Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Melanie Phillips’ article in The Times was highlighted with other information on WUWT that speaks to the loss of integrity in climate science and science in general. It is well-stated and germane but overlooks part of a larger problem that pervades the history of science. It involves a group that establishes themselves as the authority on a particular area of science. They then attack anyone who questions their prevailing wisdom. They control the curriculum in schools and universities and extend their control through professional societies. They establish themselves as a scientific elite who reject an idea and/or the author, thus blocking the very essence and dynamism of science. It is another form of “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew that most scientists would accept without question their claims because they were the scientific elite. Most elitists in the AGW crowd were the new fangled computer modelers. I watched the takeover of climatology by the modelers. They quickly became the keynote presenters at conferences. Pierre Gallois summarized the situation with what is still true for most people today.
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
The history of science is replete with examples of how the greatest hindrance to scientific advance is scientific elitism. Science is its own worst enemy. Even those who finally succeed in getting their new ideas accepted pay a very high price. The opposition to the AGW hypothesis confronted the political agenda and scientific elitism. As a result, science is as dogmatic as any segment of society, including religion. Judith Curry is now very aware of what happens to someone who dares to question. It is even worse if the person once supported the elitist views.
The reaction to my recent reference to Immanuel Velikovsky was knee-jerk, ill-informed, and a classic example of scientific elitism. I suspect that like so many such reactions they are by people who read or know little about the events and issues involved. I also suspect because it occurs all the time, that definitive opinions are based on a minor matter unrelated to the whole story. As G. K. Chesterton explained,
The thing which the world suffers just now more than from any other evil is not the assertion of falsehood, but the endless repetition of half-truths.
I was falsely accused, along with Anthony Watts, of “pushing“ Velikovsky.
I was admonished for using him as a poor example because he represented “pseudo-science”. Who and how do you determine that someone or their work is pseudo-science? In this case, it is simply the endless repetition of half-truths because Velikovsky’s education and scientific affiliations don’t support the claim.
“he learned several languages as a child, was sent away to study at the Medvednikov Gymnasium in Moscow, where he performed well in Russian and mathematics. He graduated with a gold medal in 1913. Velikovsky then traveled in Europe and visited Palestine before briefly studying medicine at Montpellier in France and taking premedical courses at the University of Edinburgh. He returned to Russia before the outbreak of World War I, enrolled in the University of Moscow, and received a medical degree in 1921.”
…
Upon taking his medical degree, Velikovsky left Russia for Berlin. There, with the financial support of his father, Velikovsky edited and published a pair of volumes of scientific papers, translated into Hebrew, titled Scripta Universitatis Atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum (“Writings of the Jerusalem University & Library”). He enlisted Albert Einstein to prepare the volume dealing with mathematics and physics.
The Einstein/Velikovsky correspondence is fascinating reading. Much of his discussion with Einstein involved the topic of the role of electromagnetic effects on celestial mechanics. As editor of Scripta Universitatis, Velikovsky hired Einstein to prepare the physics and math section. The attacks on Velikovsky did not influence Einstein; he knew the man and his science. As open-minded scientists, they didn’t agree on everything. For example, Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter was a major emitter of radio waves. Prevailing wisdom said it was too cold and inactive to emit such waves. When the Jodrell Bank antenna was turned on it was swamped by radio waves from Jupiter. As a result, Einstein agreed to pursue other Velikovskian claims but passed away within weeks of making the commitment.
There is little doubt that the major reason for the charge of pseudo-science was his interest in and use of ancient records. The biggest sin of all was use of the Bible while trying to determine similar descriptions of physical events across different cultural references. Everybody knows that until there is data accurate in space and time, it is impossible to understand natural mechanisms. This is the same reason H.H. Lamb gave for creating the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”
As a result of Velikovsky’s research, done with thoroughness and precision, he discovered anomalies that didn’t fit the prevailing sequence of events.
