Is mainstream science out to get fringe science?

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Alessan *
**In other word, every hypothesis should be attacked, fiercely and vigorously; and only if it’s strong enough to defend itself it should be considered a valid scientific theory.

There are no shortcuts in science, and no free lunches. **

Attack:
To set upon with violent force.
To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.

Fierce:
Having a savage and violent nature; ferocious. See Synonyms at cruel.

I don’t see why hostility violence or cruelty play a role in science. We’re trying to be objective not emotional.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**Oh. My. God. We’ve got a genuine Velikovskian here!

Perhaps you and the creationists can keep each other company.

Oh, they laughed at Galileo, they Laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown. See, there are two things that could be happening when scientist dismiss you theories. One could be that they are charlatans trying desperately to hold back the advancement of knowledge. Yeah, the people we call scientists are really ANTI-SCIENTISTS since they must crush and destroy anything different. Makes you wonder how anything gets discovered, if the scientists are always trying to cover up new information.

Or there’s another theory. Perhaps the scientists treat you like a buffoon and an idiot because you ARE a buffoon and an idiot. Maybe scientist WANT to discover new things! Huh, what a radical concept, scientists trying to discover new things and figure out how things work. So THATS what they’ve been up to all this time! **

I won’t bring up the buffoon or idiot comment here since you apologized for it and I accepted. But I’ve heard these arguments before. They have nothing to do with me. I didn’t use Galileo or Copernicus for support. I don’t care who’s laughing at who. I’ve read Velikovsky. I’ve read his critics. I’ve read the answers to his critics. Etc… I see value to a lot of his work despite his faults. I won’t attack a guy just because I read Sagan attack him. I won’t even do that with a Daniken or Sitchin. I feel comfortable with my statements about Von Daniken and Sitchin because I’ve read both of them.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**DrFidelius wrote:

To go off on a slight tangent, it seems all of the “mainstream scientists” I know are also out to get all the other “mainstream scientists”. The only ones who think this is a bad thing are those who don’t have enough solid evidence and testable predictions.

Scientists are always throwing rocks at each other. They get dismissive of those who either throw back marshmallows or who go whining to the general public about how mean the scientists are.

Alessan wrote:

In other word, every hypothesis should be attacked, fiercely and vigorously; and only if it’s strong enough to defend itself it should be considered a valid scientific theory.

Carl Sagan made basically the same point in The Demon-Haunted World. He said that the first thing any good scientist does, when (s)he concocts a new hypothesis, is to attack that hypothesis with every possible counterargument (s)he can imagine. Ruthlessly. (S)he knows that when his/her hypothesis comes up for peer review, any objections (s)he hasn’t already raised and successfully dealt with will be raised by his/her peers.

Of course, as many “alternative” theorists have discovered, even if your hypothesis doesn’t survive the peer review process, you can always go straight to the popular press and publish your book yourself in an attempt to get “public opinion” behind you instead. In the theater of popular “fringe science” books, having mainstream science denigrate your hypothesis is a badge of honor, proving that “they” are all out to get you because they’re afraid of the “earth-shattering” implications of your hypothesis. :rolleyes: **

You have some good points and part of what you say really pisses me off. For example, if you’ve followed the low-carb diet thread I started, I read a book called Protein Power. It had some great information in it. But having studied controversies for years, I know that they would probably meet resistance if they tried to publish this type of work through the usual channels. So they go to the popular press and don’t need to back up their statements too much, nor show you all sides of the story. I’m trying it because traditional diets from my experience and almost everyone I know who has dieted (anecdotal of course), didn’t work with lo cal diets. But I’m taking a risk because it went to the popular press.

But a guy like Arp, who certainly can wear his treatment as a badge of honor cannot go to the popular press. Who the hell is interested among the general public about a book on redshifts?

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by DrFidelius *
**

Doc, I just read your signature. Charlatan, heh heh? OK, please explain the joke. What do you do?

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Cervaise *
**

(AH) Reading Velikovsky, it’s clear to me that more can be added to scientific method.

Or, rephrased, in order for Velikovsky to be taken seriously, the scientific method that clearly shows his wackjob hypotheses to be a wheelbarrow of horsepucky will have to be radically revised.

You must feel threatened to have to resort to name calling.

