The evidence currently available doesnt prove much to a skeptic: Kirlian photography, experiential accounts, accounts of healers and tests of healers such as Barbara Brennan, etc.
I still consider this stuff fringe, but I do think that in a decade or so, it will be demonstrated.
If it were already proven, it wouldn’t be fringe!
Einstein was a brilliant mind and a great scientist, but he was not infallible. Frankly, the constant harping of “Einstein took it seriously”, “are you smarter than Einstein”, and “Einstein was an outcast, too” do little to convince me of anything but your devotion to this idea.
Einstein had a very inquisitive mind and I find it easy to believe that he would have been open to reading Velikovsky’s work and considering it fairly. Of course, since as far as I know he never published anything directly related to that work I can hardly evaluate whether his opinion on that work, whether favorable or critical, was well-founded.
I don’t think even my mother would say that I am smarter than Einstein, though I did score higher on an IQ test than the 160 I have seen reported for him. Anybody need further proof that IQ tests are a poor measure of human intelligence?
I can think of no way for you to prove your assertion that Einstein was “dead in the water” without Planck. Perhaps you have constructed a time machine, gone back in time, and kidnapped Planck, and observed that Einstein (despite having procured a doctorate in 1905 and publishing several papers) vanished from the world of physics without causing a ripple. Yes, Planck was an early and strong supporter of Einstein. Hmmmm – what does that say about Einstein’s “fringe” status, anyway? Frankly, every time I hear teh “patent clerk” stories I begin to suspect “someone skewing data to support their pet thesis”. For instance, in this case Einstein’s status as a patent clerk is demonstrably unrelated to any resistance to his theory of relativity, since he took the job three years before formulating it.
As I said, I have not read Velikovsky’s work, therefore I cannot comment upon whether it deserves serious consideration. What I can say is that dismissing a counterargument with an arrogant “he doesn’t deserve serious consideration” is not the sign of an open mind. In fact, the attitude seems remarkably similar to what you attack about the scientific orthodoxy.
Say, doesn’t someone here seem to be confusing science with faith?
Haven’t we encountered that problem before?
Just another little note on Einsten’s infalliablity[sp?].
To the best of my knowlodge ( I really need to buy an English dictionary ) by the end of his life Einsten was not so open to new ideas. In fact he was confused and enraged by some of the new fisics he himself helped forge discoveries. To the day of his death he would deny many of the things we today know about particle fisics.
It only goes to prove that even the best minds are not immune to mistakes and prejudices.
Then again even tough I recall having read this in several diferent books I can’t name not even one right now so a little research might be in order.
Incidentally, Velikovsky wasn’t the only fringe-thinker to sway Einstein into sitting down and talking with him. Wilhelm Reich also managed to cajole Einstein into viewing a demonstration of his “orgonoscope,” and of the alleged temperature difference between the air immediately above his “orgone accumulator” box and the air elsewhere in the room. When Einstein later dismissed the temperature difference as being caused by air convection currents within the room, Reich accused Einstein’s assistant of “poisoning” Einstein’s thinking.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything anyways. I said from the outset that I wasn’t too keen on a debate because I knew where it would lead… My point about Einstein was that if he said astronomers made a mistake in not studying it, then you could give it a little more respect than treating the work as fringe. I knew how people like you would react anyways…
You seem to have the opinion that Velikovsky was a quack but you never read his work.
I wasn’t trying to prove it. My Dad saw the events unfolding. He described them to me. I’m sure these things are pretty well documented. You don’t want to concede the point? Fine, don’t. You can’t prove your side either…Especially without having read ANYTHING of what I’m talking about. If you were UNBIASED, you wouldn’t even have much of an opinion about this.
