rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/30/85)
> That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > this is what you'll have to do."... Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever scientific principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is Newman's duty to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." At the least, get the ball in Newman's court to start with; it's HIS machine after all. >...The scientific establishment makes > an ass of itself when it gets angry about people like Velikovsky > and Newman... I objected before when someone tried to make some comparison between Newman and Edison. I object now to grouping Newman and Velikovsky together. For all we can tell so far, Newman may be nothing more than misguided. Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a nasty one at that. The scientific establishment has ample reason to be angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/01/85)
See references: > > That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > > this is what you'll have to do."... > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > strikes back: > Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to > guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever > scientific principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is > Newman's duty to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." > Well, it like this, there are hardly any Newman's left, so I would not be too concerned about the time it takes to teach one. And, the scientist is NOT the judge **unless they are also a bureau- crat :-} **, rather Reality is the test. It is the scientist's duty to test the Reality of the claims, and if they have a PhD they must in addition teach, review papers, explore and seek out truth even where no man has gone, (sorry Scotty).. to explain, and reformulate or update knowledge for ALL mankind, whenever reasonably possible, night and day at home or away, whether divorced or gainfully employed. Otherwise they should be stripped of their misgiven degree and cast out of the Holy Mother Science. And that's final. Let's humble up. :-) +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..umcp-cs! ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (11/08/85)
> > That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > > this is what you'll have to do."... > > Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to > guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever scientific > principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is Newman's duty > to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." At the least, > get the ball in Newman's court to start with; it's HIS machine after all. > > >...The scientific establishment makes > > an ass of itself when it gets angry about people like Velikovsky > > and Newman... > > I objected before when someone tried to make some comparison between Newman > and Edison. I object now to grouping Newman and Velikovsky together. For > all we can tell so far, Newman may be nothing more than misguided. > Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a > nasty one at that. The scientific establishment has ample reason to be > angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. > -- > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Briefly, in l950, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed a reconstruction of history and a new look at how the Solar System attained its present status. For those of us being taught in school in those days that thee system had coalesced in blobs to form the planets, in a very uniform process over billions of years, it was a ridiculous book: why, in 1950, that crackpot predicted that the face of Mars would be pockmarked by craters and would have long cracks caused by other celestial phenomena; he said that Jupiter would have radio noise as a result of interaction with charged particles spewing from the sun; he indicated that Venus would be in a near-molten state because it was still cooling down from its history as a recently-formed planet; he said that the Earth's magentic field effects extended beyond the Moon, and even that the Moon would show remnant magnetism, and evidence of recent cometary impacts; he said that the Sun would have a measurable electrical charge; he said that some petroleum deposits would carbon-date (or otherwise be dated) in thousands of years, rather than millions; he concluded a wild and crazy origin for Linear B script (a great mystery in those days). Why, that crazy guy evn said that all cultures on earth have legends of a universal flood, of comets that gave rise to the dragons of Mayan, Chinese, and European mythology; he claimed that carbon-dating the pyramids and pharoahs would upset then-existing chronology of Egyptian history vis-a-vis the history of the rest of the Mediterranean; he said that there were celestial and geological reasons for the events enumerated in the Exodus book of the Bible, and reported also, event-for-event by the Egyptians. In summary, that crackpot, that charlatan, why he upset the uniformitarian paradigm of 1950. Of course, we all know by knowledge from space probes, from Lunar landings, and from iridium deposits around the world, that the earth has had a nice, uniform history, that space contains no electrical phenomena, that Jupiter does not radiate anything at all, that the rocks on the Moon never showed any externally-applied magnetism, that Venus has cool oceans, that Venus is not phase-locked with the earth, and that all planets rotate, North pole at top, that layer after layer of sediment has collected, undisturbed, for billions and billions of years, and that no species has ever become extinct abrutply, that the earth's magnetic field does not quickly shift, and that the continents don't drift. Good thing that old boy died a few years back; with his kind of crackpot theories, why, next thing you know, he'd be claiming that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, or that Uranus rotates 90 degrees to the eclitptic or some such nonsense. Sure glad to hear from all yall skientisks who know that dude were craazy. --arlan andrews analog irregular anarchist reader of crazy s--- (incl. Usenet)
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/11/85)
For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, he missed several others. This perhaps entitles him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. Yes, there were (and are) closed-minded scientists who do not understand the difference between actual factual knowledge and currently-accepted theorizing. This confusion gets propagated to the lay audience. That is indeed a problem. But cranks and frauds are by no means immune to this problem..
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/16/85)
> For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, > he missed several others. This perhaps entitles > him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. > Hey Doug, Aren't you being a little rough on the guy! I mean if you say things like this, and, it's not going to make A. Einstein look that great either. Let's just say the man had guts. I. Velisolly* *phun intended +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/18/85)
> > For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, > > he missed several others. This perhaps entitles > > him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. > > Hey Doug, > Aren't you being a little rough on the guy! I mean if you > say things like this, and, it's not going to make A. Einstein look > that great either. Let's just say the man had guts. Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much. You might count his position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him, although his best objections have never been answered to my satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he knew what he was doing there). In his favor are dozens of major achievements, many of them more radical than what Velikovsky proposed (although, and here is a significant difference, they clarified troublesome areas of physics rather than contradicting known areas of physics). The significant difference between the two men as physical theorists is that Einstein made definite, mathematical, theories that extended our physical understanding, whereas Velikovsky made relatively imprecise, intuitive arguments aimed specifically at supporting a specific postulated historical interpretation of certain myths and without other physical basis. I have to admit that some of the theories I have seen from reputable physicists appear to be not much better founded than Velikovsky's speculations, but at least they usually implicitly agree to have their ideas tried by the operation of normal science research, including peer evaluation and experimental testing. This makes their work "more scientific", even if not more correct. The process of peer review and refereed publication is certainly not ideal, but it is better than the obvious alternatives. If someone has a really good idea how potentially valuable ideas can filter through the system using some other approach, it would be quite a service to explain how. (Il Nuovo Cimento is one journal that publishes more speculative papers, but even it uses peer review to keep out obvious trash. I have no special love for the process, which rejected my anti-tachyon paper due to being reviewed by people whose funding was for pro-tachyon research, but I see the necessity for something of the sort.)