# Is mainstream science out to get fringe science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163 "2001-04-07T17:10:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/121 "2001-04-11T20:45:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Thrasymachus \* > \*\*Guess I’ll post the talk-origins faq on the subject… > > [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-velikovsky.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-velikovsky.html) > > Not suprisingly, Velikovsky’s ideas are blown to bits like a hand grenade in a birthday pinata. \*\* I’ll take your exclamations with a grain of salt 🙂 . I’m also not going to bother following your links. You can make your points right here. I’ve got what 25 opponents now to one? I certainly don’t need to add links to the pile 🙂 . As soon as I hit opponent 30, I will start to ignore all posters who are disrespectful. Then I’ll only have to deal with 5 to one 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/122 "2001-04-11T21:02:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > ANOTHER well reasoned post.\*\* Thank you > [@](#): > > OK, for number 2, let’s start as I did with the 360 day vs 365 day year. Well first of all that does not constitute a theory. That is merely an observation. Second it does not seem to be an accurate observation. In searching the web and finding many, what appear to be authoritative (observatories, universities, etc.), sources for information about historical calendars I find no reference that gives these same figures for the calendars you list. The sources all indicate that these calendars all included from their inception some allowance for leap days since the calendars were not accurate. I the brief search I found years ranging anywhere from 355 to 378 days in length for the calendars you mention. You also did not mention what year it was when all of these calendars were supposedly in use with a 360 day year. They would all have to have been developed at about the same time for the premise to have any validity at all. So unless you can give some third party verification of these calendars you reference I think this one is pretty much dead in the water. No source I can find agrees that the calendars you list all ever had 360 days or even the same number of days at any point in history. ---
**Author:** ![KeithB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KeithB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithB)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/123 "2001-04-11T21:45:05Z")
tracer: It was a pretty vivd analogy. I did not say “Theory” – I think that theory works better here than hypothesis – since science can be pretty personal. People have a lot invested in their theories, and when you attack the theory you are attacking the person advancing it in some way. I know somebody who is developing his own GUT based on some metaphysical symmetry arguments. He has talked to Kip Thorne and presented a paper at the APS with underwhelming response. As I point out to him, unless he comes up with a prediction where his theory models reality better than quantum mechanics, no one cares. QD works just fine, thank you. Velikovsky does not explain anything physics-wise. He might have made predictions that turned out to be true, but it is difficult to see how they are consequences of his ideas. (Could someone else, given the basic assumptions and data come up with the same predictions?) His basic claim to fame is to make physics and astronomy reconcile to his intrepetation of old myths. Something modern physics and astronomy really aren’t trying to do. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_the\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/db5fbb/32.png) [@Sam\_the\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_the_1)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/124 "2001-04-11T22:18:08Z")
The classic example of semi-fringe science was when cold fusion was announced as discovered. The mainstream derided the researchers before any confirmations were even attempted. Why? Because they were nuclear chemists, not chemical physicists. That shows how tight the leash on science can be. Of course confirmation attempts failed, but was that so certain, just based on credentials alone, with no inspection of the experiment? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/125 "2001-04-11T22:28:18Z")
Kimstu wrote: > [@](#): > > **tracer:** \*I am not familiar with the Chinese or Indian calendars, but based on the errors in the statements regarding the Hebrews, Romans, and Egyptians, I would like to see some evidence that the Indians and Chinese really had a 360 day year before I accept it. \* Um, I didn’t write this, **tomndebb** did. Not that I mind the comparison. tomndebb is a pretty smart cookie. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/126 "2001-04-11T22:34:19Z")
um Sam, that was the main problem. Pons and Fleischmann announced their “cold fusion” at a press conference. If they had submitted their work to a peer-reviewed journal, the problems would have been found before publication or publicity. They were ignorant of the possible chemical causes for the energy release they measured; a peer review would have saved them the public embarrassment. The responses from “mainstream science” as I recall it were mostly to point out that the claims were unproven. Later, after the Government started pinning hopes on the “process” it became more difficult for mainstreamers to be heard without being called obstructionist. This made the folks still trying to be heard get more strident. Unfortunate that people feel that Pons and Fleischmann were railroaded… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/127 "2001-04-11T22:38:56Z")