Regarding the OP:

(devil’s advocate restating initial questions/assertions for discussion) Is mainstream science out to get fringe science? … (M)ainstream scientists denigrate and unfairly attack any scientists that don’t toe their line.

Patently absurd on its face. Science is a method. It relies on falsifiability, repeatability, and vigorous attempts at refutation via thorough peer review. People who advocate their theories instead of working hard to disprove them are not doing science.

In other words, “mainstream science” is not “out to get fringe science.” Rather, the scientific method, correctly applied, is unkind to hypotheses that are conceptually unsound and that fail to hold up under vigorous examination. Period. No “fringe” about it.

I’m all for the scientific method. And I LOVE science. But unfortunately, there is dogma in science too.

(AH) I’m a businessman, and I understand pretty well how politics work.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you clearly are in possession of not the tiniest amount of understanding of how science works. Your cherished Velikovsky, even under the most generous interpretation of his “theories,” is, by any and all rational bases, little more than an annoying wingnut.

You are annoyed and rather than provide something of value to discuss you resort to namecalling and patronizing remarks. VERY scientific.

There are a lot of very smart people on this board. I’d advise you to listen carefully to what they have to say.

You can keep your advice to yourself.

I know I’ve learned a lot here, and I invite you to do the same. I simply caution you not to fall into the trap of confusing personal beliefs with personal identity, or you may suffer an existential crisis when some of those beliefs are irrefutably demonstrated to be hogwash.

Many of my own beliefs have withered under the harsh light of objective evidence

I’m not surprised

and I haven’t climbed a clocktower with a rifle yet.

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. You sure don’t sound too rational to me and I certainly wouldn’t want to be near you when it happens, but I’ll take your word for it.

If I sound impatient, it’s simply because I’m fed up with people who don’t understand that the purpose of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance, not spreading it.
**

Sorry to cause you anxiety and this feeling of impatience and being “fed up”. Since you wouldn’t want become ignorant, I suggest you stop following this thread. It’s giving you too many emotions and emotions tend to cloud rational thought.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by DrFidelius *
**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? **

Doc, good advice actually. The truth is, I have now counted about 16 opponents. I didn’t even read your earlier statements till just now. This takes a lot of work to do properly, especially in a place like Straight Dope, and looking over some of my old posts, I’m kind of embarassed because they were not that coherent. I didn’t even realize how low my energy level was until reading all these posts tonight. But I got some carbs in my body due to passover meal and I finally have some energy to reply to some more posts, hopefully with more coherence…

You have been very respectful and you have asked a good question. The proper answer is to read Worlds in Collision and some of the work on varchive.org especially the Einstein correspondence. I will try tomorrow to summarize some of the work and at least give you a partial answer because I don’t expect you to read Worlds in Collision on my say so Certainly not at this stage.
I hope I will be able to do a decent job.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Amedeus *
**
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.

That is not what I’m suggesting. Perhaps tonight, perhaps tomorrow I will try to explan a bit better what I mean. But just something to think about. History is a different kind of science than astronomy. Astronomy is a different kind of science than math although there are relations. Statistics, I don’t even know if that falls under science, but if it does, it works differently. You cannot perform experiments in Astronomy, at least in many cases because the objects are too far away. Nor can you in History. But you often can in Chemistry.

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 just disagree with you. Not only is a guy like Arp, former assistant to Edwin Hubble of the Hubble Space telescope fame, not allowed to present his theories to his fellow scientists, but not allowed access to a telscope. That is politics related to accepted theory on Redshifts. Astrology would fare FAR worse in my view. But I’m ready to agree to disagree on this one.

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.

Velikovsky is not a simple case. Respected scientists behaved in a non scientific way to silence him. Many people here read the Sagan critique and stayed away because of that. When you’ve done research on this, that can get very annoying. I don’t begrudge those who have read him and disagreed because they have made an informed decision.

Am I biased? Yes, but not against your prophet. I am just biased against Ignorance, and people that spout it.

You admitted that you know basically nothing about this case, so I feel kind of funny when you insinuate that I’m ignorant. I wouldn’t presume to attack someone whose work I never read.

In theory that is how much of it supposed to work. I’m a businessman, and I understand pretty well how politics work. More so than your average scientist who deals with theories, chemicals, professors and such. Money makes the world go wrong and money talks. Not scientific method.

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.

