Good point, I just have two issues with the that.

Plato wasn't there, why should he be anymore of an authority than anyone else?

IMO, and that of quite a few other people, Plato wasn't particularly interested in the truth of it anyway, but more interested in expouding certain of his ideas.

Given the effects of the Santorini eruption on an island like Minos, is it not likely that the flood caused by the eruption on Santorini, that probably had some fairly devastating consequences to the Minoan Civilisation, got conflated with the eruption? It was a long time before Plato, in the Greek Dark Ages, and came to him from a decidedly secondhand source.

I could be wrong, "Atantis" could be somewhere else, inside or outside the Mediterranean Basin, but I'd like to see some pretty good evidence, as the Santorini Hypothesis (that is all it is until we find a "Welcome to Atlantis" sign there or somewhere else).

I just get pretty tired sometimes of all these sensational "We've found Atlantis, no really, we have, we just haven't actually looked for any evidence yet, and what there is is circumstantial at best, but it is there, really it is" type stuff.

Why do pretty smart people seem to turn off their critical faculties whenever some new loon comes along with a new Atlantis, or a Chariots of the Gods type book? I did, admittedly, study this at uni, but its not that hard to the flaws in the ideas of Hancock and Von Daniken, you just have to look at it crtically, if it was some new bollocks about cold fusion or superconductance that wasn't backed up by amything more than a notion and some circumstantial evidence most of you would be circling around it like Frat boys around a drunk cheerleader, waiting to see who could get the first bite in ;)