**’nother** , here’s a very important point. You said, in passing: > [@](#): > > the TRUE nature of science, whose ultimate goal is or should be to seek the TRUTH This is simply not the case. Science does not truck with TRUTH. Science deals with observation and evidence, not truth. Truth is for philosophers and theologians. See, the problem arises when people come up with ideas that they wish to be TRUE, and then try to justify those ideas. I probably shouldn’t bring it up, but a great example is Christian creationism. The Book says God did everything–that’s the TRUTH people believe in. They can then proceed to find justifications and resolutions for their truth, however tortured, unscientific, or illogical they may get. If I read a book on Creationism I found in a Stonehenge giftshop (just as an example out of the blue),it may resonate with me, and I may very much want it to be TRUE. But if it is not supported by the evidence–if it is in fact _contradicted_ by the evidence–I must either abandon the ideas therein, or accept that those ideas are unsupported by the evidence and that my faith in them is exactly that–faith. Velikovsky came up with some ideas that he wanted to be the TRUTH. Some of his ideas have been borne out by the evidence, most have not. I suggest that to hold the latter as TRUTH in the face of contradictory evidence is to operate on faith. So then, either you can accept that many of V’s ideas must be accepted on faith alone, without supporting evidence, or you continue to believe that there _is_ no contradictory evidence, despite the many people offering it. What’s your flavor? (And would you mind easing off on the smilies a touch? Thanks.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/128 "2001-04-11T22:47:32Z")
**Dr. F** : > [@](#): > > They were ignorant of the possible chemical causes for the energy release they measured; a peer review would have saved them the public embarrassment. I’m not entirely certain of this. I think this is another example of wanting things to be true. Based on the research that was done immediately after their announcement (I’ll dig up the _Nature_ article), there is some evidence that suggests F and P knew they had a pig in a poke, but that they so wanted their findings to be TRUE that they were willing to deliberately deceive the teams investigating their work. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/129 "2001-04-11T22:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > In for a penny in for a pound. Why not. > > 1. Veda texts refer to a 360 day year. > 2. Persian year used to be called 360 days. later 5 “gatha” days were added. > 3. Old Babylonian year. 360 days. > 4. Assyrian year, 360 days. > 5. Hebrew calendar used to be 360 days. > 6. Egyptian calendar was 360 days. 5 days were later added. > 7. Ancient Romans, 360 days. > 8. Mayan Year, 360 days. > 9. Ancient China. 360 day year. When they added 5 1/4 days to their year they tried to add it to their geometry too. > So the conventional mainstream point of view is what, that all these cultures were mistaken in their calculations of the year? You don’t even leave room that the solar year perhaps possibly used to be different? Not my field of expertise. Read Kimstu’s posts at [Why do circles have 360 degrees?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=720). He certainly convinced me. ---
**Author:** ![KeithB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KeithB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithB)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/130 "2001-04-11T22:54:56Z")
Jumping on what I said above and what andros said: Velikovskiism is Last Tuesdayism. If there are _no_ discernable lingering effects of planetary billiards and the current science explains things the way they are now. than Velikovsky is simply irrelevant. Until that time when we find that electrical forces affect planetary bodies – which is highly unlikely – than we do not _need_ Velikovsky to explain the way the world works. To science, what happened in the past is relevant only as far as it reveals to us what is occuring now. You may feel better because you _believe_ that Velikvsky or the Last Tuesdayists are correct, but it does not matter to science since it has no effect on the way things work _now_ ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/131 "2001-04-11T23:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Someone here said that Straight Dope is about stamping out ignorance. Most recently, that was me, but I’m hardly alone. > [@](#): > > To do so, and gain credibility among people who believe in Astrology, Graham Hancock, Daniken and there are a lot more of them watching this place than you might think…you need to be honest. Hancock’s a loon. Why on earth would I or anyone else care about gaining credibility among his believers? Besides, if that were to happen, I’d have serious doubts about the legitimacy of my statements. > [@](#): > > OK, for number 2, let’s start as I did with the 360 day vs 365 day year. There are others too, but let’s not get over our heads with this group 🙂 That’s staggeringly smug, coming from someone who’s so staggeringly wrong. When can we start using the T word? ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/132 "2001-04-12T00:39:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > > > [@](#): > > > > That aliens abducted you and probed your bunghole is. > > Your mom must be proud she raised such a scientific, kind, polite man. 