Pseudo-Archaeology, UFOs, and the Need for Authentic Skepticism

"To distinguish the truth from bullshit, rational skepticism is required. This is not the same as contrarianism, conspiracy theories, or a blanket refusal to accept any and all sources of authority and expertise"  (Nathan J. Robinson, 'Pseudo-Archaeology, UFOs, and the Need for Authentic Skepticism' , Current Affairs  05 May 2025).   

The conventional wisdom among archaeologists is that what we consider the first advanced societies arose well after the end of the last Ice Age 11,700 years ago. Early agricultural communities formed during the Neolithic period (approximately 10,000-2,000 B.C.), and then the first civilizations—characterized by cities, centralized authority, and writing—emerged between 3500 and 1600 B.C., which is when the world witnessed the rise of Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Mesoamerican societies, the Indus Valley civilization, and Chinese civilization. But what if all of this is wrong? What if the first advanced societies did not emerge thousands of years after the Ice Age? What if there was a civilization that existed during the Ice Age, one with technology so advanced that some of it resembled what humans achieved in the 19th century? What if this civilization was wiped out in a catastrophe when the Ice Age ended, leaving virtually no trace except the scraps of knowledge it passed down to the societies that succeeded it? What if this civilization was… the legendary lost continent of Atlantis? This is the hypothesis put forward by British writer Graham Hancock. Hancock has spent decades arguing that mainstream archaeologists are stubbornly and irrationally refusing to investigate the possibility that a lost Ice Age civilization existed.

In this well-argued article Nathan J. Robinson discusses the recewnt Dibble-Hancock debate on the Joe Rogan podcast and finds it revealing of broader societal issues, particularly the tension between mainstream experts and pseudoarchaeologists. Refusal of insitutional academia to engage with fringe theorists only strengthens their echo chambers and fosters a sense of persecution (by being ignored and dismissed), making it harder to counter misinformation. The loonies form insular communities in which they tell themselves they are being canceled because the establishment can’t handle their truths. This problem is compounded by widespread superficial knowledge, distrust of academic institutions, and above all, poor public education in critical thinking. Many people believe figures like Rogan and Graham Hancock not out of malice but because they lack the tools to assess truth from falsehood—tools that schools and institutions have failed to teach effectively. "Our institutions themselves bear a fair share of the blame for not doing a better job of building public trust and teaching people how to tell the truth from bullshit".

The blame lies elsewhere too. As Robinson points out, after several hours of having things carefully explained, media personalities (opinion creators) often prove to be unable to take new ideas on board:

"I am not under any illusion that one can successfully educate Joe Rogan—soon after Dibble exposed Hancock on the program, Hancock returned as a guest and pushed the same nonsensical theories. ".

Robinson advocates for more public-facing scientists, like archaeologist Flint Dibble, to explain how real scientific knowledge is produced. Dibble’s willingness to appear on Rogan’s show is praised as part of a tradition of public intellectuals (like Carl Sagan and James Randi) who demystify science and expose pseudoscience.

This is what we need now: real skepticism. The skepticism of MythBusters and great debunkers like James Randi, a skilled magician who spent his life exposing fraudulent claims of paranormal abilities, not the skepticism of someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who looks like an independent thinker but arrives at entirely irrational conclusions, in part because he’s too unwilling to take expertise seriously.

Robinson concludes by emphasizing the need for real skepticism — one grounded in evidence and intellectual humility, not contrarianism masquerading as independent thought. He stresses that experts must take greater responsibility for building public trust, especially via social media, to foster a more critical and informed society capable of resisting misinformation and authoritarian manipulation.