Planetary Chauvinism vs the High Frontier

In response to Lucio's message of skepticism (appended at the bottom) regardingVelikovsky's theories, here is my post in reply to another skeptic fromthe SSI list.
Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
Subject:
Re: [Starship_Forum] Planetary Chauvinism vs the HighFrontier
Date:
Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:25:28 -0600
From:
Monart Pon
To:
ssi_list@yahoogroups.com
References:
As I stated in my previous message, I am respecting Mike's reminderthat the SSI list is for discussing subjects related to Space Studies Instituteresearch, by not continuing this Velikovsky debate that some posters haveiniitiated. My previous message was a brief guide to book and web sourcesin answer to the people who wanted to know with their own minds what Velikovskywas about . If I may impose on your hospitality a little more, I want tocounter Andrew's impolite discouragement of independent thought in regardsto Velikovsky, with the following note.
Objective, scientific persons seek first-hand knowledge of the subjectsthat interest them, and do not rely on the opinions of authorities, whomay or may not have unspoken socio-political agendas and moral-psychologicallyvested interests. If one chooses not to read Velikovsky's books, let itbe because one's not interested in the subject and significance of ancientcatastrophes -- and let it not be because one took someone's word thatVelikovsky has been "debunked".
"Debunked" -- by whom, the "respected astronomers"? Galileo was "debunked"by the orthodoxy too -- who refused to look through his telescope and seefor themselves, and who succeeded in forcing him to recant. In our relativelyfreer society, Velikovsky did not have to suffer as severe a fate, buthe was treated unjustly by the orthodoxy. But he did not recant, and hisnumerous colleagues and students continue to provide evidence for the theoriesin research and public debates. Not all "respected astronomers" deridedhim. He has received honors and degrees from universities, and variousacademic societies continue to extend and apply his theories.
Using his theories, Velikovsky had predicted, ahead of the orthodoxy,that Venus is hundreds of degrees hotter than what was held to be true.He predicted (and registered this prediction) the presence of remanentmagnetism on the moon, which was later confirmed by the Apollo missions;he predicted the emissions of radio waves from Jupiter, which was alsolater confirmed; and these were just some of the astronomical insightsof Velikovsky. His theories also involve geology and ancient Egyptian andHebrew history, and explain numerous anomalies in those fields.
Check it out for yourself.
Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>

Andrew Case wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Monart Pon wrote:
> Were there planetary collisions between Mars and Venus in c.1500 BC, and
> other periods before then?
>
> Velikovsky provided copious historical, geological, and astronomical
> evidence for the thesis that not only did this occur, but thatit
> occurred near enough to Earth to have cataclysmic consequenceson this
> planet, which were recorded in ancient documents and found ingeological
> samplings.
Velikovsky has been extensively debunked. He was extraordinarily
selective in his choice of evidence, perhaps even to the pointof
outright fraud. His 'theories' ignore basic laws of physics, not
just once, but over and over again, blowing everything from
orbital dynamics to conservation of energy and momentum to relativity,
to you name it. In terms of fringe science he is not even within
spitting distance of the ordinary weirdos like the free energy
crowd, or the alien kidnappees. By writing this I am giving
velikovsky more time and attention than he deserves, but I fearthat
if I don't point out that the man was a liar and a borderline lunatic
otherwise sensible folk may waste their time finding this out for
themselves. Don't bother, unless you enjoy reading crackpot
theories and finding holes in them. In velikovsky's case the latter
is like shooting fish in a barrel.
We can build an empire in the sky if we choose. O'Neill showed one
path. Velikovsky, however, showed the path of delusion. Don't read
'Worlds in Collision' - reread 'The High Frontier' - or 'The Cat
in the Hat' for that matter.
For those whose curiousity is piqued, take a look at the skeptical
inquirer website, James Randi's website, the CSICOP site - allwill
point you to information about why Velikovsky isn't worth evena
few minutes of your time.
......Andrew
Andrew Case |
acase@... |
Institute for Plasma Research |
University of Maryland, College Park |
Lúcio de Souza Coelho wrote:
From: "Monart Pon"
To:
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Fwd: Re: [Starship_Forum] PlanetaryChauvinism
vsthe High Frontier

[snikt]
> Einstein, who was more than just a "respected astronomer", wasa friend
and colleague of Velikovsky, and believed that Velikovsky's theorieswere
worthy of serious study. Your bringing in the authority of "respected
astronomers" makes me wonder: Have you read any of Velikovsky'sbooks
first-hand or studied the history of the irresponsible and unscientific
manner in which the "respected astronomers", including Sagan, hadtreated
Velikovsky's heavily documented theories and validated predictions?And what
relevance does your not believing that "aliens built the pyramids"(neither
do I) have here, except as an example of your attempt to use thefallacy of
intimidation as an argument.
Well, the "argument of the authority" has no value in science, andso if
Einstein supported Velikovsky that's irrelevant. (By the way, Einsteinwas
also human and he proved to be wrong in more than one occasion,like when he
introduced the Cosmological Constant just to guarantee a stableuniverse. So
we should take any claim from him as we do with any other scientist:with
skepticism.) I know just the basics of Velikovsky's theories -as far as I
know, he proposed that Venus was (in some obscure way) spittedby Jupiter in
historical times, crossed the path to the inner Solar System and,after many
catastrophic events involving other planets, settled (in some obscureway)
in its present orbit. I can't see how this theory fits with *any*of the
facts know about Jupiter, Venus, orbital mechanics and planetary
formation/internal dynamics. To make this theory acceptable, onewould have
to make up a lot of additional hypotheses (e.g., "there is an unknown
process that allow gas giants to spit rocky orbs into space"),and Occam's
Razor simply rule them out of scientific consideration. So, I sincerely
think that Velikovsky was yet another wacko and I don't believehis theories
either. If you think that there is evidence enough to give creditto his
theory, I would like to hear your point. (No, I will not read Velikovsky's
original work unless someone presents some compelling point tome.)
> Monart
>
http://www.starshipaurora.com/
>
[snikt]
Lúcio