🙂 I’m sure she would be. > [@](#): > > In SCIENCE, if you do a study of 1 million humans, and each human ingested a sugar pill and grew a third ear, when you publish it, that is science. Even if you don’t understand the mechanism. I disagree. Just because they all ingested a sugar pill, does not mean that is what caused the third ear to grow. That is faulty logic. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The thing is, Sagan DOES know about celestial mechanics. > > Your own people said his math was bad. Why don’t you attack Sagan now? My own people? Why do you insist on that? It is terribly annoying. We might all be arguing against you. But we are certainly not a group collective. Try again. > [@](#): > > A Von Daniken, a creationist, would not be difficult to argue with, at least not for me. Perhaps not difficult to argue with. But you would not be able to win. (only in a rare case) Sorry, I have never seen ANYONE ever WIN against a creationist. You might think you have scored. But you only win if they see the truth and realize that they were wrong. Sorry. [quote] > [@](#): > > Go get a degree in astronomy and review Velikovsky and then come and argue the finer points. Not really, just a joke. But seriously, if you wish to argue the finer points of his work ill make a deal with you. Read up on some Astronomy. Not just the basics either, learn planet densities, Radiation levels, the gravitational constant, ect. Then, I’ll read Velikovsky for you and we can debate it till time’s end. On your message board of course. 😃 No offense but you wouldn’t be enough of a challenge for me to bother with. Again, no offense. But if you find creationists a challenge, there’s no point getting into a disagreement with me. [quote] Yes, there does seem to be a resemblence. What I wonder is; If reading as much of the debunking of V’s work does not have you convinced. What makes you think a few scientists on this board are going to convice you otherwise? Any time they mention some specific information on the mechanics of something, you just wave your hand (so to speak) and say something along the lines of “I don’t understand the mechanics part of it” (me inserting a few words) and start on another topic of the argument with lots of smiley faces. And just to note something, The topic of the argument is technically “is mainstream science out to get fringe science”, NOT “Is V. right and science wrong”. Granted, the debate has leaned towards that, but that does not mean that I have to add info on that specifically. I have added one link already, One you (apparently) didn’t even read. I have added my thought, my time and my insight to this debate, as have other people, and I have just as much a right as you to be in this debate. I am done other than defending myself now. It (to me) is aparent that you will not be convinced by anything said on this topic. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/133 "2001-04-12T01:23:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > One more bit of evidence that Velikovsky didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground: > > **You must feel threatened to use such language.** Threatened? More like amused. Velkovsky was a crackpot. Crackpots can be amusing when they’re not discrediting legitimate science and making it more difficult for true scientists to make their discoveries known. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*Comets are small things, only a few miles in diameter and are made up mostly of ices and carbon. Venus is nearly as large as the Earth and is probably made up of the same materials (mostly iron and silica). Venus could not have been a comet. \*\* > > 🙂 You’re a funny guy. You make me laugh. 🙂 Thanks for that. > > Comets are small things? There are a lot of comets out there. Prove that they are all identical. \*\* Where did I say they were all identical? Prove THAT. Anyway, I want you to read [this link](http://galileo.ivv.nasa.gov/comet/eso28.html) to a 1999 report on the Hale-Bopp comet. (Remember that one?) Down near the bottom of the page, we find this: > [@](#): > > Although it never became possible to measure its size accurately, a variety of observational methods points toward a diameter in the 40 - 70 km range. The nuclei of most other comets are at most a few km across. The equatorial diameter of Venus is [12,104 km.](http://spacekids.hq.nasa.gov/osskids/animate/venus.html) I submit that that is WAY too big to be a comet. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/134 "2001-04-12T01:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > **[http://www.yfiles.com/360day.html](http://www.yfiles.com/360day.html)** Y’all should read his other paper if you want to giggle uncontrollably: [“360 Day Years - Fact or Fiction”](http://www.yfiles.com/360vs365.html) His contention is that at one time, the Earth orbited the Sun at a greater velocity than it does now, which is why the ancients all had 360-day calendars. He tries to demonstrate this mathematically, but he forgot one thing: If you decrease the velocity of an orbiting object, you also decrease the diameter of its orbit. IOW, the Earth would now be closer to the Sun than it used to be. Why did the Earth’s obital velocity decrease, you ask? **It was a miracle from God!** _heavenly choir_ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/135 "2001-04-12T04:27:33Z")
