# 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:** 8
**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, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/141 "2001-04-12T07:21:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > > **The plasma universe has no known boundary, is indeterminately old, has no discernable beginning, and is not expanding. Space is 3-dimensional.** > > Who said it wasn’t 3-dimensional? X,Y,Z coordinates still exist, the last time I looked. > > If the universe is indeterminately old, why is the night sky black? \*\* Although I was quoting my friend and don’t know how he would answer your question about the night sky, I ask, why do you assume that light has the ability to keep moving forever? Perhaps interstellar dust eventually stops the light from going beyond a certain distance. Perhaps light cannot travel beyond a certain distance period. We don’t know because we can’t measure how far light travels. Current popular theory notwithstanding, there is a lot we don’t know and not knowing is OK. We don’t have to propose a solution to everything just because we don’t know the answer. ---
**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, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/142 "2001-04-12T07:27:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > AnotherHeretic, this is exactly the kind of thing Amedeus was talking about. You speak in terms like “One of your allies” … “your own guys” … and numerous earlier, similar examples. You seem to group every single person who is against Velikovsky, or who doesn’t think that mainstream scientists attack non-conformist scientists unfairly, into a single unified group. As though “we” are all one vast hive-mind conspiracy out to get you. > > Each of “us” is as much different from the other, as you are different from Velikovsky. Yes you are all different. But as long as you all remain silent about Sagan’s pathetic attempt at debunking, I will group 99% of you together. I don’t know why you got offended. I’ve been grouped as a Velikovskian, confused, bufoon, idiot, (later retracted), fringe, unscientific (in more patronizing language) and I didn’t get offended. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Oh – and with regard to the ketoacidosis thing, Dr\_Paprika in the Atkins Diet thread said that he believed ketosis and ketoacidosis are very similar. I don’t know if it’s true or not. I wrote both terms separated by a slash to cover all the possible bases I might have missed, not as an assertion about the specific physiological reaction brought upon by an Atkins-like diet. That part of the discussion really belongs in the [Atkins Diet thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64271), though, not this one. I believe there are similarities, but no one said Atkins causes ketoacidosis. That’ll be my last word on it since you’re right there’s another thread for it. ---
**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, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/143 "2001-04-12T07:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*AnotherHeretic wrote: > The Van Allen Belt? Velikovsky predicted the existence of radiation belts surrounding the Earth before van Allen discovered them in 1958? He predicted the existence of 2 belts of high-energy charged particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetosphere, shaped like toroidal lobes, with the lower belt covering altitudes between 1000 and 6000 km and the upper belt covering altitudes between 15000 and 25000 km? > > Or did he just say, “I think there’s some radiation up there somewhere”? I don’t have his exact words. They can be found as an addendum to Earth In Upheaval, October 14, 1953. He claimed the existence of a magnetosphere above the ionosphere. He believed the magnetosphere could reach as ar as the Lunar orbit. If you want the exact wording you’d have to look up the forum address. Perhaps it’s in his archives. ---
**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, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/144 "2001-04-12T08:06:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CalMeacham \* > Thank you very much for the kind reply. It has been years since I read most of Velikovsky, although I have reread some portions recently. The reason for that is my own work on astronomical events and myth. I’ve been doing work on the myth of Phaethon, and I wanted to see Velikovski’s “take” on it. Phaethon. I think Alan Alford used Phaethon as the basis of his latest, ahem, book. You may want to look at that too. Or I can save you some time. Some of his proposals, that Jesus Christ was a fall of Meteorites, that Pontius Pilate was a pilot buried in Switzerland. Can you believe he got a book self published best seller prior to this? > [@](#): > > It may hearten you to know that a lot of other folks – a LOT of others, including Goethe – have argued that the myth refers to an ancient observation of a meteorite fall. I personally feel that it does not, but I certainly cannot prove this. More to the point, I don’t think the suggestion absurd. Thank you for your approach. Don’t take this the wrong way, but it doesn’t hearten me because I’m not in love with my own beliefs. I’m interested in V. because I think there’s something there. If it turns out that he’s wrong through and through, it won’t bother me. If it turns out that a thorough analysis of as you said, his book properly done turns out that Ragnarok and another book was the basis of much of his work, and more credit belongs to them, as Sagan has suggested, it won’t bother me either. I only care about a fair discussion of the work. BTW, I bought Raganarok but didn’t have a chance to read it yet. From skimming it though, it seems the central theme is very similar but V. added a lot of touches. Especially if you add in Earth in Upheaval. Have you read