Velikovsky searched for common mention of events within literary records, and in the Ipuwer Papyrus he believed he had found a contemporary Egyptian account of the Israelite Exodus. Moreover, he interpreted both accounts as descriptions of a great natural catastrophe. Velikovsky attempted to investigate the physical cause of the Exodus event, and extrapolated backwards and forwards in history from this point, cross-comparing written and mythical records from cultures on every inhabited continent, using them to attempt synchronisms of the historical records, yielding what he believed to be further periodic natural catastrophes which can be global in scale.
This reconstruction and comparison of historical data to analyze natural events was no different than earlier examples. The use of older star tables compared with the precise observations of Tycho Brahe were used by Johannes Kepler to confirm the Copernican heliocentric system. Kepler was deeply interested in Astrology. Some observe that his three laws of planetary motion are widely separated in extensive pages of astrologic and religious reasoning. Does this make Kepler or several other prominent people in the history of science, pseudo-scientists?
From times immemorial, astrology has been a determining factor in the decisions and actions of men of all ranks and stations. At the begin of the 17th century, great scientists as Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and Pierre Gassendi – now best remembered for their roles in the development of modern physics and astronomy – all held astrology in high esteem.
Velikovsky didn’t espouse astrology, but he did many things that challenged the prevailing views of the mainstream scientific community. Worse, he fit many of the prevailing prejudices rampant in society at the time.
A colleague and I approached the President of our University with a plan to hold a conference on the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky. He said he would not allow anything on campus associated with that “charlatan.” The President, Harry Duckworth was a physicist and Velikovsky committed the cardinal sin of challenging prevailing scientific views. We knew through questioning that Duckworth knew little about Velikovsky or his science. He simply repeated the gossip without question. The objective of our proposed conference was to show that it didn’t matter whether Velikovsky was right or wrong. The problem was the reprehensible actions of the scientific community. Velikovsky’s treatment holds many lessons for today’s debate over climate change. The scientific communities condemnation of him was the same as today’s claim by AGW proponents that the science is settled.
The complexity of the corruption by the few scientists who hijacked climate science is revealed by comparison. They quickly established their views as the prevailing “truth” through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science, but also misusing basic science. They isolated anyone who challenged either part of their false ‘offical’ science in the same way Velikovsky was marginalized.
The Velikovsky Affair
As the brief biography shows, Velikovsky was a Russian medical doctor with a lifelong interest in providing possible explanations for events recorded in historic records. As a multi-linguist, especially in ancient languages, he read original works from several middle-eastern cultures. He was on sabbatical in the US researching a book when World War II began. He stayed and produced works on what the establishment categorized as catastrophism. This contradicted the mainstream philosophical view of uniformitarianism. The latter holds that change is gradual over long periods of time and evolved from Charles Lyell and James Hutton. Darwin took a copy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology with him on HMS Beagle.
Labelling Velikovsky a catastrophist was part of the attack on his ideas from mainstream science. An earlier quote from Wikipedia said,
Velikovsky began to develop the radical catastrophist cosmology and revised chronology theories for which he would become notorious.
Why use the pejorative and subjective adjectives “radical” or “notorious”? All he did was suggest with evidence that there is another interpretation of the official evidence.
His views became problematic for the science community when in 1950 Macmillan published Worlds in Collision. The book became a bestseller thus creating several problems for the science community. Here is a synopsis of issues that provide context to the threat of Velikovsky to the establishment.
• He was trained in medicine, not specifically in geology or astronomy.
• This meant he was not indoctrinated by formal education in specialized academic science – the bastions of dogmatism and intellectual tunnel vision.
• He was born and lived in the Soviet Union; a serious problem in the McCarthy era.
• He claimed that historical records were of actual events. They were similar to proxy data in climate, which suffer the same disdain from self-professed ‘hard’ climate scientists.
• He aggravated them more when he used the Bible as a source of evidence. Wikipedia comments again show the bias:
“Even before its appearance, the book was enveloped by furious controversy, when Harper’s Magazine published a highly positive feature on it, as did Reader’s Digest, with what would today be called a creationist slant.” There it is, the dreaded anti-science word creationism.
• Catastrophic events were contrary to the prevailing philosophy of uniformitarianism.