I’m note counterarguing the case at all. It wouldn’t be difficult and it’s already been done and published. Check it out and you will see this ground has been covered before. You folks are happy to claim that Velikovsky is a fringe scientist and not serious without reading his work. I’ve read Ellenberger’s hatchet job and my opinion is based on knowledge. Your opinion is based on hearsay. My arrogance at least has a basis. Yours has no strong basis. But go ahead. Read his argument. I’ll be surprised if you’re impressed by that “scholarship”. The last time I read that list, he went through every single thing that Velikovsky wrote in 1953 and nitpicked on details ignoring the context, ignoring the thrust of the argument and even so making ERRORS!!! And he makes it pretty obvious that he’s out to get Velikovsky. If you’re looking to prove him wrong you’re admitting that your biased. Newton would not survive such a treatment either…
Alessan, what’s your point?
Music Junkie, Einstein was fallible. My using him was only to show that someone you consider serious considered Velikovsky’s work serious, not to PROVE velikovsky.
Nothing will satisfy you guys…
tracer, I know about Reich, keep reading and you will find more. But tell the whole story. The other fringe thinkers didn’t get the same attention Velikovsky got.
Here’s another fringe thinker and absolute wacko Einstein met with. Nikola Tesla. Another fringe “thinker” you guys can ignore. He thought beings from Mars were contacting him. He’s also responsible for electricity as we use it today.
Ad hominem attacks are not a good beginning.
I have expressed absolutely no opinion about Velikovsky’s work. Your bias colors your perception.
Really? The point in question was whether Einstein would have been “dead in the water” without Planck. Now, where did you get the idea that I was unfamiliar with the biographies of Planck and Einstein? For that matter, where did you get the idea that “you can’t prove it wouldn’t have happened the way I said” is a reasonable defense for a positive assertion on your part.
Whatever the source of these ideas, I am sure it is as UNBIASED as the rest of your presentation.
No, nor are you reading with adequate comprehension. The counterargument was raised by Ellenberger and referenced by jab1. You treated that counterargument with dismissiveness and disdain, two traits that you rail against when applied to your beloved Velikovsky. I pointed out the hypocrisy of your position. I did so politely the first time, withthe idea that you were simply allowing your passion for the subject to get away from you.
Now you have again failed to respond substantially to the points raised and have compounded that by resorting to ad hominems and misrepresentations. It seems that your manners are ideally matched to your reason.
This is bad logic on your part.
As an issue of fact, your premise is also incorrect.
Alessan’s point, I believe, was that a thread with you bears marked similarities to a thread with a creationist.
Untrue.
Bad arguments and name calling, however, do not satisfy me.
I apologize if I was impolite and indeed I am very tired after a long night and did not even read your post properly nor some others. I didn’t even want to start the debate but somehow got in it anyways. Try to put yourself in my shoes. I’m one against a growing number of people. I don’t have the time to address this properly and regret entering the discussion at all and perhaps improperly answering yours. I’ve read Ellenberger and wasn’t impressed. If you are that’s fine.
As you can see from the other thread, I’m out of it. I don’t want to debate all of you. Some haven’t read anything, others have read a bit, no one has even touched on anything Velikovsky has said except for one guy making fun of him in a way that IMO was unfair. And in the other thread I was insulted. Like I said from the outset it’s too frustrating for me and I am out of this thread as well as the other one.
To those like yourself who have argued with respect, I respect you as well and let’s agree to disagree. I hope I haven’t said anything to offend you all and I hope you found SOMETHING I said interesting but if not, OK.
To Lemur, have a wonderful life.
An interesting debate, and one I have strong feelings about. As you point out, few people here have read Velikofski, myself included. However, I have read Carl Sagan’s review of Worlds in Collision. Mr. Velikofsi believed that many biblical miracles could be explained by astronomical events and went on to explain what those were in his book.
Mr. Sagan’s review pointed out the conditions necessary for Velikofski’s theories to be true. As I recall, several FUNDAMENTAL laws of physics and biology would have to be temporarily suspended for there to be any hope of Velikofski’s theories being true.