it? Interestingly, I was looking at one of the 2 books by Levy on the Jupiter - Comet impact, and they had a ref to Velikovsky. I thought it would be a bad swipe as usual but not really. > [@](#): > > I think that Velikovsky did have a valid point in considering electromagnetic forces in the solar system, but that his suggestion of electrostatic attraction between the planets is clearly incorrect. What is your take on Birkeland currents? > [@](#): > > He suggested that the voltage differencxe between bodies would cause great discharges – lightning flashes – between them if they ever approached. He even taklks of such flashes during his supposed close approaches of Mars and Venus. But there have been no such discharges between planetary probes and any planet or moon they’ve been sent to. I’ve seen a web page to the contrary. I’ll try to dig up the exact web page, but basically it questions the “Volcanos” of IO and makes some alternative claims. NOT mainstream of course 🙂 but if you’re interested, I’ll dig it up for you. > [@](#): > > Velikovsky didn’t have that information, of course, but there were other reasons to think such a charge imbalance would not be present. I would think that any physicist he approached would have mentioned this. Here’s his words for what it’s worth: "So I finished my book. Originally I had written another chapter and had let it be set. I foresaw the arguments of the astronomers, and I intended to meet them. The phenomena I described were deduced by me from ancient literature and folklore. I could, of course, remain in my domain, offer no physical solution at all, and allow astronomers to take over where I left off. This would probably have been the way that any other historian or folklorist would have chosen in a similar situation. Or I could try to reconcile my findings with the conventional tenets in astronomy. But there was a growing conviction on my part that it was justifiable to question the exclusive role in the celestial mechanics of a law established in 1687, a time when electromagnetic forces were not known and not reckoned with. In January and February 1950 I consulted with a few physicists. I engaged several instructors in the Physics Department at Columbia University to calculate the rate of decrease with distance of the magnetic field created by a rotating charged body (the sun) in which field electrically charged bodies revolve. I received most divergent answers. I’m skipping forward due to lazy…he was saying he consulted with Lloyd Motz, astronomer prof columbia, who went through the chapter carefully, to protect him from accusations of cooperating with a heretic he decided to take his help in the form of paid instruction. Then he talks about pulling out the planned celestial mechanics chapter and turning it into a few sentences, and then says that although Motz always adhered to accepted theory, and a few more paragraphs about protecting Motz he said and let me quote since this is the part that has been alleged that V did not check with pros on this: “In Motz’s judgement, if the terrestrial globe were retarded in it’s rotation, or stopped, or even reversed, it would not necessarily be destroyed, depending on the time element involved, though civilizations would be destroyed. And this was what actually happened, according to the sources that served me in writing Worlds in Collision.” ---
**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, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/145 "2001-04-12T08:12:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KeithB \* > In my opinion mainstream science is like a gang. If you want to join, you get “jumped” and beat up as an initiation rite. But once you are in, you are in. > > IMHO, Velikosky and Creation Science _know_ they can never survive the beating, so they just pretend to the public that they are in the gang. WRONG. It’s not a matter of surviving the beating. I’m NOT interested in being part of mainstream science with my blinders on. Halton Arp who is a heretic because he is intellectually honest, WANTS to be part of the mainstream establishment. I have NO interest whatsoever. If I wanted to be it would be very for me. Politics in business I can live with, but politics in Science is shameful to me and I don’t want any part of it. > [@](#): > > If Velikovsky wanted to be taken seriously, he should have found someone to put some small part of his theory on a mathematical footing and published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Although there are arguments FOR peer review, and it is very popular and widely accepted, it is also a very powerful vehicle for abuse. One example is Halton Arp. When his theories are accepted, I will be there to remind you of the arguments you will use to defend vehemently peer review. BTW, for those of you who are still naive about politics in science, there’s a new book out about a couple of scientists who were horribly mistreated by Newton. ---
**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, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/146 "2001-04-12T08:17:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > Even AnotherHeretic admits he is flakey in spots. I forgot to mention that this is a mischaracterization. > [@](#): > > 1. Is there currently a specialty in the sciences that looks at diverse scientific theories in different disciplines and tries to reconcile them? might be of some use. > [@](#): > > Combining Geology, Chemestry, Physics and Astronomy for example. I don’t know if I’d come up with that particular combination. Did you have a reason to choose those in particular? > [@](#): > > Ishat you think Velikovsky was doing? Not really. > [@](#): > > Is there a need for such a role in science if one does not currently exist? It would be interesting to see if contradictory “accepted” views could be found. ---
**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, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/147 "2001-04-12T09:03:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > 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. If it’s not on the web I guess it’s not true 🙂 If the original source mentioned it, that doesn’t count? OK 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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. 