham Hancock puts forward when it comes to exploring the issue of a lost human civilisation, but in this case he's pointing out instances of fact that demolish what was claimed. This is the sort of process one needs to follow to get at the truth. If there's another rebuttal to Hancock then you follow that and see where it goes. However, the problem for the mainstream defender is that he's clearly using cherry picked and strawmannned arguments to make his case. So there's not much comeback when it comes to pointing out that the mainstream guy seems to be a disinfo artist. This stuff is common. It does not mean that Hancock is 100% correct either, but it does show that his opponent seems to be a disingenuous character.

The most important thing is to drill down into the data and understand what it actually says and to understand areas where the material draws no solid conclusions. It's a lesson in basic comprehension and doing the work in listening to all sides of an argument to see how they are comprehending the data, or misrepresenting it. You learn this stuff from reading debate threads on forums and it's VERY important to employ the same mindset to EVERYTHING when it comes to exploring controversial issues.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, October 13, 2024.]