Arp is one of MANY cases. Do you have any Doctor friends? Ask them how often they go out with a pharmaceutical salesperson. If they are honest enough to tell you the truth, you would be shocked. A close friend of mine is a Dr., and I’ve been to many sporting events, theatres etc with him. As it happens, he will only let salespeople whose drugs he believes in take him out. But do you think all doctors are as concerned? Why do you think pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars on sports events and salespeople exclusively to call on doctors? Because they want to promote your health? Because they’re nice guys? Because they believe in good science? Or because of the money.

And as to what’s important to me, you got me all wrong. I love science. If I wasn’t a contrarian type guy I would be a researcher today. But I knew that I would never be allowed to study what interested me. And all the doors were open to me. I started college at the age of 16. My then best friend and I were probably the only wackos in the college that were so bored by our classes that we skipped the entire semester of many classes to go to libraries and bookstores to study what interested us…

Not that I hate business, but I would much rather devote my life to science. But a researcher will never pull the strings and I don’t like other people to pull my strings…

Also, so let’s say you have a theory that the Earth has been around for 100 billion years. How do you perform an experiment to prove your theory? Scientists proclaim as if they know EXACTLY how many millions of years old a fossil is. Prove it. Do an experiment.
Even if you can design one, why does that experiment have ANY relevance to something that happened millions of years ago? Maybe the environment was different, maybe a million variable were different.

are we arguing Velisoky or creationsim, or perhaps I was right and they are both along the same lines?

Maybe it was my fault but you didn’t get my point. Experimentation cannot be done in all sciences in all cases. People have a theory on timelines in history but you can’t do an experiment with history. There was no video camera so we have to do our best to fit the pieces together without ANY experiments…

I’m too tired to even answer that one.

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? **

I think I’ve answered this one before but now that I have energy tonight I actually read what you wrote in it’s entirety

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Amedeus *
**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. **

Thank you for your new tone. I do appreciate it. As to the famous quote of Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence”, Shouldn’t science be objective? Why should extraordinary claims require MORE evidence than regular claims? If evidence proves something let it do so. If it isn’t proof it isn’t proof. Many extraordinary things happen. Jupiter recently got bombarded with pieces of a comet. The “only” evidence we have is some pictures. We don’t need “extraordinary” evidence just because the even is “extraorindary”. “Ordinary” evidence will do fine…

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by december *
**

*Originally posted by tracer *
**So, teeming millions, is the treatment fringe scientists receive really this unfair? Are we losing many potentially great discoveries because we don’t want to shake the scientific status quo? **

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. **

Funnily enough, I agree with most of what you said. Scientists DO too little to attack pseudo science. A hatchet job like Sagan’s critique does more harm than good. It shows me that I cannot trust scientists to admit when they’re wrong and to properly critique and makes me do a lot of reasearch I wish I wouldn’t have to.

Although you’ve provided no specifics, I respect your opinion on V. because at least you’ve read him. But as to “Suggest that his advocates try a search through google.com if they really want to know the criticism”, sorry, but I’ve read a lot more pro and con than probably anybody that has posted so far.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**AnotherHeretic wrote:

Although I want to stay out of it it’s only fair I respond to the shapley thing:

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/bio/Humason.html

Ah. This short article, combined with the link I posted to http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/papers/trimble.html, paints a very different picture of Shapley than the one you described earlier in this thread.

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’ll have to check out both your link and mine. It looks like I didn’t remember the events correctly. I remember reading of 2 events where Shapley did some fudging of data and did a quick search on the net to come up with that page which I did not read carefully enough. I thought it said that he erased part of the photograph, but I guess he only removed pencil marks pointing to the cepheids?

If I have more info on this I’ll come back to it. And I take back my statement until I can dig up some more info.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *

Thank you sam, that was a good post.

**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.

I can sympathize

[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.[/li][/quote]

This will take some work for me to say correctly and I want to actually go to bed tonight…but I’ll try. If Velikovsky had only taken eyewitness accounts from around the world that corroborated worlwide that Venus was a comet and took orbit as a planet, why does he have to provide a mechanism? That is something worthy of further study.

In my own mind, I’m undecided if the Venus story happened even close to as he says it did, but I think that he provides some compelling evidence that is worth looking at.