• His ideas did not conform to established astronomical views on planetary motion. For example, he correctly anticipated the retrograde rotation of Venus.
• He published his ideas in popular magazines and trade books that went directly to the public who might challenge official science. Galileo did the same when he published in Italian rather than Latin.
• The threat was compounded when he followed the success of Worlds in Collision with another bestseller, Ages in Chaos.
• His work was interdisciplinary at a time of specialization. Worse, it blended science with the humanities and the social sciences. As one person explained, “Dr. Velikovsky’s work crosses so many of the jurisdictional boundaries of learning that few experts could check it against their own competence.”
• Some acknowledged the scholarship of his work. “Gordon A. Atwater, curator of the Hayden Planetarium, wrote to the Macmillan Company that, “the theories presented by Dr. Velikovsky are unique and should be presented to the world of science in order that the underpinning of modern science can be reexamined….I believe the author has done an outstanding job. In fact, he has gone beyond what normally be expected of a single individual.”
• Many of Velikovsky’s claims proved correct including the higher temperature for Venus; the radio waves from Jupiter; and the nine advanced claims he made in writing at the request of the New York Times before the moon landing, all of which were confirmed by the evidence.
Velikovsky’s story is fascinating because of his innovative thinking and accuracy of his predictions. It is a disturbing story because of establishment reactions and despicable unjustified behavior, so typical of scientific elitism. Harlow Shapley was a leader among the elite scientific establishment. He had a checkered career apparently shaped by his rigid thinking and personal animosities. He worked at the Mount Wilson Observatory, then Harvard College Observatories after graduating from Princeton. He attended the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, which is at best a most pointed title. He was influential in forming government funded science institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). As we know, the NAS had an ignominious role in the global warming debacle. Shapley’s involvement is summarized here;
With the first reviews of the book, the publisher Macmillan came under fire from astronomers and scientists. But sales of Worlds in Collision skyrocketed, and it quickly soared to the top of the bestseller lists. Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard Observatory, branded the book “nonsense and rubbish,” but without reading it. A letter from Shapley to Macmillan threatened a boycott of the company’s textbook division. The astronomer Fred Whipple threatened to break his relations with the publisher. Under pressure from the scientific community, Macmillan was forced to transfer publishing rights to Doubleday, though Worlds in Collision was already the number one bestseller in the country. Macmillan editor James Putnam, who had been with the company for 25 years and had negotiated the contract for Worlds in Collision, was summarily dismissed.
This triggers comparison of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gangs activity in hounding editors and getting them fired.
Macmillan was the only publisher in history who surrendered a bestseller at peak sales. Macmillan was vulnerable to Shapley’s threats of curtailing academic textbooks because that was their major source of income at the time. As with all these matters, the action is blameworthy, but the cover-up compounds the error. Shapley denied any involvement in the action. Velikovsky subsequently exposed Shapley’s role in a letter to the Harvard Crimson.
The discussions between Einstein and Velikovsky centered on electromagnetism. After publishing his Theory of Relativity Einstein turned his attention to the Unified Field Theory. This is not the place to talk about the growing awareness of the importance of electromagnetism in weather and climate. It is the place to identify the openness and originality necessary for science to advance and the reaction of elitist scientists who challenge any who research such phenomena.
Carl Sagan led the open assault on Velikovsky with the arrogant and scientifically elitist title book “Scientists Confront Velikovsky, which implies that Velikovsky is not a scientist. Sagan was more wrong on fundamental issues than Velikovsky. His “nuclear winter” claim proved incorrect. His claims about the temperature and role of CO2 on Venus was wrong. His claim that CO2 is causing global warming was wrong, yet like all scientific elitists he blindly ignores the facts. Instead, he belittles the person who dares to ask questions and looks at old answers in different ways. Sadly, historically, if it weren’t for such people science would not advance. It is dogmatism identical to how the church promoted and protected the Ptolemaic system for 2000 years.