1. > [@](#): > > You also did not mention what year it was when all of these calendars were supposedly in use with a 360 day year. You are right. > [@](#): > > They would all have to have been developed at about the same time for the premise to have any validity at all. Says who? I just read today that part of the signing in of office in one of the ancient cultures (forget which one), they must swear not to change the calendar. Ever heard of inertia? The USA does not use the metric system. It will probably continue to not do so for a long time. The metric system is superior. Canada switched already. Last time I was in England, they didn’t. It will probably change at all different times. Doesn’t mean a damn thing. > [@](#): > > 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. You do a 2 minute search and now it’s dead in the water? How charitable of you. 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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. I’m sure you did an extended search for hours and days 🙂 ---
**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, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/148 "2001-04-12T09:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KeithB \* > 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. See my post on this. > [@](#): > > (Could someone else, given the basic assumptions and data come up with the same predictions?) Sure. > [@](#): > > 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. Nice twist but no substance in this statement. ---
**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, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/149 "2001-04-12T09:15:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam the 1 \* > \*\*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? \*\* Did you read the wired article on this? It is the obligation of scientists to seek out alternative views, even AFTER a theory is ACCEPTED. Mainstream science is good at seeing the other side BEFORE a theory is accepted, but AFTER a theory is accepted, especially if it’s been around for awhile, people STOP looking at all sides. On the Velikovsky issue, after reading his book, I developed my own opinions. Then to double check them, I didn’t read only the positive articles, I read all sides and formed both positive and negative opinions in addition to the opinions I already had. In the Arp case, you won’t even look at the alternative theories because you are so sure the Big Bang is right and that Redshift = doppler effect. This is one sided. It doesn’t dawn on any of you that Cold Fusion is a political charged issue. Money makes the world go around. Why do you think we went to war with Iraq? Do you think it was because of Right or Wrong? If so, you’re sadly mistaken. We used the poor Kurds and then dumped them as soon as our number one concern was met. OIL was safe from Hussein. That’s all Bush, the oil man cared about. The wired article showed the other side of the coin. You mainstreamers cannot imagine that money or power could influence which papers got through peer review. I’m not saying that Pons/Fleishman did create Cold Fusion, but before you come to any conclusions, read the other side of the story. There were allegations that other labs DID confirm the effects, and that it was squashed. And I KNOW I’m stepping into a whole other controversy, but I don’t really care. I like to look at all sides of the story, you folks are satisfied with the stories you hear reported from the side in power. ---
**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, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/150 "2001-04-12T09:24:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > **’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. OK 🙂 > [@](#): > > Science deals with observation and evidence, not truth. Sure. Science has nothing to do with truth. Fine. I’m interested in truth. You can stick with non truths. 🙂 > [@](#): > > See, the problem arises when people come up with ideas that they wish to be TRUE, and then try to justify those ideas. Like the Big Bang? 🙂 Or like all you guys WISH that Sagan had debunked Velikovsky but since Sagan wrote a pseudoscientific babble, you try to justify it. Good point you made, heh heh. Thanks. 🙂 As long as you folks don’t own up your errors, I can turn all your arguments against you. Surprised none of the smart people here figured that out yet 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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. Quite an assertion. List the ideas that have been borne out by the evidence and those that have not. Then we can count them and “verify” if indeed “most have not”. 