Funnily enough, for a few years I rejected out of hand the Venus part of the story until I went to Mexico, spent plenty of time visiting pyramids and saw weird references to Venus, pictographs of it that just don’t look right, and saying things like “we are guided by the light of Venus” In today’s enlightened society, who can even identify venus? How did they act like it was a shining light? It also sounded funnily enough like the bible accounts of the morning and evening star…Also a well respected ancient bible scholar like Rashi referring to Nogah as Venus, I can’t remember the exact words, but I’ll try to get you the ref tomorrow, but it is a corroboration of sorts. THAT made me rethink the Venus story as a possibility.

Even though I think it’s worth studying this question further without giving a mechanism for this to happen, note that Jupiter has just been bombarded with I think 21 objects in '92 or '94 from a comet. And recently there were 11 or 12 new moons discovered on Jupiter. Jsu reported in Astronomy mag last month… We have so many reams of old astronomy pictures we haven’t looked at. I wonder if anyone has calculated the orbit of these new moons and tried to find them in old pictures. Perhaps some of them came from the collision?

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.

Which old feature and how do we know the age? Anyways, this is all speculation. To me, the greatest value is in studying the testimony on the first step before going into hypothesis of which planet did what, was ejected from where etc… To me, Velikovsky made a big mistake in not being WAAY more tentative on this side of things and let the testimony speak for itself rather than making bold assertions…

[quote]
[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][/quote]

I don’t know enough about celestial mechanics to discuss this question.

[quote]
[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][/quote]

I don’t even remember the evidence V. provided for the ejection from Jupiter and again find it to be the least interesting aspect of his theories.

[quote]
[li]Velikovsky claimed that Venus rained manna from heaven to feed the Jewish people while they wandered in the desert.[/li][/quote]

This part is why I thank you. I’ve been waiting for someone to mention this. If I were a critic this would be the first thing I’d mention. When I read this, I wanted to put the book down. It made me suspicious, reduced the credibility of everything V has said. This part was so unnecessary to the book and would definitely qualify as a huge stretch to be kind. It took me some time to come back to V. after this assertion, but in the end, I look at it in the same way as I do Tesla. He thought aliens were talking to him from Mars. I doubt it…but his alternating current works great

I believe V.'s work has value despite this assertion. But if this was the reason you rejected him, I couldn’t blame you because it’s just not serious. Nonetheless, if you take a step back and look at the overall message of the book, I believe there is a lot to learn and a lot to think about. Even if you leave out the entire venus episode. I think there is ample evidence that something catastrophic happened. V. saw it, put it in his books and eventually mainstream science saw part of it and accepted that a meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. V. says there is human record of massive worldwide catastrophe happening in recorded history and regardless if it’s Venus ejecting from Jupiter, or wherever it comes from, that to me is the value of Velikovsky. And is a matter requiring further study.

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.

As I recall, this was an unfair critique and V responded to that himself on several occasions. I don’t even remember the details of the answer because I didn’t think the manna idea was convincing to begin with so I don’t really care if V knew the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates.

[quote]
[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][/quote]

This part is similar to the Manna so I have to agree, but I do want to study the bible account of this more closely because it does refer to the morning and evening star and via Rashi to Venus by name. But again, this isn’t the meat AFAIC…Funnily enough, it is now passover, the time commemorating the departure from Egypt.

[quote]
[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][/quote]

again, stretch.

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.
**

Did you read Ages in Chaos and Earth in Upheaval? There was plenty of evidence in those books for catastrophism and a lot less manna. More boring reading in the view of many, but to me more interesting in many ways…

Again, Sam, thanks for a well reasoned post.

[AnotherHeretic]

Thank you Another_Heretic

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherHeretic

Testy, you are WAAAAY off… Ask Ellenberger, Velikovsky’s biggest most obsessed critic ever will tell you how wrong Sagan’s critique was and probably about the AAAS meeting too.

Is this what you were talking about?