As Michael Goodspeed explains,
It has been said that no great advance has ever been made without controversy. More than 5 decades after the Velikovsky firestorm, questions first posed by Velikovsky can no longer be ignored. At stake here is not just the billions of dollars NASA has wasted chasing chimeras, but the very integrity of scientific exploration. Also at stake is the ability of the sciences to attract and inspire new generations. And nothing is more inspirational than a sense of being on the edge of discovery.
No matter the outcome of this long-standing battle, the time of reckoning is at hand. The voice of Velikovsky’s ghost WILL be heard.
None of this is helped by Stephen Jay Gould’s snide, scientific elitist, and inaccurate comment about the mainstream response.
“Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan — although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong … Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.”
That is not what he was doing at all. If you want more information on the Velikovskian example of scientific elitism, I suggest you read Velikovsky’s version of the events in “Stargazers and Gravediggers.” I also recommend the 2003 book by his daughter Ruth titled, “Immanuel Velikovsky The Truth Behind the Torment.” But if you consider those sources biased then watch for the upcoming publication on Velikovsky by Joe Fone titled “On The Shoulders of Heretics.”
Addition by Anthony. For the record I’ve never supported Velikovsky’s ideas in the book [“Worlds In Collision”], contrary to what Dr. Gavin Schmidt thinks. But I DO support discussing them in the context of learning, something Dr. Schmidt himself has proven he does not support by his own cowardly actions in person, and by email – Anthony Watts
I don’t like being censored. I’ll swear off this site if that keeps up. –AGF
It may simply be that comments containing the name of a certain controversial fellow automatically go into moderation.
If scientists hadn’t followed their hunches, sometimes going against the current, 90% of humanity would still be toiling away with their hands, just trying to produce enough crops to survive.
Come to think of it, isn’t that where the Green movement wants to send us back to?
V was not a scientist in any sense of that word. It takes knowledge of a field to extend the field. Ball seem to suggest that to make progress one just have to disagree with mainstream science, no matter how silly one’s ‘theory’ is.
Darwin was neither a biologist nor a scientist in any sense of the word. He got a sort of general studies degree (with a pathetic grade), and yet he revolutionized Biology.
The author is correct that people sometimes mistakenly discredit polymaths out of hand. Instead of always asking if someone followed orthodoxy, we should be asking whether what they assert about nature is true.
Larry,
Darwin was widely recognized as a scientist long before the Origin. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in January 1839, based on his youthful contributions to biology and geology. His reputation was so great that Wallace addressed his letter to him rather than any other worthy recipient. Darwin was technically a citizen scientist, since a professional employed by an institution, but definitely a highly respected naturalist nonetheless.
True, his degree was in theology, but he had previously studied medicine and learned from prominent practicing scientists at both Edinburgh and Cambridge. After graduating from Cambridge but before joining HMS Beagle, he worked with Sedgwick in conducting a geologic survey of Wales. He was recommended as Beagle’s naturalist by well-regarded Cambridge botanist and geologist Henslow, whom the Royal Navy had offered the position.
GM,
As the son of a wealthy man, Darwin was afforded the opportunity to receive a education in medicine, but he flunked out before long. By the way, Velikovsky studied medicine at the same school where Darwin had failed, the University of Edinburgh. But where Darwin had failed, Velikovsky succeeded and became an MD.
Darwin loved the outdoors, loved to explore, hunt and collect insects and rocks–and he was wealthy–so he was allowed to follow real scientists around on their field work, and this is how he made his mark on science.
So, these two men differ in that Velikovsky was an educated 20th century scientist and polymath, while Darwin was a 19th century naturalist, a nice hobby for gentleman who didn’t have to work to support themselves.
By the way, here are few more details about Velikovsky.
“[Velikovsky] studied medicine, science and other subjects, e.g. philosophy, ancient history and law at the Universities of Montpellier (France), Edinburgh (Great Britain), Moscow (Russia) and Kharkiv (Ukraine) in difficult circumstances caused by the discrimination and persecution of the Jews as well as the political and war-related chaos of the time.
