Whining about the Establishment

One of the primary criticisms I have against sensationalist narratives is their incessant grievances regarding what they term the "establishment." This term appears to encompass individuals with advanced academic credentials and established reputations in their respective fields—specifically archaeology, history, and geology in the context of Ancient Apocalypse.

Sensationalists argue that mainstream academia is inherently biased and has an agenda. They claim that established scholars have built careers on a specific narrative, and any challenge to this narrative is perceived as a threat.

The establishment is often depicted as a group of gatekeepers, supposedly hindering free speech while lounging in university offices.

To a neutral observer, such claims seem dubious. It is evident that professional archaeologists possess beliefs grounded in years of research and evidence. However, these archaeologists lack lucrative book deals or popular online channels. If their objective were to suppress free speech, they are certainly not succeeding.

Anyone who publishes bestsellers, appears on top-rated podcasts, or produces widely-watched series but still complains about censorship should be viewed with skepticism.

These criticisms also reveal a misunderstanding of how academia operates and the debates within the field. If there were credible evidence for an advanced ancient civilization, academia would be eager to explore those claims. The potential media attention and funding for a groundbreaking discovery would be immense!

Mainstream archaeologists engage in various debates; they are not a monolithic entity intent on excluding outsiders.

The kernel of truth in the sensationalist argument lies in the fact that mainstream scientists adhere to established methodologies. They tend to dismiss those who reject the scientific approach, which sensationalists seem to overlook.

The Unscientific Approach

Most individuals creating sensationalist content about history and archaeology label themselves as amateurs. They amass information independently, interpret it through their unique perspectives, and share their conclusions with the public.

This method is not inherently flawed; many successful sensationalists, including Graham Hancock, are intelligent and rational individuals.

However, a significant problem arises in their methods of gathering and presenting evidence—they often fail to provide scientific proof. At best, they offer anecdotal or circumstantial evidence.

Typically, an episode of Ancient Apocalypse begins by citing established archaeological facts. A monolithic structure, for example, is identified as being thousands of years old, constructed over time by local populations.

Subsequently, Hancock seeks out a piece of information that archaeology has yet to clarify—such as the stones beneath Bimini Road or ancient remains found in Malta.

If he cannot find any such evidence, he often resorts to fabricating connections between unrelated structures or applies unfamiliar technologies like Lidar to support his theories, despite a lack of direct analysis or excavation.

What he and other sensationalists neglect to do is engage in genuine archaeological work. They do not dig or collaborate with teams of experts to investigate further. Instead, they selectively present information from various sources to bolster a preconceived hypothesis.

This approach is the antithesis of the scientific method. Hancock operates under the assumption that an ancient civilization existed before the Ice Age, was largely eradicated, and subsequently disseminated advanced technology to indigenous peoples.

Numerous experts have critiqued the foundations of this hypothesis, detailing logical inconsistencies and methodological errors. These critiques are best addressed by those with specialized knowledge.

My focus is on the broader phenomenon of sensationalism.

Identifying Pseudoscientists

A few indicators can help you spot a pseudoscientist promoting sensationalism. Although this discussion centers on archaeology and history, these indicators are applicable across various scientific domains, including medicine and astronomy.

First, do they frequently lament being "censored" or "canceled" while enjoying significant visibility on popular platforms?

Do they vilify an unnamed, powerful "establishment" without providing specific identities, yet insist that many share their views but fear speaking out?

The reality is that sensationalist pseudoscience thrives on attention. The only way these theorists can profit from their ideas is by cultivating an audience. This contrasts sharply with traditional scientists, who undergo rigorous processes to secure funding, publish research, and achieve recognition over extended periods.

Positioning themselves as victims of the establishment is a tactic to garner sympathy. Sensationalists prefer to embody the underdog. This leads to a second observation.

Second, pseudoscientists often lack the inclination to engage in genuine scientific work.

For instance, Graham Hancock is not interested in dedicating years to meticulous excavation. He prefers to travel, engage with influential figures, publish books, and draw attention to his narrative, leaving the hands-on research to others. This pattern mirrors many COVID conspiracy theorists who do not conduct their own studies or collect data.

Third, do they consider opposing evidence?

Do they explore how their theories fit within the broader context of known social and historical frameworks? I've encountered numerous pseudoscientists asserting that ancient Egyptians utilized advanced, forgotten technologies to construct the pyramids. If such technologies existed, what materials would they have used? If they could levitate massive stones, why not apply that capability in other aspects, like warfare?

These critical considerations rarely arise in discussions among pseudoscientists. They prefer to focus on singular questions that conventional science has yet to answer thoroughly, filling gaps in knowledge with their theories.

This resembles the "God of the gaps" argument often found in religious contexts, illustrating that these sensationalist claims lean more toward proselytizing than genuine scientific inquiry.

Finally, how exciting would it be if their theories were accurate?

While this may not be the most reliable method for detecting pseudoscience, it remains relevant. Wouldn't it be thrilling to discover lost ancient technologies? How exhilarating would it be if established medical professionals were entirely mistaken about COVID, and those receiving vaccines were simply following the crowd? The allure of uncovering extraordinary truths that contradict mainstream beliefs can be enticing.

Pseudoscientists often accuse the established scientific community of being motivated by financial interests—suggesting that if their theories were debunked, they would lose funding. However, this perception misrepresents the financial dynamics within academia. Scientists' reputations are built on numerous small contributions rather than the validity of any grand theory.

Conversely, the income of sensationalist pseudoscientists is undeniably linked to the appeal of their ideas and audience size. They project their fears of losing followers and status onto the scientific community. This concern for credibility often leads to the use of complex jargon and seeking validation from individuals outside their field.

In summary, when engaging with a podcast or program featuring someone promoting a radical theory that could reshape our understanding of history, consider the following:

1. Are they complaining about censorship from the establishment?
2. Have they conducted research in collaboration with other scientists, following the scientific method?
3. Do they acknowledge counterarguments, examine evidence from mainstream science, and contemplate the societal implications of their theories?
4. How astonishing would it be if their claims were accurate?

In the case of Ancient Apocalypse, the answers are (1) frequently, (2) not at all, (3) never, and (4) utterly implausible.

In conclusion, this series falls short in all respects, exemplifying the characteristics of a sensationalist "documentary."