---

AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
“Sagan’s AAAS critique of Velikovsky in Feb. 1974 (completed with revisions by 1976 and published in Donald Goldsmith (ed.), Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Cornell Univ. Press, 1977) whereas Velikovsky’s finished text was distributed at the event), while a rhetorical tour de force, was a failure as an example of “reasoned argument, celestial mechanics, and the best physical science to counter [Velikovsky’s] sensational claims” (Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec 1999, p. 4). This is because (1) a large portion of Sagan’s “reasoned argument” is against straw men and red herrings, as with, e.g., the manna after the Exodus which Sagan criticizes Velikovsky for accepting the biblical account that it did not fall on the Sabbath when Velikovsky explicitly denies this as unrealistic, while manna-like stories come from many widespread cultures, e.g., “ambrosia” of the Greeks, “madhu” of the Hindus, and “sweet morning dew” of the Scandinavians, (2) Sagan’s critique contains NO celestial mechanics since the celebrated great odds against Velikovsky’s scenario are derived from “ergodic theory”, i.e., ignoring gravitation, as Sagan replied to Dr. Robert W. Bass after his address, and (3) Sagan’s physical science is riddled with errors considering, for example, his Jupiter escape velocity is too great (70 vs. 60 km/sec, which, together with other minor errors, was corrected for the version in Broca’s Brain) and, as revealed by George R. Talbott in Kronos IV:2, 1978, the cooling calculation in Sagan’s Appendix 3 is nothing but a trivial identity: the heat radiated to Venus by the Sun in about one hour at 6000K equals that radiated from Venus in 3500 years at 79K. This was reported in my letter in April 1981 Physics Today which Sagan ignored at the time and claimed ignorance of it in our final correspondence in April 1996. (Talbott’s notions about ongoing, massive volcanism on Venus, however, are contradicted by the stagnant atmosphere below the clouds and the existence of 35+ km. diameter craters.)”

Frankly, Sagan does seem to have made a fairly personal attack against Velikofski’s suppositions. I think that this conclusively proves that if someone persists in spouting bullshit and does it long enough and loud enough, a serious scientist might get a bit peeved and retaliate. Scientists are people too.

Emotion clogs up rational thought Your statements contain namecalling but no real substance. Read Sam’s post. Much better than what Sagan wrote. And as a scientist, especially one devoting time to show a “fringe” scientist his place, he should have retracted, admitted he was wrong and made new valid criticisms. What an embarassment!!!

Naturally you defend Sagan no matter what. Sam made some good points and I admitted them. I’m not trying to defend Velikovsky. I’m trying to learn as much as I can no matter the source.

If I tried to pick apart Von Daniken, if I did it wrong, I would have the guts and intellectual honesty to admit it.

Sagan being upset with Velikofski while trashing his gobbledygook in no way invalidates the demonstration that Velikofski was just plain wrong, mixing a huge amount of myth, pseudoscience, and very selective observation together into a theory that doesn’t hold water.
Regards.
Testy.

Too bad there’s not more substance in your comments. I’d be happy to debate them and even grant you a point or two if you made any

Sagan’s critique was not “better” gobbledygook than Velikovsky. When you’re wrong, admit it and move on. I’ve had the courage to do so. We’ll see if you do too.

[AnotherHeretic]

See, it took all night to respond and I haven’t finished and by my count I think I have 18 people against me. I definitely will not be replying to everyone in the future

[tracer]

AnotherHeretic wrote:

*Originally posted by tracer *
**Of course, as many “alternative” theorists have discovered, even if your hypothesis doesn’t survive the peer review process, you can always go straight to the popular press and publish your book yourself in an attempt to get “public opinion” behind you instead. In the theater of popular “fringe science” books, having mainstream science denigrate your hypothesis is a badge of honor, proving that “they” are all out to get you because they’re afraid of the “earth-shattering” implications of your hypothesis. :rolleyes: **

You have some good points and part of what you say really pisses me off.

<Iago from Disney’s Aladdin>
Why am I not surprised? I think I’ll have a heart attack and die from not surprise!
</Iago from Disney’s Aladdin>

For example, if you’ve followed the low-carb diet thread I started, I read a book called Protein Power. It had some great information in it. But having studied controversies for years, I know that they would probably meet resistance if they tried to publish this type of work through the usual channels.

Because (A) what little evidence they have supporting their theories is incredibly flimsy, and (B) earlier existing evidence from others contradicts their theories.

So they go to the popular press and don’t need to back up their statements too much, nor show you all sides of the story. I’m trying it because traditional diets from my experience and almost everyone I know who has dieted (anecdotal of course), didn’t work with lo cal diets.

Just because chemotherapy doesn’t work on a large number of cancer cases, doesn’t mean that homeopathy does. I can appreciate the human urge to grasp at straws out of desperation, but they’re still straws.