“After getting his M.D. in Moscow in 1921 he emigrated to Germany, where he founded the scientific journal Scripta Universitatis in Berlin. In this project he came into contact with Albert Einstein, who was editor of the mathematical-physical section. This project, furthermore, laid the foundation for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the presidency of which was offered to Immanuel Velikovsky.
“After getting married to his wife Elisheva (s. photo) in 1923 Velikovsky settled in Palestine and started to practice as a physician. At the same time he started to study psychoanalysis with Wilhelm Stekel, the first disciple of Freud, whom he visited several times in Vienna, published several scientific papers about the subject and opened the first psychoanalytical practice in Palestine.”
http://velikovsky.org/en/vita.html
Darwin didn’t flunk out. He switched “majors” from medicine to theology.
GM,
There is no shortage of historical accounts in which Darwin’s life is polished to a beautiful sheen, and that practice is common for followers of such people whose contributions are hailed.
It doesn’t matter. The facts are the facts.
Tested for automatic censorship: negative.
Velikovsky thought Swift’s invention of two moons of Mars in approval of Newton was evidence of pre-Galilean telescopic astronomy, among mountains of similar confusion. –AGF
Lovell thought there were canals on Mars. Obviously not a scientist!
Let’s demarcate as outside of objective science some well publicized pre-science based thought patterns that created charades of scientific knowledge; the proponents / supporters of which tried to mimic objective scientific processes / terminology / knowledge in order to try to market it as objective science:
{the following are in no particular order}
1) Velikovsky’s hypotheses
2) Lysenko’s hypotheses
3) Ubiquitous Hypotheses that Omnipotent Omnipresent Supernatural Being(s) created the life and the universe
4) CAGW / Harmful AGW hypothesis
5) Hypotheses that GAIA is sentient / Earth is a holistic conscious being
6) Astrology
What do each have in common that excludes each from objective science? They have all their essential necessary observational facts not in evidence; they are stuck in the realm of ‘pre-science’.
I think there is a tie for worst attempt to mimic science; it is between (#4) CAGW / Harmful AGW hypothesis and (1) Velikovsky’s hypothesis that mythological / biblical sources show the evolution of the solar system.
John
John Whitman,
“…in order to try to market it as objective science…
3) Ubiquitous Hypotheses that Omnipotent Omnipresent Supernatural Being(s) created the life and the universe”
No, the opposite is true, and obviously so, I say. It’s those who claim the universe (and life) just popped into existence, who try to market their religious beliefs as “objective science” . . as you just did (by inference).
– – – – – – –
JohnKnight,
Why do you require that the universe had to have been created? I did not do so. That the universe was created is not a established premise.
John
John Whitman,
Why are you changing the subject? I wrote;
“No, the opposite is true, and obviously so, I say. It’s those who claim the universe (and life) just popped into existence, who try to market their religious beliefs as “objective science” …”
Any response to that?
Present day information war people would recognize what Velikovsky did as a disinformation campaign. A very effective one to create dissonance in scientists and degrading thought processing in a surprising number of people.
There are occasionally interesting researchers and empiricists on the fringes of what’s accepted as possibly science, who have altered my level of acceptance of their view. But Velikovsky has never been in that category, well short of it (and I really can’t justify offending my brain that much).
Velikovsky’s primary skill areas:
1) Advanced mastery of b#llsh*tting.
2) Dignification of pristine world-class b#llsh*t deposits.
3) Demonstrated ingenuity in cutting-edge time wasting technique.
Unmentionable,
You’ve described the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare exactly!
JohnKnight,
You said in ‘JohnKnight on March 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm’ that “No, the opposite is true, and obviously so, I say. It’s those who claim the universe (and life) just popped into existence, who try to market their religious beliefs as “objective science” . . as you [John Whitman] just did (by inference)”.
You said I said or inferred the universe and life just popped into existence. No, I did not. You presumed I needed the universe to begin (pop into existence). I did not. Why do you think the universe needs to begin? It is an unestablished premise.
Life is part of the universe.
John
John Whitman,
I say your #3 is a reversal of the truth, sir.
