For some yes, for others not so much.
I dont like the focus on Graham Hancock. He is a self proclaimed mouthpiece for the community that like to question science, and present alternative ideas. That said, in my opinion, the scientific community hide behind him somewhat as the so called 'pseudo archeologist' and use him as evidence of crackpot theories that should not be listened to. I think that is unfair, but he plays to the crowds now so I have little sympathy. There are numerous qualified archeologists and other scientists questioning the understanding we have. They ask what I consider to be plausible questions, but often get shut down too quickly, if they associate with the likes of Hancock. My opinion anyway.
Full transparency, I work in HE and academia. I am not an academic. I am what some academics still call an admin guy. The university calls me a professional services guy. That shift happened as little as 10 years ago. Admin to professional service. There are academics, thankfully reducing in number, who still I am just admin to serve them. The real reality I have spent more time gaining my qualifications than they have in many circumstances. I run part of the IT org that interacts with academia, and quite often researchers or academics come to me to tell me what to do for them. My first reaction is why. Some really hate that question. A non-academic asking and academic why! After the why I more often than not say no. For a minority it creates a borderline self-combustion. Over the last 10 years I am glad to say that is lessening, and it is a more and more respectful relationship. Still some way to go. None of this may be relevant, but my experience of trying to help academic colleagues do the right and best thing, from an IT perspective, is maddening. AI is creating a whole new challenge, but that is for another thread. I wonder if this is how they react to challenge to their research from those they deem unqualified? Science, in my opinon at least, do a great job of making their work and findings impregnable to the normal bloke. I listen to Brian Cox, and find him maddening. The amount of times he laughs at alternative theories, or daft questions, is divisive. Patrick Moore never behaved in that way to be honest.
Ramble over. I just think questioning, asking why, challenging, and being inquisitive is healthy. Science needs to open up, Hancock and his peers need to pipe down. There is way too much evidence coming out all the time to think our understanding of the ancient world is 100% locked in. Seems to me we know very little, so why not ask questions and make suggestions. Healthy debate nevet hurt many.
