Not a great critique, limited to matters of personal taste rather than the actual content, while calling it "dangerous". Isn't there a better critique which covers the actual claims made in the series?
I liked this one[1] better. He makes some good points, particularly that there is no genetic trace of Hancock's advanced civilization in our DNA. And that if a global seafaring civilization existed around the last ice age, then we would've seen a mixing of agriculture well before Columbus. Worth a watch.
I think certain classes of claims one should be cautious about engaging with. The fact that so many have with so little scrutiny has had a seriously negative effect on our society. Having an opinion does not make it worth scrutinizing. My cat has an opinion on whether she should go to the vet or not. I don't take it into consideration.
Failing to engage with ideas you find distasteful just creates a vacuum of good information; which is the environment where conspiracy theories thrive. I've followed Graham Hancock for twenty years and have yet to see anyone properly dismantle his positions. I don't believe everything he says: but dogmatically dismissing him only fuels his narrative that mainstream archaeologists are trying to suppress him in order to save their jobs (and grants).
Given the highly falsifiable nature of his claims it should easy enough to disprove them. That nobody chooses to do so is quite curious. I can watch a hundred spirited debates and proofs on both sides of flat-earth, fake moon landing, essential oils curing cancer, and evolution vs young-earth creationism. What is so special about archaeology that it needn't mount a similar, vigorous defense?
To add to this, the grandparent post wants to hear the critiques about the content rather than the messenger.
I think about the story of he discovery of H. pylori as contributing to peptic ulcer disease. The theory was widely rejected but ultimately proven. The mitigating factor in accepting the theory was that the researcher did not have a reputation of peddling quack theories.
The mitigating factor was surely the extremely detailed evidence provided which is what is always lacking in conspiracy theories. The latter hide in the gaps in evidence and insinuation. The Hancock ‘documentary’ is basically an Atlantian of the gaps.
