Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Aw jeez, not another one. Eric, Velikovsky's ideas are plausible only to people who know very little about physics. To anyone who does know something about physics, it's obvious 10 pages into Worlds in Collision that Velikovsky has no idea what he's talking about. Read this and pay particular attention to the Reader Comments section where it cites Leroy Ellenberger at length. Velikovsky was wrong. Darkbeaver, who routinely argues vociferously in favour of Velikovsky and assorted other crackpot notions, and has contributed a lot of such nonsense to this thread, has a profound skepticism rooted in ignorance rather than expertise. Try to avoid that mistake.
Sorry, what do you mean "not another one"? I never said that Velikovsky was right. I pointed out that some of your points were inaccurate. If you disagree with my specific criticisms, please let me know which, and how.
I already gave you Robert W. Bass, Professor of Physicist and Astronomy, whose quote contradicts your statement. I could also have given you Dr. C.J Ransom, who has a Ph.D. in plasma physics whose book The Age of Velikovsky, also contradicts your statement. Again, I am not saying that Velikovsky was right, only that your statements are contradicted.
Sorry, missed this in my browsing around the site.
By "not another one" I mean, not another person who thinks there might be some substance to Velikovsky's claims.
As for your other points, read the references. I think I've posted them before here, but here they are again.
Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
A lesson from Velikovsky
AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
In particular, look at the "Reader Comments" section in the first one.
By "not another one" I mean, not another person who thinks there might be some substance to Velikovsky's claims.
As for your other points, read the references. I think I've posted them before here, but here they are again.
Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
A lesson from Velikovsky
AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
In particular, look at the "Reader Comments" section in the first one.
Whether I think there is any merit to his work, is irrelevant. I just pointed out some flaws in the criticisms, above. There is no doubt that there are valid criticisms against his theories, some of which may be included in the links you provided.
I also note that there are those who saw "some substance to Velikovsky's claims", but people would be incorrect to imply that this applies to all his claims. I would speculate that if there was no substance to any of Velikovsky's claims, his first book would not have been published.
Five scientists peer reviewed Worlds in Collision before it was published. The professor of physics at New York University, C. W. van der Merwe wrote:
Eric Larrabee, who wrote the first public article on Worlds in Collision in the January 1950 issue of Harper's magazine, noted in 1983 that:
To me, this doesn't sound insubstantial, but you're entitled to your own interpretation and opinion.
Unfortunately, what Velikovsky marshals is not fact, nor is it particularly interlocked. Venus did not pop out of Jupiter 3500 years ago. Venus did not visit Mars, nor did it visit Earth.
Velikovsky tries to match various mythologies and Old Testament catastrophes with his interpretation of astrophysical events. Scientific research is Velikovsky's biggest enemy in that with just a little of it, Velikovsky's theories fall apart like the proverbial house of cards.
One of the strangest phenomena surrounding the Velikovsky work is the loathing and fear many of his critics display in what can be seen as an orthodox posturing often defended with vitriolic spitefull insulting language from individuals not fit to sweep the sidewalk before the prophet Vs feet.
Fear of the truth about physics? How strange is that?
The simple fact is that the solar system is evolveing, the masses the orbits everything.
Fear of the truth about physics? How strange is that?
The simple fact is that the solar system is evolveing, the masses the orbits everything.
Nice bit of quote mining. In the same letter, Professor van de Merwe says, "Worlds in Collision is not a text on science," describes it as "fictional science," and is strongly critical of it on several grounds. Interested readers can find the entire letter here: Letters
Velikovsky was wrong. That's neither an opinion nor an interpretation. It's simply a fact. The complete absence of any sign, in ice cores and the sedimentary record, of the global catastrophes Velikovsky postulates is absolutely definitive. They did not happen.
No argument there.
Velikovsky was certainly wrong on some things. But others have noted that he was right on others things.
Asimov says it best:
Criticism of Velikovsky
In an interview with James Gunn, Asimov recalls a letter to Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, Robert W. Bass:[1]
"I once received a postcard from someone who said what would you do -- this was after an argument about Velikovsky -- what would you do if some scientific discovery tomorrow proved that Velikovsky was correct? I replied saying, in that case I would cheerfully accept Velikovskianism and admit I had been wrong. I would also go skating in hell, which by that time will have frozen over."[2] In the Foreword to the proceedings of the AAAS Conference "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science", published as Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Asimov himself did not take part in the conference), Asimov wrote:
"Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most successfully forced science to take him seriously. Why is that? Well-
Criticism of Velikovsky
In an interview with James Gunn, Asimov recalls a letter to Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, Robert W. Bass:[1]
"I once received a postcard from someone who said what would you do -- this was after an argument about Velikovsky -- what would you do if some scientific discovery tomorrow proved that Velikovsky was correct? I replied saying, in that case I would cheerfully accept Velikovskianism and admit I had been wrong. I would also go skating in hell, which by that time will have frozen over."[2] In the Foreword to the proceedings of the AAAS Conference "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science", published as Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Asimov himself did not take part in the conference), Asimov wrote:
"Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most successfully forced science to take him seriously. Why is that? Well-
- "Velikovsky has been a psychiatrist, so that he has training in a scientific specialty of sorts and is not an utter exoheretic. What's more, he has the faculty of sounding as though he knows what he is talking about when he invades the precincts of astronomy. He doesn't make very many elementary mistakes, and he is able to use the language of science sufficiently well to impress a layman.