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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? Sounds like YOU are engaging in wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > (And would you mind easing off on the smilies a touch? Thanks.) Why? I’m happy, that makes me smile 🙂 Does my happiness make you sad ☹ ? The more people use words like fringe science, crackpot, aliens sticking stuff up my bungehole and other such “mature” comments, the happier I am because it shows they are threatened by what I’m saying. And that makes me smile 🙂 ---
**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, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/151 "2001-04-12T09:26:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KeithB \* > \*\*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_ \*\* This entire post is full of assertions. You say A, I say B. Not much value… ---
**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, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/152 "2001-04-12T09:32:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cervaise \* > Someone here said that Straight Dope is about stamping out ignorance. Most recently, that was me, but I’m hardly alone. Hancock’s a loon. Why on earth would I or anyone else care about gaining credibility among his believers? [/quote] Have you ever heard of logic? I was going to say that you need to look at your first paragraph to answer the question you posted in your second paragraph. But I doubt you’d understand so let me draw the lines closer together. If you want to stamp out ignorance, you need to educate the ignorant. To educate the ignorant, you need to be convincing. To be convincing, you need credibility. So if you don’t care about stamping out ignorance, then you don’t need credibility among his believers. If you do care about it, then you should do things the right way. But let’s go a step further, so you don’t care about credibility? You don’t care if your debunking methods are scientific? So long as ignorance is stamped out. 🙂 🙂 🙂 That is so funny. Are you actually aware what you are saying?? Heh heh. > [@](#): > > Besides, if that were to happen, I’d have serious doubts about the legitimacy of my statements. 🙂 You are so funny Im laughing out loud!!! > [@](#): > > That’s staggeringly smug, coming from someone who’s so staggeringly wrong. Since I am so staggeringly wrong, I invite you to prove me wrong. > [@](#): > > When can we start using the T word? Tomorrow. 🙂 ---
**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, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/153 "2001-04-12T09:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Amedeus \* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. This is too easy 🙂 I won’t even bother 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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. OK. So you back up Sagan’s critique? You feel that his math and methodology were correct? If not, then come out and be a man, attack him for the hatchet job. If you back him up, that’s be even better. But you probably don’t have the guts to do either. 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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. Of course you can’t. It’s as useless as asking a mainstreamer to give Halton Arp the chance to publish his controversial work in a peer reviewed journal. The mainstreamer BELIEVES his view of redshift and the big bang is true and nothing will sway him. > [@](#): > > 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? I said from the outset that this debate was a waste of time. Mainstreamers will never give V a chance and so far, with VERY few exceptions I’ve seen no arguments that I haven’t read over 10 years ago. I’ve researched this topic pretty well, even though I’ve forgotten a lot of details over the last decade. There were a couple of exceptions but those observations against V. were things I agreed with to begin with… > [@](#): > > 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. I admit it when I don’t know something. I could bullshit but that wouldn’t be honest. What you don’t realize is that it doesn’t help my case when I admit it. It would be so easy for me to simply IGNORE the argument than to admit I don’t know the answer. If you’ll notice, when I make a point, people ignore it instead of admitting it. Makes them LOOK better but isn’t as honest as my approach. I could argue MUCH better than I am if I wanted to use the same tactics. Also, it would have been much easier for me to decline the entire discussion from the get go and come back to it when I have my books in front of me. These aren’t all easy arguments to have and backup is important… > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t mind, you want to be in this debate, stay in. It just helps me… I wanted to say that in a nicer way but I couldn’t think of one and the with the bungehole statement you made, why should I bother to be nice about it? ---
**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, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/154 "2001-04-12T09:54:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > 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. Semantics. > [@](#): > > 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. The definition of comet is "com·et (kmt) n. A celestial body, observed only in that part of its orbit that is relatively close to the sun, having a head consisting of a solid nucleus surrounded by a nebulous coma up to 2.4 million kilometers (1.5 million miles) in diameter and an elongated, curved vapor tail arising from the coma when sufficiently close to the sun. Comets are thought to consist chiefly of ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and water." I can rest my case but to be fair, if most comets are under 70 km, that does not help Velikovsky’s theory 🙂 . But it doesn’t categorically disprove it either as perhaps one day a comet will be found that is way bigger and still fits the definition of a comet. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/155 "2001-04-12T11:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. > > Try to observe a comet that passed by a few thousand years ago. Obviously this is impossible. However, we can observe its present orbit, and calculate both when it passed near Earth in the past and when it will in the future. And although eyewitness accounts are not the most reliable things, there have been descriptions recorded of phenomena in the past that correspond with times when comets have been calculated to pass Earth. