The problem is that academia stays within its artificial sectored boundaries. which is not how knowledge was approached, even a few hundred years ago. Archeologists do not really talk to Geologists, for example. Which is weird if you think about it - they are both digging into soil and dating stuff. What Hancock is doing is joining their dots, which is outrageous to the establishment. The same thing happens between Psychologists and Strategic Management types. Again - weird - why would management strategy not include a measure of how mass psychology works?
The premise of Science is to take a theory and disprove it. These days, people are trying to make science concrete and irrefutable, (famously illustrated by Pelosi's "Science, Science, science" comment) but that is not what is supposed to happen. Those people who disprove hypotheses, like Hancock and Carlson, are now seen as heretics. REEEeeeEEE.
The problem is that academia stays within its artificial sectored boundaries. which is not how knowledge was approached, even a few hundred years ago. Archeologists do not really talk to Geologists, for example. Which is weird if you think about it - they are both digging into soil and dating stuff. What Hancock is doing is joining their dots, which is outrageous to the establishment. The same thing happens between Psychologists and Strategic Management types. Again - weird - why would management strategy not include a measure of how mass psychology works?
The premise of Science is to take a theory and disprove it. These days, people are trying to make science concrete and irrefutable, (famously illustrated by Pelosi's "Science, Science, science" comment) but that is not what is supposed to happen. Those people who disprove hypotheses, like Hancock and Carlson, are now seen as heretics. REEEeeeEEE.