- "He is an interesting writer. It's fun to read his books. I have read every book he has published and hope to read any he writes in the future. Although he doesn't lure me into accepting his views, I can well see where those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky deals with would succumb.
- "Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it, that the miraculous events described in the Old Testament really happened as described. To be sure, Velikovsky abandons the hypothesis that divine intervention caused the miracles and substitutes a far less satisfactory hypothesis involving planetary Ping-Pong, but that scarcely alters the fact that in our theistic society any claimed finding that tends to demonstrate the truth of the Bible is highly likely to meet with general favor.
His basic hypothesis, what Asimov described as planetary ping-ping, is wrong, and on the few things he was right about, such as Venus' high temperature and Jupiter's radio emissions, he was right for the wrong reasons. Given his indifference to scientific rigour, they can fairly be called lucky guesses. He didn't put numbers on his guesses either, he merely claimed Venus would be hot, and talked numbers only after real scientists had put some numbers on it. Nor did he say anything about what the spectrum of Jupiter's radiation would look like, and it's worth noting that if the mechanism he proposed as the cause of it were correct, the spectrum would be very different from what it is. Predict enough things and you're bound to get a few lucky hits, but it's fundamentally dishonest to fasten on those as evidence of any real talent.
Wasn't it Patrick Moore who described Velikovsky's hypothesis as a "cosmical ping-pong ball"? (See here) Do you have a reference for Asimov? Either way, Velikovsky's hypothesis is not analogous to a ping-pong ball.
I was referring to the post above mine, where #juan provides the citation. It's not an analogy, it's a metaphor.
Something that has always bothered me about Velikovsky's theory is the impact craters on Venus. If Venus just popped out of Jupiter 3500 years ago, it would, presumably, have been in pristine shape when it came out. For some reason Venus has as many if not more impact craters than the Earth or Mars have.....How could that be when Earth and Mars have been out in the open so to speak and Venus was sheltered deep inside Jupiter until 3500 years ago?
Pictures of Venus - Impact Craters
Pictures of Venus - Impact Craters
Ah yes, thanks for that.
Velikovsky views in Worlds in Collision were never designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it, any more than he tried demonstrate that any of the other ancient texts he used as sources were literally true. Velikovsky himself wrote "The historical-cosmological story of this book is based on the evidence of historical texts of many peoples around the globe", not the other way around.
A "Ping-pong ball" is not an adequate metaphor of Velikovsky's theories which implies "bouncing".
I don't understand that claim at all, Eric. Velikovsky's argument is based almost entirely on the presumption that the myths and legends he carefully cherry-picked were describing real events.
Velikovsky's motivation was not to prove the literal truth of the bible, any more than others might suggest that the motivation behind the Big Bang is prove the literal truth of The Creation. There may be an argument, even evidence supporting these ideas, but most scientists would not appreciate or accept the creationist/fundamentalist association.
Velikovsky did not "cherry pick" his sources, any more than a defense lawyer cherry picks the witnesses in a trial. Others have also identified that ancient traditions seems to describe common events, though there are differences of opinion as to the identity of these agents. Numerous authors have claimed myths and legends record cosmic catastrophism. Velikovsky specified planetary catastrophism. Franz Xaver Kugler suggested a cosmic body called Phaeton. Comyns Beaumont attributed a comet. They all derived their ideas from the sheer weight of similarities between ancient records.
Was Venus the cosmic body? It does seem unlikely that it was ejected from Jupiter in the recent past.
I haven't suggested it was, but he does assume many of its stories are true and uses his "Venus out of Jupiter" hypothesis to explain them. He claims, for instance, that Venus was the source of the manna that fell in the desert to feed the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt.
Sure he did. He assumes the manna story is true, but he ignores a crucial detail: it didn't fall on the Sabbath, a double portion fell the day before and magically didn't decay overnight as it did every other night. That's cherry-picking. More generally, as Robert Carroll puts it, "Where myths can be favorably interpreted to fit his hypothesis, he does not fail to cite them. The contradictions of ancient myths regarding the origin of the cosmos, the people, etc. are trivialized. If a myth fits his hypotheses, he accepts it and interprets it to his liking. Where the myth doesn't fit, he ignores it."