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > If your field of expertise is history and you’ve determined that the historical records show that there was a a tenth planet in our past (this is hypothetical so don’t start talking to me about Planet X), it is beyond your field of expertise to develop a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. Doing so will just damage your credibility. (btw, I am anticipating that this will bring up ten arguments against me but so be it). If as a historian you discover this information, you should corroborate your work with an astronomer. Such a thing would be in an astromomer’s field of expertise. Besides, history is not a science. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. > > Someone else here said that prediction is irrelevant in science. Well, one of your guys posted this link and boom, prediction is right there. You misunderstand both what people have said and what it means to make a prediction in science. The kind of prediction that is irrelevant is the kind where you make some statement without explaining why it should be so, or how it fits into your hypothesis. Since you seem fixated on the Jupiter/radio wave connection, would you care to explain how the fact that Jupiter emits radio waves relates to the hypothesis of planets careening around the solar system? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. > > Mainstream scientists claim that the earth has maintained the same orbit, I don’t know, guessing now, somewhere around 100,000 to millions of years now. Just for kicks, design an experiment to prove where Earth’s orbit was a mere 50,000 years ago. Do you think it’s possible? Again, a direct experiment is impossible. However, the mathematics that describe orbital mechanics have been confirmed by observation of bodies over the last several hundred years. Measuring the orbital motion of a body, predicting its new position with equations, and adjusting the equations to fit better with observation constitutes an experiment. One can calulate how much force it would take to change Earth’s orbit by a given amount. Someone else talked about these forces, and the precise timing of forces required to make Velikovsky’s ideas square with our current observations. Where did these supposed forces come from? He doesn’t seem to address this issue. Ah, but you asked me to prove mainstream science’s position. As I said, it is necssarily indirect. And since I am not an astronomer, it will not be very authoritative or complete, but I can at least give you an idea. The most compelling argument is the issue of the forces. You like to bash Carl Sagan, but even if he didn’t get the numbers exactly right (I don’t know if he did or not) he did get the general principles right. You have said that you don’t know anything about orbital mechanics, but you insist that Sagan doesn’t either because someone else said so. Maybe you should try to figure it out for yourself. There is other evidence as well. It has also been pointed out that for the Earth’s year to be shorter, its orbit would have to be closer to the Sun than it is now. This would likely result in a somewhat warmer climate than we have today, yet evidence seems to indicate that the reverse is true. Climate changes could also change the characteristics of ice cores taken from glaiciers, or layers of sediment deposited by rivers at certain seasons. If the Earth’s orbit was different in the past, there would probably be some evidence in the geological record, but there is not. You have been arguing that early calendars from various cultures somehow prove that the Earth once had a shorter year, which you say had 360 days. Others have said that these calendars have neither all had the same number of days in their year, nor have they all existed at the same time. Furthermore, they all had a (sometimes elaborate) system of corrections built in, to make them match with the observed solar year. If the year was really shorter, these calendars wouldn’t have had the corretions. What I want to know is, why do you expect that these early cultures would have had a fairly regular calendar like the one we have now? All knowledge takes time to refine. Most of these cultures didn’t have very good writing systems or advanced mathematics, either. (Before you respond with the feats of the Aztecs and Egyptians, let me point out to you that a pyramid is hardly a difficult shape to engineer. The question of how the blocks were shaped and moved is not one of mathematics, but of ingenuity.) Also, many calendars were used for religious purposes, to mark holidays and such, and had some religious significance in the way they were described. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In other words, science is all about proof. If an idea fails scientific tests consistently, it’s not a scientific idea. Now why don’t you go read that link, or don’t you have the time? > > OK, so by this measure Velikovsky looks great. Scientists were bitching him about making predictions. Van Allen Belts, Venus is hot, Radio noises from Jupiter. > > Mainstream science at the time was shocked at the Van Allen Belts, thought Venus was freezing and that Jupiter was inert. Who looks good and who looks bad? [/quote] Unless Velikovsky gave solid reasons why he thought those phenomena should exist, his predictions don’t mean anything. Let’s say I predict that a car will crash into your house tomorrow, and leave it at that. Tomorrow a car does crash into your house. You would probably conclude that I either made a lucky guess or arranged for someone to crash into your house. Now let’s say instead that I make the same prediction, but I also tell you that I know your street has a high rate of speeding and DUI violations, and that the weather report shows a high chance of ice in your area tomorrow. This time when the car crashes into your house, you would probably conclude that I made a