- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,612
- 12,080
I don't believe in giving crackpots a platform, especially on irresponsible or dangerous topics that erode the value and trust of expertise in our society. For example, he's had Graham Hancock on the show multiple times and that guy is a pseudoarchaeologist with absolutely zero credibility in the fields he writes about, and is completely at odds with the actual experts in the field of study. Joe Rogan lets him drone on endlessly with little push back to the fantastical things he says, and even when he had him on with Michael Shermer to oppose him Joe Rogan spent more time arguing with Shermer while Hancock Gish Galloped all over the conversation.
That might actually be my least favorite of his podcasts.
1) Michael Shermer is cool, but he's not at all an archaeologist. It sounds like he was there for 3 hours just to say"But where's your proof!?"
2) I don't get the appeal to this Hancock guy. Generally anyone who makes their M.O. criticizing science for being closed-minded is someone with low credibility. What's weird about him though is that he seems to have a lot of people buying into what he has to say. The only critiques of the guy i've been able to find have been from a random thread comment.