So, that means I’m not going to get an answer, huh? And here I thought I was being quite respectful.
You would do better in life if you learned to ignore offensive people. If you do not respond to them they start looking like bullies or fools. If you let them know that they are beneath your notice but that you are more than willing to speak with people deserving respect they are likely to give up. Yelling at someone who does not respond in kind gets really boring in a short while.
Wait… you have ignored everything I’ve tried to ask you here… Are you trying to tell me something?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic *
I didn’t read the link yet but “many brilliant people have studied and used this method, so if it were possible to “add to or improve it” it would have been done” is close minded, and no offense, ridiculous to me. So if someone comes up with a better method you will not even care to listen because if it were possible to improve it it would have already been done. Am I the only one here that views this statement ahem, dubiously. Again, no personal offense meant, it is just such a radically different world view to mine…
[QUOTE]
Im not an expert on the subject of the scientific method, nor a scientist. But I would say that it is the most direct and basic they could use. To say that they need to change the scientific method, a method that has been used for a very long time, merely to make is so ONE psuedo scientist can make his claim legitimate without doing the work all real scientists do is what’s ridiculous.
No, this is a biased opinion. If Astrology was proven time and time again to work, it would be accepted as a science. If there were SEVERAL studies proving to be, more than likely it would be attacked just as much, but would stand firm. Hence, be accepted.
I haven’t read any of his works, no, but this doesn’t mean I have no idea of what the topic is. I have not made any specific claims on his work, merely suggested that if his works were not accepted it was because they could not stand against the scientific method. I only have to know science for this.
Am I biased? Yes, but not against your prophet. I am just biased against Ignorance, and people that spout it.
Well, we know what things are important to you, thats nice. But this is not how science works. Not every person or all politics care about money. I would wager the politics involved in science are mostly about things such as a nobel peace prize and such. But that’s just my bias I guess.
are we arguing Velisoky or creationsim, or perhaps I was right and they are both along the same lines?
Too tired, or cannot argue it? Can your prophet stand up to rigorous scientific evaluation or are you here wanting to change science so he can be accepted?
Dr.
I’m halfway through the response, but I have to go now and if I leave it as is you certainly won’t be satisfied. I will need to do some more research and get to it. Don’t expect it before tomorrow.
Am,
There are 2 threads on this. There were how many people posting against my pov? Give or take 10? Try arguing on 10 fronts at the same time, knowing that any misstatement will be attacked. Try to be fair. PUT YOURSELF in my shoes. OF COURSE I’m tired (not to mention that I’m in the first week of the heretical low carb diet which saps your strength in the first 2 weeks). This takes a lot of energy. One on one I can deal with, but this is like playing chess with 10 people at the same time and on your turf to boot…
Tracer, thanks for that Jupiter post…I appreciate your even handedness. From what you’ve read in the archive so far, what is your take? Is it interesting? Does Velikovsky come off as a creationist to you?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic *
I didn’t read the link yet but “many brilliant people have studied and used this method, so if it were possible to “add to or improve it” it would have been done” is close minded, and no offense, ridiculous to me. So if someone comes up with a better method you will not even care to listen because if it were possible to improve it it would have already been done. Am I the only one here that views this statement ahem, dubiously. Again, no personal offense meant, it is just such a radically different world view to mine…
One more thing Am, Why do you say prophet? If you’re trying to make fun of me, what kind of scientific argument is that? Despite claims to the contrary, V. was not trying to prove his religion correct. V.'s book is most certainly as Heretical to Orthodox Jews as he is to scientists. And if you’re trying to insinuate that I have a religious agenda, let me disabuse you of that notion as well. There is a lot to learn from the Old Testament, it is a history and many things in it have been found to be physically true. But I certainly believe that the Sumerian Flood Story preceded the Old Testament Noah story. That by itself makes me persona non grata with the Orthodox Jews.
AH, I understand. I certainly would not want to be in your shoes. And I do not mean it to seem as if I am attacking you directly. What I am attacking is merely your position on Velikovsky.
I would do the same against somebody who claimed that we should change science to accomodade Richard Hoglan(or whatever that crackpots name is) and have gotten into several heated debates with people who, for instance, believe that we only use 10% of our brain, or we really did not land on the moon. (not on this board though, I did read some of it while lurking, but had not registered at that time)
They all strongly believe thier position, and all raise some interesting points, that to me, seem valid. However, careful consideration is called for, and after reasoning things out, it is easy to spot the fallacies in thier statements.