> [@](#): > > ). I’ve seen this myself in Mexico. Are you ready to retract that one? > [@](#): > > Do you still stand by your original “explanation”? (I’m sure you do, but if so we can count how many cultures made the same “mistake” or how did you call it, rounding to make the math easier. What a coincidence!) What a coincidence, indeed. You twist the data to mean what you want it to, then suggest that I retract my accurate statements in the face of your errors. I already noted that the 360 day _tun_ was a period-reckoning that was not considered a “year.” The Mayan year (and, as you have noted, they were very picky about their calendar) had 52 years of 365 days in a cycle. They also had a whole raft of other “reckoning periods” including a named day cycle that lasted only 260 days. Do you suggest that they (and they alone among the ancients) had an even shorter solar orbit at one time? Note that we (who clearly have a 365 1/4 day calendar) can still use the Mayan calendar to establish the dates of many events. How have we been able to reconcile those dates so cleanly when they are using a different period than we are? Sorry. The Mayan _year_ was one of 365 days (as you note in your reference to the five days of evil omen). When do you think they scheduled those days to occur if they wanted to reconcile the calendar with the solar orbit? If the year only contained 360 days and they _added_ days into their reckoning, the year would quickly be misaligned with the sun. The Hebrew calendar noted by Newton seems to miss the point that it has months of 29 days as well as days of 30 days. (It also reinforces my point that the people who were creating those calendars were not looking for perfect astonomical reckoning, but were using easily manipulated numbers that had “power” in numerological systems and had to be “adjusted” to match the actual calendar year.) This last point is particularly relevant to the Babylonians. They recorded voluminous amounts of celestial data in order to manually count up repeating events. They never developed a mathematics (beyond arithmetic) to calculate events in advance. While they were (once they had collected their data) quite good at predicting recurring events, they did not use their calendars in those predictions, therefore, an error in any given year’s calendar was not significant as long as they held the appropriate religious ceremonies when it seemed fitting. Plutarch makes a comment regarding the (potentially) legendary period of Romulus, therefore we should ignore the actual archaeology that has found references to 354 day years and to the practice of the priesthood to reconcile which months needed intercalary periods to stay in sequence with the sun? O-Kay. Your statement regarding the Egyptians is simply a restatement of what I had posted, so what is your point? The only difference is that I noted their shorter year was lunar based (the same point that you make regarding the Hebrew 30-day month calendar). To line up with the star Sirius on an annual basis, they have to have been calculating (knowingly or not) the solar orbit. (Unless you wish to suggest that Sirius moved in the sky independently of the rest of the stars while the Earth had a 360 day year, then settled itself into a fixed position when the Earth increased its orbit to 365 1/4 days?) I went to your linked site and noted one bad argument and something else that I was about to bring up. Fortunately, your source has noted it, as well, without paying any attention to what it means. The bad argument: > [@](#): > > This would indicate either that early civilizations were grossly incompetent in the simple task of measuring the length of lunar cycles and the year, This straw man ignores the point that without chronometers of a certain accuracy, the ancients simply had no way to measure the fractional days of the solar and lunar periods until they had accumulated sufficient records to examine those fractions. In this scenario, 30-day lunar months are simply the best guess they can achieve when they _begin_ their reckoning. Certainly, they can see that the 30-day period is not totally accurate, but they needed an extended period of examination to determine what fraction of a day their calculation is off–exactly what the Babylonians did. The ignored fact (quotes are taken from [http://www.greenheart.com/billh/360.html](http://www.greenheart.com/billh/360.html) ): Plutarch’s purported 360 day Roman calendar: 753 B.C.E. Regarding Egypt: > [@](#): > > Parise: “This 360 day calendar, like so many others, was changed during the 8th century B.C. to one of 365 days. The extra five days was simply added to the end of the year.” Regarding China: > [@](#): > > Parise: “The number of degrees…does not add up to 360 because in the 4th century B.C. the Chinese astrologers suddenly changed the division of the circle from 360 degrees to 365 degrees 15 minutes.” The Mayan calendar: probably around 250 C.E., but even if the earliest dates are used, no earlier than the third century B.C.E. So, the Egyptian portion of Earth circled the sun in 365 1/4 days during the 8th century B.C.E. while Rome continued to circle the sun in only 360 at the same time. China was able to slow its orbit from 360 days to 365 1/4 in the 4th century, whereas the Mayans (if we wrongly accept the _tun_ as a “year”) were still spinning around in only 360 days as late as 250 C.E. I’m afraid that faced with your restating of my points as if they were new and the rather bizarre chronology required to link calendar changes to a change in solar orbit, I will refrain from retracting anything at this time. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/136 "2001-04-12T05:21:34Z")