Some of the things Sagan pointed out were:
a) By what method was Venus ejected from Jupiter? (Velikofski said it was a volcano, but Jupiter is a gas giant and has no such features.)
b) How (and why) did the pests (flies) evolve a mechanism to metabolize oxygen when there is none on Jupiter? (Not addressed by Velikofski.)
c) How did these flies travel from Venus to the Earth without frying in the amosphere? (Not addressed by Velikofski.)
d) When the close passage of Venus stopped the Earth’s rotation for Joshua, why wasn’t there an enormous disaster as everything ON the Earth kept travelling? (Not addressed by Velikofski.)
e) After having stopped, how did the Earth resume rotation? (Not addressed by Velikofski.)
These are just a few of the items I remember, Sagan’s book was enormously more detailed. The overall effect of having to cancel or seriously modify such well documented and accepted theories as inertia and evolution, is to make Velikofski’s theories untenable in the extreme.
As far as Mr. Velikofski pinning his theory on Jupiter emitting radio waves, that explains nothing without him also explaining WHY that would validate his theory. In reality, EVERYTHING with a temperature over zero Kelvin emits some quantity of radio waves and he knew it.
Sagan’s review of Worlds in Collision addressed Velikofski’s ideas on a point-by-point basis, carefully listing and explaining the conditions that would be necessary for a given event to occur. The logic was extremely clear and irrefutable. Sagan completely shredded each and every point in the book using basic mathematical techniques understandable by almost anyone.
A secondary point addressed Mr. Velikofsi’s claim that his book had never been refuted by other scientists, simply dismissed. Carl Sagan pointed out that most scientists had neither time nor inclination to debunk every theory that was propounded, this especially applied to those made by an unknown in the field, with zero experimantal evidence to back him up. Lack of such attacks did NOT mean the theory was true, simply that no one had bothered to refute something that appeared to be complete nonsense.
I trust that Mr. Velikofski is now satisfied that his theories have been taken seriously although I doubt he cares for the results.
Sagan DID say that Velikofski deserved a fair hearing and decried the attempt to suppress the publishing of Worlds in Collision. This was NOT due to a belief in the theories, simply a basic sense of fairness. I would suggest that whatever Einstein might have said or done was from the same motives.
Sagan summarized his research of the book by saying that if a person had to postulate such an extraordinary CHAIN of circumstances, it would be simpler and equally likely to claim “God did it” and leave it at that.
Regards.
Testy.
I agree. For this event to have occurred, we would have physical evidence, namely that Venus’s orbit would then be elliptical enough to encompass both Earth’s and Jupiter’s orbits, or at least Earth’s. However, like most of the planets, it is a near perfect circle. One can postulate multiple passes, but for the planets to re-arrange themselves so neatly after such a catastrophe would be quite a game of billiards indeed.
For it to have happened in recorded history would certainly have been noted, after all, Venus is one of the brightest nighttime objects which makes it awfully hard to miss. Hey, what’s that up there all of a sudden?
Gimme a D!
Gimme an N!
Gimme an F!
Gimme a T!
Gimme another T!
What does that spell?
AnotherHeretic wrote:
Wilhelm Reich got quite a bit of attention, some of which did indeed come from mainstream scientists. He was at odds with Sigmund Freud in his early career. Kreyberg, a Norwegian microbiologist, wrote an article addressing Reich’s claim of discovering “bions” (vesicles that looked like living cells and which developed in an allegedly sterile environment). In the United States, Reich attracted enough attention from first the FBI and then the FDA to get an injunction barring him from selling the parts or instructions for building an “orgone accumulator”, or using one on his patients, or transporting the parts of one across state lines. (When one of Reich’s colleagues was caught transporting the parts of an accumulator across state lines, in violation of the injunction, Reich was ultimately found to blame for his colleague’s actions and sentenced to prison, where he died a little less than a year later.)
Why thank you, Heretic.
I’m sorry I offended you, reading over my post it is clear that my use of the second person was ambiguous. I wasn’t refering to you specifically, but a generic you. Of course, this is not clear from the reading of the post, so I understand why you’d be upset.
