Graham Hancock did not have a change against Flint.

Professor Dave made a video mostly about Graham Hancock. Since, he seem to use Hancock's debade against Flint Dibble heavely in his video I decided to pass Dave's video and watch the debade myself. I didn't want Dave's option blur my assenment on debate technicalities. I was utterly socked how much of a fucking douche Hancock was. Flint did not have to do much discredit him, Hancock himself did most of the work.

First to speak, was Flint. I watched enough of Dave's video that he thinks this is good summary of the debate. I somewhat disagree in terms of Flint's performance. I think Flint should have been more offensive with what is standard of evidence and just hammer point home. There were also moments which Flint should have probably just cut the Hancock's bullshit early and just focus on Hancock's uttery unsupported claims. Overall, he didn't do horribly. I think he did better then Dave did with James Tour.

Hancock's starting argument is nothing. Even if all of Archeology was a scam, that does not make him right. This does not logically follow. Since, this is discussion about his ideas this complaint does nothing. Flint should have made this more clear but I think he wanted defend his own field so he didn't drop it. But because this seems to be only weapon, he spends a lot time on is it fair to call associate him with nazis. I'm not sure it is associating with nazis. There is nuance here in term of history of the ideas like Flint points out. Regarless Flint did not dismiss Hancock's ideas because of that history and even if he did it does not prove Hancock is right. Terms of debate I slap Hancock with poisoning the well fallacy so bad that I don't consider him honest debator. This view is forced by him fully trying not commit too deeply on topics. THAT IS THE STUFF HANCOCK SHOULD FOCUS ON!

I have now said what furstrated me the most about the Hancock's behavior. Let's focus on when he was actual making arguments on the topic. Roughtly, from my memory, logic he used were:

• It looks like X, there for it is X.
• Person X with relevant expertise said Y, I find X convincing, there for Y.
• We have not searched only 5%/not in these areas there for hypothesis X cannot be denied.

It looks like x there for it is X, it is not valid reasoning because that is not refutation of alternative hypothesis. Like Flint points out with under water pictures, nature can do very geometric cuts so pictures do not state anything about it. What models where tested that nature could not do this? What papers were read to identify work already done to explain how they form? Has any work been done to rule out natural process? I don't care. Come back when you have done the work.

Next one came up couple times. The white skin vs black stuff kinda here. Regarless, debate like this would be better to go into why X is convincing. Flint might have similiar mistake. He clearly didn't feel like his geology knowledge was enough. This lead him to refered to geologist without exploring the topic. However, I think most damming thing was hence Hancock rightly pointed out that just because something says it is a debunk that it is. I would like to extend the good logic he used here to state that jsut because X is convincing that it is to rest of us.

Last one, I do want to more then one paragraph to discuss. I do think Flint's counter to do is good for live event. However, it can be nibbled on when it comes to thinking it through with our own pace. Flint's counter was to state that Archeology works from known to unknown. Mostly all of academic forward pushing science is done by looking what was done previously and from there going forward, testing old ideas with new technology. I do think this point was lost on Hancock because I don't remember him denying that.

Where I would nidle is that, it isn't like random spot check would not be science. Also, argument does not work if there is statisticly small sample set. One sample has infinite possibles, two is a perfect line. Also also, if one build a study on bad assumption then it could poison whole conclusion.

However, Hancock does not counter back about statistical small sample set and Flint shows statiscally large sample sets. Science will always have percentage of doubt. Where is Hancock's line on this. I don't know was not discussed. But, the area is not good metric for this. There are patterns homosapien behavior. There are natural areas not interesting to look. There are cities preventing or destroying the evidence. There are geological reason not to expect to find anything. Hancock does not deny these, so I would like to see a map where Hancock shows what drilling/ or what ever has to be performed, with enviroment taking into a count. Then explain why it is more efficient do to these random checks, then continue building from previous knowledge. Since, models build upon previous knowledge works, to find hunter gathers.