They all seem to believe in the same “conspiracy” of science. That it is this close-knit group of elitists whom reject any beliefs that are not discovered inside the group. They all speak as if science was the scientists, or was some personified entity that we worship.
Of course, I AM extremely skeptical and perhaps even close minded to conspriacy theories. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. And that evidence will be scrutinized to the extreme.
Answer, NO! On the contrary, scientists do too little to attack pseudo science. E.g., my spouse is a medical researcher. When pointed to the harm done by all the unproved “alternative medicine” being practiced, my spouse says that attcking these crackposts and charlatons is somebody else’s job. But, people are dying from quack remedies, when medicine could save them. Somebody needs to take the lead in protecting the public.
BTW I have read Velikovsky. His mixture of bible and science fiction is full of baloney. He’s been debunked over and over again. Almost everything he wrote has been proved to be incorrect. Suggest that his advocates try a search through google.com if they really want to know the criticism.
You claimed that Shapley had rallied against the discovery of variable stars. In fact, as the link I posted indicates, Shapley was firmly convinced that variable stars were quite real – particularly Cepheid variables. Shapley was a proponent of the notion of a “period-luminosity relationship” in Cepheid variables, a hypothesis that turned out to be correct and which had profound implications on our ability to measure the distances to far-away clusters of stars.
What Shapley was guilty of, according to the link you posted, was of erasing another astronomer’s pencil-marks on a photographic plate of the Andromeda Nebula, said pencil-marks claiming that certain spots were Cepheid variables. Shapley believed that the Andromeda Nebula was a small interstellar cloud lying within our galaxy, relatively nearby, which would mean that the spots on the photographic plate would’ve been way too small to have been Cepheid variables. Had the spots been Cepheids, it would have meant that the Andromeda Nebula was in fact very very far away, so far that it was probably a whole 'nother galaxy – a concept that was just too radical for the “mainstreamers” at the time to accept on such scant evidence.
So, yes, Shapley was guilty of clouded judgement – but on the subject of the distance to the Andromeda Nebula, not on the existence of variable stars, which were never in doubt.
I’ve read Velikovsky, I’ve read Sagan’s critique, and I’ve even read the manuscript of a (favorable) book about Velikovsky by a professor at the University of Lethbridge. I don’t know if the book was ever published. But anyway…
Here are some of the serious problems with Velikovsky as I remember them. Please note that it’s been almost 20 years since I read any of this stuff, so I may have misremembered some things.
[ul]
[li] Velikovsky claims that Venus was ejected from Jupiter in the recent past (recent enough to cause many of the miracles in the bible). This has many problems. First, we have absolutely no evidence of planets spitting out other planets, nor do we know of a mechanism by which they would do so. Second, for a body the mass of Venus to be ejected from the orbit of Jupiter to its current orbit would require so much energy that Venus would have been a glob of molten material. The Venus we see today has old features, and is much cooler than it would be if it were several thousands of degrees hot only a few thousand years ago.[/li][li]Venus is now in a roughly circular orbit around the sun. If it were shot out of Jupiter, its initial orbit would have been highly eccentric. For a body the size of Venus to have its orbit circularized in a few thousand years would require a sun with an extremely high electric charge, which ours doesn’t have (it does have one, and this was widely sited as ‘proof’ of Velikovsky’s theories, but it’s orders of magnitude too weak to have solved that problem).[/li][li] The range of speeds that Venus would have to be ejected by and manage to leave the gravitational pull of Jupiter while staying within the sun’s gravitational field is extremely small. Doesn’t prove it didn’t happen, but it would be very unlikely.[/li][li]Velikovsky claimed that Venus rained manna from heaven to feed the Jewish people while they wandered in the desert. He later claimed that the discovery of hydrocarbons on Venus proved his theory. Apparently, Velikovsky wasn’t aware of the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. Unless he thought the Jewish people ate motor oil.[/li][li]Velikovsky also claimed that Venus somewhere along the way knocked Mars out of its orbit, and Mars also careened past earth. One of them apparently passed us just as Moses raised his arms to part the red sea, and it was the gravitational attraction of the other planet that caused the parting. There are so many problems with this that I don’t know where to begin. I guess we could start by saying that this is a coincidence so huge that we might as well say, “God parted the Red Sea”, and we don’t need any of this yucky science stuff at all.[/li][li]He also claimed that the plagues of Egypt were caused by these planets. As I recall, he specifically claimed that vermin rained down from the sky from Venus’s atmosphere.[/li]
The only charitable thing I can say about Velikovsky was that he was one of the first to challenge the notion of incremental development in favor of catastrophism. And now we’re beginning to see that in fact a lot of our history is based around catastrophe of one sort or another (the dinosaur extinction being caused by an asteroid strike, for example).