To be clear, I do NOT think you are an idiot, I don’t even know you. Sorry for the confusion.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that I agree with Velikovsky either.
Lemur,
I accept your apology.
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.
What kind of argument is that? Why don’t you attempt to do a bit of work here and debunk Sagan’s critique. Merely saying “you are WAAAAY off” is not a form of debate unless it is followed up by something more than some vague retort like “ask Ellenberger”. A detailed counterargument would be much more in line.
From what I have learned of Velikovsky from just reading these posts is that he is a crackpot more than a scientist, brilliant crackpot or not. And is no different than a Creationist trying to describe a scientific reason for the Red sea parting. Bah!
Call me biased.
Amad, it isn’t an argument at all. I said from the beginning that my library is in storage. In my library I’ve got Sagan’s argument in several forms, counterarguments, and many better critiques than Sagans. You guys have so far brought discredited critiques like Sagan and haven’t even done enough research to find some of the more valid critiques. You may be interested to know why Sagan was wrong, but this does not captivate my interest. The answers are on the web by people who are on your side. If you won’t even grant what your allies say, you certainly won’t accept it from me.
These are well documented heated debates. There’s a book of critique on Velikovsky called scientists confront Velikovsky and a book called scientists confront scientists who confront velikovsky. And this goes on back and forth to this day. Scientists ignore Von Daniken pretty much because the substance isn’t there. Daniken wouldn’t have the guts to stand in front of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and debate well respected folks like Sagan and a bunch of others in their own territory like Velikovsky did. That takes guts. And not to compare the two but just for trivia, Einstein stood up and debated physicists as well who were vociferously against him…
Why should I spend the time educating you who have not even bothered to read the original book? You guys brought in Ellenberger to attack Velikovsky. So your own ally admits that Sagan was wrong. No need to cover that ground again…
A moment to appologize to berdollos on hijacking his thread.
It has gotten pretty far off the subject. If you wish to debate with Another Heretic further, please visit this thread.
Sorry, Im not a mod, nor any kind of Thread-police, but It seems only fair that I remind you of the OP.
To colaborate with Amedeus and Berdollos I’ll drop my two cents.
Some kind of “mind over matter” psichic stuff will be scientifically demonstrated in the next 50 years ( 50 so I’ll probably be dead and won’t be enbarassed if the worse comes to be ).
Come on people, I’m all for skepticism but it can’t all be fake.
MusicJunkie wrote:
The “all” that can’t be fake is actually a ridiculously small body of highly questionable evidence, backed up by the very very fervent beliefs of a sizable number of people who really, really, really want psychic powers to be real. Under these circumstances, not only can it “all” be fake, but the demonstrations that aren’t out-and-out hoaxes could easily be self-delusion on the part of the experimenters.
My guesses? It’s tough to say, but I’ll try a few…
I believe that we may discover that there is a kernel of truth behind legends of ancient lost civilizations, I think there may have been a world-spanning culture in prehistory.
I believe we will either discover DNA to be an artifact or that the self-organizing nature of the universe is far more complicated than we have imagined.
I think we may find ourselves to be living in some form of a simulation - not necessarily something like in ‘The Matrix’, but maybe that there is some direct connection between quantum mechanics and our consciousness - maybe our universe is a simulation created by our minds as a side-effect of our existence in the ‘real’ universe.
I think the theory that an asteroid strike was the primary cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs will be totally debunked, and some new explanation, perhaps one considered crackpot now, will be fairly-well proven.
I think that we will discover that human consciousness works in ways that are very different from the way it seems to work - I think our consciousness may just be an illusion formed from our total experiences and memories, that our consciousness may actually exist in the past - that your ‘now’ is actually an illusion of free-will caused by your mind sorting things that actually happened seconds, days, or years ago while your mind works in a present you won’t be ‘experienced’ until later. Maybe this works on many levels at once.