reasonable prediction based on assesment of available data. It seems to me that Velikovsky has made many predictions of car crashes, but has not said much about the conditions that would lead to this situation. This is why the scientific community has not taken him seriously. AnotherHeretic, you claim to be interested in science, but from the evidence of your own words you are only interested in spewing forth your beliefs without listening to those of others. You make assertions, and when others counter those assertions you twist their words to mean something else, make irrelevant comments on their particular choice of words, or even attack them directly. You say that others are guilty of doing poor research and of not reading this or that, yet you admit that you do the very same thing. You have made 17 consecutive posts filled largely with rude comments and smiley faces. This behavior is not indicative of even an amateur scientist, but of a troll. Yes, I am calling you a troll. Please refrain from trolling. ---
**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, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/156 "2001-04-12T11:29:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > 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 didn’t make any errors. We simply disagree 🙂 > [@](#): > > I already noted asserted > [@](#): > > 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. We’re going in circles and not really getting anywhere. Since that was already done in the other 360 thread which I’ve just read, I’ll make this my last post on the topic unless I have something to say that hasn’t been said. I did a quick search on the net and found the usual mainstream explanations for the mayan calendar with some interesting comment on the bottom: [http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html#Anchor-What-65428](http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html#Anchor-What-65428) “In ancient times, the Mayans had a tradition of a 360-day year. But by the 4th century B.C.E. they took a different approach than either Europeans or Asians. They maintained three different calendars at the same time. In one of them, they divided a 365-day year into eighteen 20-day months followed by a five-day period that was part of no month. The five-day period was considered to be unlucky.” > [@](#): > > 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.) Naturally. You have your world view and your interpretation. Mainstream CANNOT let in a 360 day year as a previous calendar used around the world because that would be a leak in a huge dam that would cause a lot of views to fall. > [@](#): > > 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. That is your interpretation. I understand that. I respect that. I don’t blame you. From your perspective that is an understandable interpretation. I don’t share your view. > [@](#): > > 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. Don’t worry, I never expected you to. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/157 "2001-04-12T12:36:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > \*\*I’m sure you did an extended search for hours and days 🙂 > \*\* I checked 10+ authoritative sources. When I look up something as well researched as calendars I don’t expect to find any great disagreement. I didn’t find any disagreement in fact. All references I found agreed about these ancient calendars. They all agreed with each other and did not agree with your assertion. After finding these results I saw no reason for further investigation. If you can supply a similarly authoritative source that disagrees with these then I will gladly take a look and revise my opinion. So unless the entire discipline of researching ancient calendars has been taken over by those seeking to discredit this obscure statement by Velikovsky then I conclude that my original statement is true. To be fair the field was probably not as well researched when Velikovsky was doing his work. He may have been making a statement that was correct as far as anyone knew at the time. His data has simply been shown to be incorrect by further investigation. You have said that when you are wrong you like to admit it. Well here is your chance. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2001, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/158 "2001-04-12T13:08:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > Sagan said that Venus was a cold planet. Frozen. Reference please? Sagan was one of the key scientists in proving that Venus had a hotter-than-expected surface temperature due to its runaway greenhouse effect. _aside - I’d love to get into this debate…if only I had the time to read thru it all. oh well. carry on._ ---
**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, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/159 "2001-04-12T13:33:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Mainstream CANNOT let in a 360 day year as a previous calendar used around the world because that would be a leak in a huge dam that would cause a lot of views to fall. Just as you MUST find 360 day calendars and attribute them to the same “changed” solar period even though they were developed and discarded by many societies at different epochs and are easily explained by the primacy of the lunar system prior to the collection of enough information on the movement of the stars to identify the solar year. Whatever. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/160 "2001-04-12T15:28:46Z")
AnotherHeretic wrote: > [@](#): > > The more people use words like fringe science, crackpot, aliens sticking stuff up my bungehole and other such “mature” comments, the happier I am because it shows they are **threatened** by what I’m saying. [emphasis mine] You misspelled “annoyed”. Hope this helps. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163.md?page=9)