ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (07/23/85)
Articles concerning the late Immanuel Velikovsky invariable contain some use of the verb "debunk", the general opinion being that Velikovsky's theories have been "debunked", presumably by the Shapleys, Geposchkens, and Sagens of the world. In reality, that's kind of like reading about King David's pet cat clawing Goliath to death. The Shapley's and Sagens wouldn't even make it in the world which Velikovsky came from. People who made it in that world, men like Einstein and Max Plank, tended to be renaissance men, unlike our one dimensional "scientists". Velikovsky appears to have been wheel of sorts at the Prussian Scientific Academy, he and Albert Einstein having been editors of the Jewish Scripta Universitatis, a major piece of groundwork for the present Hebrew University in Israel. I mention these things because most of the arguments against Velikovsky strike me as ad-hominisms and attempts to lump him with such flagrant crackpots as Erich Von Danekin. Velikovsky, however, had his credentials. In the unlikely event that a man like Carl Sagen were ever to have seen the inside of the Prussian Scientific Academy in those days, it would assuredly have been as a janitor. Einstein himself apparently saw Harlow Shapley as a kind of a clown. In a letter to Velikovsky which has since been published, he states: "Ich mochte glucklich sein, wenn auch Sie die ganze Episode von der drolligen Seite geniessen konnten" ("you should learn to laugh at these people"). Understanding Velikovsky requires a lot of reading and most American "scientists" have never attempted it precisely because they do not believe that events in another field could influence theirs. It's kind of like the French not believing that events in the third dimension (the Luftwaffe ) could influence their two dimensional perimeter defense, the Maginot Line. Ostriches base their reaction to danger on the same line of reasoning. Velikovsky essentially discovered the key to the language which the ancioent world used to describe the solar system and the cosmic violence and global catastrophies which recurred in those days. That is why the Velikovskian heresy has never died down or cooled off; why the Kronos journal still exists so long after Velikovsky was supposedly "debunked". Basically, everybody, myself included, who has ever taken the trouble to read Velikovsky and then go back and re-read several of the ancient sources involved, has become convinced that the ancient world actually did speak with one voice concerning the reality of global catastrophies. Thus, Velikovsky's arguments procede from the realm of linguistics and historical studies. This is interesting because of the nature of the thirty or so percent of the arguments against Velikovsky which aren't pure ad-hominisms. These take the following form: "Well, everybody knows that the xyz theory of (astronomy, geology,... you name it) says this just can't happen. This guy Velikovsky must be some kind of a nut". History is a form of reality. In this country, when reality and theories don't match up, we normally change the theories. Anyone who actually prefers changing history under such circumstances should move to the USSR. They do that there. Thus when the logical consequences of a theory contradict a known reality, the theory is wrong, period. There is one tremendous example of this kind of thing, unrelated to the Velikovsky question. Several years prior to Kitty Hawk, Simon Newcomb, one of America's best mathematicians and one of the founders of modern statistics, proved mathematically that there could never be a heavier than air flying machine. This was a source of much amusement to the Wrights. They were fond of telling people that their proof FLEW better than the good professor's. It thus seems obvious to me that there can be no valid arguments against Velikovsky from the realms of astronomy or geography. I have not read about any of our brighter lights attempting to refute Velikovsky on his own turf, history or linguistics, although it seems to me that this is what they would have to do to make a believeable case against him. Instead, they at first banned his books; MacMillan was actually told to drop "Worlds in Collision", then an international best seller, if they wished to continue selling textbooks in America. This is documented (see Ralph Juergen's "The Velikovsky Affair" for example). Amongst the people doing all of this censoring, it seems to have been a point of honor not to have read Velikovsky's book. Consider these direct quotes from a letter (5/20/50) from Dean McLaughlin, Astronomy Dept., Univ. of Michigan to the Macmillan Co.: "can we afford 'freedom of the press' when it can vitiate education, as this book can? ....... No, I have not read the book.....And I do not intend to waste my time reading it" The modern nemesis of castrophists is, of course, that Billy Graham of yuppie science, Carl Sagan. Sagan reminds me a great deal of the "Rodney" character in the Wizard of Id cartoon. Rodney represents the universal fairy-tale of the chicken knight who, unfit for any useful work, is sent off to slay dragons. Rodney actually sets out to slay the dragon with a book of Henny Youngman one-liners, some of which are nearly as funny as Sagan's views on science. Sagan slays ME at least; that must be some consolation for him. He obviously will never succeed in slaying Velikovsky. The idea of grown people believing in Darwinism slays me as well. I mean, if you're going to believe in fairy-tales, at least try to make those fairy-tales elegant and beautiful. Darwinism is neither, just stupid. If you're going to believe in complicated things forming by chance in total defiance of the basic laws of the universe, why limit yourself to the field of biology? Why not cars and aeroplanes and sewing machines and ships forming by chance from raw materials in the ground? I honestly can't see any difference. Well, maybe one difference. A lion or a leopard is a great deal more complicated, more difficult to design and build than, say, an f16 jet fighter plane. I would say that in this sense, comparing a leopard to an f16 is roughly like comparing the f16 to a sharpened stick. F16's should form naturally billions of years before leopards should; that would represent a far lesser violation of the second law of thermodynamics. One or two commentators on the network have responded to a former article of mine by claiming that many of this world's higher life forms represent kludges of one sort or another. I wish they would BUILD a leopard from raw materials before trying to claim that God does kludgy work. To sum up on evolution: Velikovskian (catastrophic) evolution can explain the transmuting of species, ONCE YOU ALREADY HAVE ADVANCED LIFE FORMS ON THE PLANET TO BEGIN WITH. Velikovskian evolution can also explain the extinction of ancient life forms. Darwinism can explain little if anything other than, perhaps, such things as Downs syndrome, Tay Sachs disease, and possibly such degenerated types as Shapley and Sagen. To anybody who claims Immanuel Velikovsky has been debunked, I say that the nerds of this century didn't invent debunking; Socrates, Jesus, Copernicus, Mozart, Martin Luther and numerous others I could mention were debunked by the nerds of their centuries as well. In every case, that is all that those nerds are remembered for.
