‘Ancient technology that’s lost to us’ is one of those phrases that is used to construct a motte and bailey argument which opens a gap through which some crazy theories get inserted, so it’s worthy of being treated with skepticism.

Are there ancient structures where we are unsure what technologies were used to make them? Yes, absolutely.

Does the existence of such artifacts imply the existence of certain precursor technologies and tools used to build them? Yes, but we must proceed cautiously. Without direct evidence of the tools and technologies used we are speculating based on the results we observe, about what the means used to produce them must have been. The same result, though, can be produced in many different ways. Problems we look at today and say ‘surely that would require a machine or a powerful engine to do?’ might be solved instead by just throwing manpower at the problem, or by taking much more time to execute than we might initially assume is reasonable. And the existence of doubt about which of several historically plausible theories as to how something was constructed does not automatically mean that historically implausible theories are equally valid.

And, most importantly, does the fact that we have ‘lost’ the precise techniques used in ancient constructions leave open the possibility that those ancient techniques were actually superior to what we have today? Theoretically, but in general, no, of course not. Be very wary whenever you see someone say something like ‘the precision of these stone blocks exceeds what we can do today’. These are nonsensical claims made from ignorance about what modern engineering is capable of. Take a look just at how modern kitchen counters are cut, let alone how precisely engineered something like a modern tunnel, or the LIGO gravity wave detector was constructed.

> The name “scientists against myths” makes me wary of this channel. They clearly have an agenda[...]

myth: an unfounded or false notion [0]

Given that definition of "myth" I find the name "scientists against myths" to be rather redundant, wouldn't you? In what version of reality is that not the agenda of every scientist?

0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

The existence of Troy was once considered a myth.

You say Troy was considered a myth as if it were an absolute, it wasn’t, it was debated among scholars.

Fact is German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann was one of those learned people that didn’t think it was a myth, and in fact did locate and excavated a city matching the descriptions.

That’s how science works, things generally tend not to exist until there is proof or record of their existence, science doesn’t default to things existing until record of their non-existence emerges.

You seem to have missed the point entirely:

The scientists who considered it a myth were completely, utterly wrong. I think it is perfectly healthy to have skepticism about scientists who wage war against "myths".

See also the long fight against the "myth" of lead poisoning, amongst dozens if not hundreds of other examples.

They make videos about drilling holes in rock using rocks and lots of time.

>Are you saying there’s not ancient technology or civilization that’s lost to us?

Archeology is based on the record, so we only know as much as we have of the record. Like most sciences the archeological record is subject to new discoveries.

The problem is the way “lost civilization” and “ancient high technology” are most often used disingenuously.

For example we don’t have the exact formulas to replicate Greek fire nor Roman concrete as they were valuable secrets of the times. The equivalence of me arguing “Greek fire and Roman concrete is proof of a ‘lost high technology’ and evidence for older ‘lost civilization’ from the before the ice age, lost to a cataclysm, and mainstream archeology rejects my theories because of a vast conspiracy against amateur archeologists” then placing the burden of proof on “academics” to find evidence no such civilization exists.