But I’m taking a risk because it went to the popular press.

You got that right. Some fad diets can be quite harmful (e.g. the Beverly Hills diet). Not only is there little or no data out there showing that high protein, low carbohydrate diets work, there is also little or no data on the potential long-term side effects of purposely throwing yourself into ketosis/ketoacidosis.

But a guy like Arp, who certainly can wear his treatment as a badge of honor cannot go to the popular press. Who the hell is interested among the general public about a book on redshifts?

I couldn’t find anything about Arp’s ostricism in my web search. Got a link or an article so’s I can get more details on this? I suspect that it takes more than just a suggestion that something besides relative motion may be causing the universal redshift to get someone kicked off of Mount Palomar. (Galileo wasn’t ostricised just because of his “heretical” views; he was also, apparently, argumentative about nearly everything, a “doesn’t play well with the other children” type. Ditto for Giordano Bruno, who seemed to eventually get on everyone’s bad side.)

[AnotherHeretic]

You have some good points and part of what you say really pisses me off.

I didn’t say it properly. I don’t mean that what YOU are saying pisses me off. I mean that that I wish scientists handled things the way you guys think they do and the fact that they don’t pisses me off because of the reasons I mentioned…

For example, if you’ve followed the low-carb diet thread I started, I read a book called Protein Power. It had some great information in it. But having studied controversies for years, I know that they would probably meet resistance if they tried to publish this type of work through the usual channels.

Because (A) what little evidence they have supporting their theories is incredibly flimsy, and (B) earlier existing evidence from others contradicts their theories.

I agree that protein power lacks enough backup for their work. Kind of flimsy as you say. But obviously the weight loss is happening by the mechanism they are suggesting and I’ve seen nothing in the mainstream to deny this and I’ve seen mainstreamers here admit to it.

What evidence contradicts their theories?

So they go to the popular press and don’t need to back up their statements too much, nor show you all sides of the story. I’m trying it because traditional diets from my experience and almost everyone I know who has dieted (anecdotal of course), didn’t work with lo cal diets.

Just because chemotherapy doesn’t work on a large number of cancer cases, doesn’t mean that homeopathy does. I can appreciate the human urge to grasp at straws out of desperation, but they’re still straws.

I agree with you and I haven’t seen anything but anecdotal evidence for homeopathy and see no reason it should work… On the other hand, the fact is that current diets have the opposite effect they are intended to. If they wouldn’t be harmful, that would be fine. But they ARE harmful and are accepted by the mainstream. You should attack low cal diets as vigorously as you do velikovsky.

But I’m taking a risk because it went to the popular press.
You got that right. Some fad diets can be quite harmful (e.g. the Beverly Hills diet). Not only is there little or no data out there showing that high protein, low carbohydrate diets work, there is also little or no data on the potential long-term side effects of purposely throwing yourself into ketosis/ketoacidosis.

I wouldn’t go on just any fad diet. I’ve felt that insulin was the key to the diet problem for many years now and was waiting for someone to come out with research on it. When I heard of Atkins I was skeptical and didn’t even bother to read it since it looked like another fad short term water loss diet.

I didn’t even come to Protein Power because I was looking for a diet. I was getting back into exercise mode (ignoring diet since diets don’t work), and someone recommended I read protein power. Despite the title I picked up the book and was really surprised to find that the insulin question was at the center of their work and their case, though backed up by admittedly flimsy evidence, seemed logical to me. I would feel much better about it if it was backed up by studies but I haven’t seen anything pro OR con on it… As for ketosis (why did you add ketoacidosis above? Are you suggesting low carb diets induce ketoacidosis?), I have to balance that against the risks of being fat which I view as a calculated risk I’m willing to take. Being fat poses so many risks I don’t think I need to go into them.

Also, I don’t plan to be on that low carb a diet to be in major ketosis all my life. I plan to do weight lifting and after lowering the fat, upping the muscle, have the smallest portion of my diet consits of carbs and the rest protein/fat. Perhaps by separating the carb intake from the protein/fat intake by a period of time…

But a guy like Arp, who certainly can wear his treatment as a badge of honor cannot go to the popular press. Who the hell is interested among the general public about a book on redshifts?