tomndebb wrote: > [@](#): > > This straw man ignores the point that without chronometers of a certain accuracy, the ancients simply had no way to measure the fractional days of the solar and lunar periods until they had accumulated sufficient records to examine those fractions. In this scenario, 30-day lunar months are simply the best guess they can achieve when they _begin_ their reckoning. Certainly, they can see that the 30-day period is not totally accurate, but they needed an extended period of examination to determine what fraction of a day their calculation is off–exactly what the Babylonians did. Then, later, in the same message, tomndebb wrote: > [@](#): > > So, the Egyptian portion of Earth circled the sun in 365 1/4 days during the 8th century B.C.E. while Rome continued to circle the sun in only 360 at the same time. China was able to slow its orbit from 360 days to 365 1/4 in the 4th century, whereas the Mayans (if we wrongly accept the _tun_ as a “year”) were still spinning around in only 360 days as late as 250 C.E. Aha! That’s it! The year switched from 360 to 365.25 days in the 8th Century B.C.E… The Egyptians, being the most sophisticated civilization (as evidenced by the aliens that helped them build the pyramids), picked up on that 5.25-day change immediately. But China had to wait 4 centuries before they were able to accumulate enough data to see the 5.25-day difference, and the poor old Mayans were so in love with their old calendar that it took them until the 3rd century C.E. to finally abandon the old, formerly-correct 360 day year. It all makes sense now. Velikovsky is a genius, and every archaeologist, geologist, astronomer, and physicist on the planet is out to get him because they’re jealous. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/137 "2001-04-12T05:56:14Z")
**tracer** , your restatement would actually be plausible… IF the Romans were not adopting their calendar just as the Egyptians were fixing theirs and IF the Mayans had not _created_ their calendar almost 1,000 years after the Egyptians had already fixed theirs. For the Mayans to have created a 360 day calendar _based on the solar period_, they would have had to have been using information that was almost a millennium old. Okey-dokey. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/138 "2001-04-12T06:59:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrFidelius \* > Grey-eyed Athena (Minerva) was born from Zeus’ (Jupiter’s) brow, not Aphrodite (Venus). There is not now, nor has there ever been an planet associated with Athena. > > If Velikovsky was willing to fudge enough to conflate two seperate goddesses in his premise, how much faith can we place in the accuracy of his conclusions? I’m trying to recreate this post which got crashed by straight dopes 4:30 shutdown yesterday. > [@](#): > > I must apologize, as my all my copies of Velikovsky’s books seem to have gone walkabout sometime in the '70s. I cannot recall any mention of radio waves from Jupiter in _Worlds in Collision_ despite **'nother** ’s suggestion I check there for the reason the Big V thought it was his most important prediction. According to Velikovsky, the universe is electric. Planets can be charged. The Thunderbolts of Jupiter V. believed to be eyewitness accounts therefore, among other reasons found in his books, he thought the planet was charged. He predicted the noises in 1953 before the Graduate College Forum of Princeton University. In 1950 “accepted theory” had it that the radio noises coming from the Sun were explained as the effect of heat. Being that Jupiter is a cold planet, no one at the time expected Radio noises from Jupiter whereas to V it was the center of an electromagnetic ssystem. To Astronomers of the day, Jupiter was inert. Do you deny that their existence is SUPPORTIVE of his theory? Do you deny that this was directly against the theories of the day? > [@](#): > > Science is not some type of parlour game that bestows “respectibility” upon whomever correctly guesses the number of beans in a pot. If you come up with a way to calculate the number of beans that hold true in all pot-related situations, you may have discovered a new scientific law. Not all of science is about discovering a new scientific law. Despite the flip flopping of some participants to this discussion, prediction was mentioned in “the scientific method” as " 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. He brought together eyewitness accounts from world history. 1. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. Near collisions of solar system bodies in an electric universe. 1. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. Prediction of Radio noises from Jupiter. * * * You can say parlour game all you want, but the prediction IS supportive of his theory and matches all 3 above despite any excuses you want to make. I know that annoys you and the 30 others against me, but that is the case and it’s also the case with hot Venus. > [@](#): > > The “scientific establishment” paid entirely too much attention to Velikovsky back when he first published. If the goal was to get rid of him, ignoring him would definitely have achieved far more. But mainstream science has learned it’s lesson and is now silencing Halton Arp by ignoring him. He can’t get published in the scientific press unless it’s stuff that agrees with establishment thinking, and if he goes to the outside press like Pons and Fleischmann did, he will be castigated as going outside peer review. This is a monopoly of a different kind. > [@](#): > > They seemed frightened that if they did not react quickly and decisively they would have an full-blown pseudoscientific cult on their hands. I believe that they cause the exact thing they wished to avoid. It wasn’t the SPEED they reacted with that was the problem. It was the pseudoscientific INEPTNESS with which they did it that caused their problems. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/139 "2001-04-12T07:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > One of the things many of the ‘fringe’ theories have in common is that they span multiple disciplines. i.e. they touch on History, physics, astronomy, archaology, etc. Certainly in Velikovsky’s case. > [@](#): > > This fact gets many of these theories far more attention than they would otherwise get. What makes you say that? > [@](#): > > When Worlds in Collision came out, a lot of physicists were quoted as saying, “Of course, the physics is completely nuts. But I’m very impressed by the historical evidence.” In the meantime, the historians are saying, “Of course, the history is totally nuts, but the physics sure impress me.” Are you reading Sagan’s essay and quoting it? I’ve heard these words before 🙂 > [@](#): > > These theories often sound impressive to a layman, and scientists are laymen too when they step outside of their own disciplines. Thus you can get someone like an Einstein paying far too much attention to the theory because they are intrigued by the parts that sound good but they lack the training to evaluate scientifically. You are making a HUGE assumption but that’s ok. > [@](#): > > In other words, by spanning many disciplines the fringe quacks ensure that no single person can refute everything they claim. And as bits and pieces are refuted, they simply replace them with new claims or ignore the refutations while quoting from the favorable parts of reviews. > > Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, most fringe theories have aspects that are literally unfalsifiable. You can’t PROVE that they are wrong. Other aspects of the theory may stand up to cursory inspection, and still others may be grounded in solid, but mundane science. By mixing it all together across many difficult disciplines, it becomes hard to debunk unless it’s complete silliness as much of ‘Worlds in Collision’ is. Interesting. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But mainstream scientists would gain a lot of credibility if they would ADMIT their errors. I’m still waiting for someone to admit that Sagan’s “arguments” were pseudoscientific. The fact that no one will strains the credibility… > [@](#): > > Another good example would be Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval’s Egyptian theories. You’ve got to be kidding. They are not in the same league. It’s a lot easier to debunk them than Velikovsky. They haven’t made any predictions. They are selling like hot cakes based on alien-mania. Some of it is interesting reading, but nowhere near the same substance as V. > [@](#): > > They borrowed heavily from the work of a geologist named Shoch, who had an interesting (although questionable) theory about the age of the Sphynx. I met him. He’s a nice guy, very tall, and you’re right. But right there you can do a pretty good job debunking them. They didn’t even quote Schoch properly… > [@](#): > > They took his theory, and twisted it beyond all recognition to make it fit theirs. Then they heaped on a giant helping of fringe archaology, physics, and astronomy. The end result is nonsense, but there are grains of truth to be found if you sift through it all. And at the core is a theory by a respected geologist, subjected to peer review. This gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve, and deflects a lot of attention away from the sillier parts of the whole house of cards. We agree for once. But to me they are not comparable to V. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/140 "2001-04-12T07:17:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > For stars less than 100 light-years away or so, we can measure the distance directly by using **trigonometric parallax**. We measure a star’s position in January, then we measure it’s position again in July when the Earth has moved to the other side of the sun. The tiny shift in the star’s position tells us how far away it is. I do believe these days you don’t even need that. Observations from opposite sides of the earth can probably establish the same thing using modern telescopes. But I believe that within 100 light years away you have red shifted and blue shifted objects. Pretty much all extra galactic objects have redshifts and this is very much the basis for the Big Bang. The effect of gravity on the redshift, along with plenty of other ideas like tired light and others, can explain redshifts for extra galactic objects as an alternative to current theory. Just as a way to check itself, ideas that go AGAINST accepted theory like Arp’s should be published by peer review especially to guard against “falling in love” with a theory or potential bias and close-mindedness. Arp proposes galaxy-quasar pairs that are supposedly far apart redshiftwise, yet show a particular pattern. He says these patterns are there wherever a quasar is. Very easy to test but NASA always crops out the ejection phenomena from their pictures and he isn’t allowed to present his case. If he’s wrong, then the galaxies won’t show up where he claims they should. This should be a pretty open and shut case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163.md?page=8)