[/ul]
The last point is a good example of how scientists CAN accept a radical theory as long as it is based on evidence. When the asteroid extinction theory was first proposed, it was treated as science fiction. But as hard evidence appeared in the form of iridium in the K-T boundary, the theory gained acceptance rapidly.
[QUOTE]
[ul]
[li] Velikovsky claims that Venus was ejected from Jupiter in the recent past (recent enough to cause many of the miracles in the bible). This has many problems. First, we have absolutely no evidence of planets spitting out other planets, nor do we know of a mechanism by which they would do so. Second, for a body the mass of Venus to be ejected from the orbit of Jupiter to its current orbit would require so much energy that Venus would have been a glob of molten material. The Venus we see today has old features, and is much cooler than it would be if it were several thousands of degrees hot only a few thousand years ago.[/li][li]Venus is now in a roughly circular orbit around the sun. If it were shot out of Jupiter, its initial orbit would have been highly eccentric. For a body the size of Venus to have its orbit circularized in a few thousand years would require a sun with an extremely high electric charge, which ours doesn’t have (it does have one, and this was widely sited as ‘proof’ of Velikovsky’s theories, but it’s orders of magnitude too weak to have solved that problem).[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I’ve got it! Venus was ejected from Jupiter on a highly eccentric orbit, in a super-hot molten state. Then, when Venus’s highly-eccentric orbit reached the point where Venus was just as far away from the sun as it is now, Venus used all of its excess heat to create a “rocket exhaust” that circularized its orbit! Both problems solved.
Do you know about Arp? He is as mainstream as can be. He was kicked off of Palomar for going against “accepted” theory on redshift. If science were tolerant of alternative theories, a man with his impeccable credentials would be allowed access to a telescope.
I mentioned this before but to reiterate, my point on strology was to show that everyone comes in with a bias. Including me of course. Someone here denied that if science were to come up with proof that astrology worked, it wouldn’t be accepted without hesitation. I don’t buy that. If I saw a study that proved Astrology right I would be skeptical of it. I probably wouldn’t trust such a study unless I was intimately involved in all aspects of it and I suspect you feel the same. I hope some of you will at least be intellectually honest enough to admit it. Some here act as if they have no biases and scientists have no bias.
First I want to reiterate that as far as astrology is concerned I agree with you. But I want to add as I’ve said elsewhere, sometimes anecdotal evidence is important. If “accepted” physical laws state that under XYZ circumstances light can not go faster than the “speed of light”, and ONE person manages to do it ONCE under XYZ conditions and let’s stipulate that scientists the world over don’t dispute that light went faster than “the speed of light” in that one instance, then there is a problem with the theory. Same as the first flight of the wright brothers was significant in proving that heavier than air flight is possible…
Dr., it is not my contention that Velikovsky’s theories (And I say theories because I don’t think he had “one” theory in his book but many, of varying degree of value) have been validated to the point that they should be accepted. Just that he has satisfied enough points to be considered fairly and openly. People like Sagan and I forgot how to write her name, the astronomer Gaposhkin, wrote BAD critiques of Velikovsky that have been read more than the original work and many here reject his work on the strength of a bad criticism. That and Shapley’s co-ordinated attack on Velikovsky were unfair. Considering that catastrophism is accepted today and that Gaposhkin/Shapley et al were wrong, at least educated people like yourselves should get a proper treatment, critiques and all of Velikovsky.
I wouldn’t begrudge you folks of your opinions if it were based on more knowledge, but basing it on Sagan is not fair. Remember, I say that from the perspective of someone who has read in detail Sagan/Velikovsky and a lot of the back and forth…
Riley, you said prediction is not a scientific way of doing things. I’m not saying that a prediction proves a theory, but it can definitely mean something important. There are examples like yours above, but there are other examples like predicting the orbit of planets based on Kepler’s laws. That IS a scientific way of doing things and quite important at that.