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (07/26/85)
> Articles concerning the late Immanuel Velikovsky > invariable contain some use of the verb "debunk", the > ....... > In the unlikely event that a man like Carl > Sagen were ever to have seen the inside of the Prussian > Scientific Academy in those days, it would assuredly > have been as a janitor. > > Einstein himself apparently saw Harlow Shapley as a > kind of a clown. > This is > interesting because of the nature of the thirty or so > percent of the arguments against Velikovsky which aren't > pure ad-hominisms. [sic] > The modern nemesis of castrophists is, of course, > that Billy Graham of yuppie science, Carl Sagan. Sagan > reminds me a great deal of the "Rodney" character in the > Wizard of Id cartoon. >...... > To anybody who claims Immanuel Velikovsky has been > debunked, I say that the nerds of this century didn't > invent debunking; Socrates, Jesus, Copernicus, Mozart, > Martin Luther and numerous others I could mention were > debunked by the nerds of their centuries as well. In > every case, that is all that those nerds are remembered > for. Wow! I don't think I've ever seen as much ad-hominem and/or name dropping in a single continuous article in my life. IV right up there with Socrates, Jesus and numerous others. I think there's enough in this one article to offend almost everyone who doesn't actually worship IV. If the creationists wish to acknowledge this kind of help (sorry, I deleted that part of the above) in establishing their theories, then the two deserve each other. Lyle McElhaney ...denelcor!lmc
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/30/85)
> > To sum up on evolution: Velikovskian > (catastrophic) evolution can explain the transmuting of > species, ONCE YOU ALREADY HAVE ADVANCED LIFE FORMS ON > THE PLANET TO BEGIN WITH. Velikovskian evolution can > also explain the extinction of ancient life forms. > Darwinism can explain little if anything other than, > perhaps, such things as Downs syndrome, Tay Sachs > disease, and possibly such degenerated types as Shapley > and Sagen. > > To anybody who claims Immanuel Velikovsky has been > debunked, I say that the nerds of this century didn't > invent debunking; Socrates, Jesus, Copernicus, Mozart, > Martin Luther and numerous others I could mention were > debunked by the nerds of their centuries as well. In > every case, that is all that those nerds are remembered > for. This is the kind of article that will do more than anything else to get me to "ug" this newsgroup. The author has given no proof to support his assertion that Velikovsky is right (or that Darwin is wrong, for that matter). Unfortunately, if one is to believe in what Velikovsky has to say, one must suspend belief in modern astrophysics, chemistry, and biology. This alone is enough for me to doubt seriously that Velikovsky has any merit. As to the authors "discussion" on evolution, I believe that his *so-called* arguments have been discussed on the net enough times that I don't have to bring them up again. Please, folks, let's use the net for some kind of intelligent discussion, and not the clap-trap that I am responding to. -- Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion butterfly sneezes..." Moody Blues
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/30/85)
> > This is the kind of article that will do more than anything else to get > me to "ug" this newsgroup. The author has given no proof to support his > assertion that Velikovsky is right (or that Darwin is wrong, for that > matter). Unfortunately, if one is to believe in what Velikovsky has to > say, one must suspend belief in modern astrophysics, chemistry, and > biology. This alone is enough for me to doubt seriously that > Velikovsky has any merit. As to the authors "discussion" on evolution, > I believe that his *so-called* arguments have been discussed on the net > enough times that I don't have to bring them up again. Please, folks, > let's use the net for some kind of intelligent discussion, and not the > clap-trap that I am responding to. Sorry for the slight flame above, but I really felt that the parent article was the worst sort of b***sh**, and I really hate to see that sort of thing polluting the net. -- Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion butterfly sneezes..." Moody Blues