I couldn’t find anything about Arp’s ostricism in my web search. Got a link or an article so’s I can get more details on this? I suspect that it takes more than just a suggestion that something besides relative motion may be causing the universal redshift to get someone kicked off of Mount Palomar. (Galileo wasn’t ostricised just because of his “heretical” views; he was also, apparently, argumentative about nearly everything, a “doesn’t play well with the other children” type. Ditto for Giordano Bruno, who seemed to eventually get on everyone’s bad side.) **

I expected him to be real arrogant. I was surprised at how humble he is. I don’t have a link offhand. His book is the best place to read about it. But I’m sure a decent web search would give you plenty of links…and I’ve seen plenty on the web about him. There’s even a fairly large group of amateur astronomers who are on the lookout for arp-related observing…

For what it’s worth, when I asked Krupp about him being kicked off Palomar, he said after 20 years he hasn’t discovered anything, of course he should be kicked off the observatory. That’s a real low blow for someone of Arp’s calibre and achievements. Arp can only get published on letters or articles where he doesn’t mention anything about redshift.

In a way I understand these scientists, for them Arp is crazy. From the day they started learning about Astronomy redshift=distance. It’s a law to them and the fact that Arp actually looked at the pictures he took and saw associations makes no sense to an astronomer with a worldview that does not allow associating objects with different redshifts together. The fact that Arp took pictures of galaxies with connecting spirals and different redshifts? An optical illusion. That’s what Krupp told me.

The thing is that Arp was around before it was “accepted scientific” dogma that redshift=distance. He didn’t have the evidence then that he has now. If he had, it’s doubtful that redshift=distance would be popular today. In the intervening years it has gained acceptance and now that he has evidence he is not being allowed to present it and he had to move to Germany because no one will give him telescope time and only the Max Planck institute has given him an academic home (but no telescope). He has a lot allies but even more enemies…and the enemies came along because of his views.

Considering his low key demeanour, what case can you give for a former assistant to Hubble who has had major celestial objects named after him, has published a multi-volume Catalog of galaxies that was very well received and is an icon of sorts, for not even having access to any decent telescope after 20 years at THE premiere telescope in the world? You will naturally look for excuses, but it won’t dawn on you that it’s because his views are radical to astronomers…

[andros]

Another Heretic, have you by any chance studied the work of Ken Beacon?

Merely curious.

[riley_dieffenbach]

I just had to interrupt to note that Another Heretic managed 22 posts in a row. That has to be some sort of SDMB record. Agree of disagree, but don’t accuse him of being lazy.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by andros *
**
Another Heretic, have you by any chance studied the work of Ken Beacon?

Merely curious. **

Nope.

[AnotherHeretic]

*Originally posted by riley dieffenbach *
**I just had to interrupt to note that Another Heretic managed 22 posts in a row. That has to be some sort of SDMB record. Agree of disagree, but don’t accuse him of being lazy. **

Some people thought I was using being tired as an excuse. The truth is, unlike some people who read “fringe” out of belief, I am interested to “check out” my views with people who have radically different views to see if there are holes in my views. I didn’t want to back down because then you’d think I was a phony. I don’t mind being proven wrong. I don’t have this big ego and if you guys are right, I’ll admit it and move on… I don’t like the personal attacks but I understand them because I always try to put myself in someone else’s shoes and that makes things so much clearer to me…

I am interested in the truth. I don’t care if it comes from mainstream, heretics or even if I get a kernel or two from a Von Daniken. In fact, I think it was Von Daniken who claimed that ancient batteries have been found that proves the existence of aliens. Skip the aliens, research the batteries and it’s quite an interesting historical fact.

I’d like to get out of this discussion soon though because it is sucking up my time, but I won’t sneak out with some excuse. And at the end of the day, I have found a few of the things said here of use and respect and enjoyed the approach of the esteemed Doc particularly and Sam Stone as well.

[tracer]

AnotherHeretic wrote:

On the other hand, the fact is that current diets have the opposite effect they are intended to.

As has been mentioned in the Atkins Diet thread, current diets (meaning low-fat and generally restricted-calorie diets) do not have the opposite effect they are intended to. Atkins, Sears, et al. simply claim that they have the opposite effect they are intended to. The evidence for this “opposite effect” is usually something along the lines of, “Americans are fatter than ever, so current diets must not be working”, which neglects the notion that most Americans may not, in fact, be following the “current diets” and are just plain eating more.