JohnKnight,
I think that my #3 is a subjective thought pattern of pre-science and therefore is not objective and therefore not science knowledge; it is in that regard like items #1, #2, #4, #5 & #6 . It is irrelevant to objective science.
John
Someone gave me a copy of V’s book decades ago but I’ve never read it so I can’t say anything about V in particular. From one perspective this thread is somewhat irritating. But from a social science of science perspective this thread has brought out some good points. Since this is supposed to be a science site and not just an AGW site, I think this thread is valid. I enjoy Tim Ball’s posts very much but on many occasions I am tempted to point out that Tim should stick to the topic he knows best and when he strays on topics he should double check the facts. This will make his main points sound much more credible.
I think the point that needs to be made, and which Tim Ball started with, is that anyone has a right to present data and his conclusions, and to be judged on that data, and whether his conclusions are sequitur, not just on his qualifications as a “scientist.” For instance, Charles Fort, and The Book of the Damned. Fort took newspaper stories of falls of stones, fish, frogs, organic material from the sky, many such odd phenomena, and put them in a book. Mainstream science ignored these phenomena for many years. Other strange phenomena, like UFOs, we’re not even allowed to discuss here…
WUWT pushes rescuing DIALOGUE on “Worlds in Collision” too, that may SAVE even providence deniers, who push CENSORSHIP that may lead to kill them first. What is safer, most readers and humans can easily support!
I just can’t believe that Dr. Tim Balls message has been lost on so many people and that the debate has run off in a totally different direction with many people looking at things with hindsight to make them think they are smarter. It makes me realise there are a lot of seemingly intelligent people that really aren’t.
Any who defend EV have NO scientific credibility. That’s all there is to it. –AGF
So is that Settled then?
Maybe the earth is flat.
You may think you are intelligent but I haven’t seen you try to counter Tim Balls message as you have just latched onto EV like a dog with a bone.
Thank you, Mr. Ball, for the excellent article.
Velikovsky may have been wrong on many specific details, but I think he was making an honest attempt to understand ancient writings and myth. Perhaps some of you who are so quick to criticize him should try this yourselves, as he did, rather than simply relying on the accepted teaching of your time.
I would agree that there are heaps of evidence of catastrophic/cataclysmic events in ancient writing as well as in geology, most of which are simply ignored by researchers working from within a uniformitarian tradition. Those who believe that only newtonian mechanics govern the cosmos would do well to examine some of the evidence of electromagnetical effects in space as well.
“Velikovsky may have been wrong on many specific details…”
Velikovsky WAS wrong on many specific details, details he needed to get right for his main claims to be credible.
“…but I think he was making an honest attempt to understand ancient writings and myth.”
Or maybe he had an agenda (e.g. proving the Biblical account of Exodus) and cherry-picked or misinterpreted ancient myths and made up his own physics to further that agenda.
“Perhaps some of you who are so quick to criticize him should try this yourselves, as he did, rather than simply relying on the accepted teaching of your time.”
Life is too short to investigate every seemingly crackpot idea personally. I once read two of his books with an open mind and found them fascinating but unconvincing, largely because of his sloppy chemistry and lack of numbers in his physics (Einstein put numbers on his predictions). Now his ideas have been around for sixty-odd years and are still pushed by true believers, yet neither his physics nor his revised historical chronology have entered the mainstream. That tells me it’s very unlikely his main ideas are correct.
When you have the extraordinary proof his extraordinary claims require, get back to me.
Well said CHUTO
Thank you Abe for that cogent summary — totally in the spirit of Ball’s point.
Like most pioneers, Velikovsky didn’t get everything right, but the increasing interest in plasma and electromagnetism in space is testament at least to this area of his work, in which he made an important contribution. Many now acknowledge this fact, especially in view of his relationship with Einstein. Trouble is, EM is messy stuff and not really amenable to elegant mathematics, which forms the basis of so much scientific elitism. Einstein himself recognised limitations with this approach, stating the following: “To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality.”
Just what do you claim EV got right?
Any of you scientific elites know why we are getting substantially more Auroras in the UK than previously? Last night was really spectacular from North Wales.
Yes, this is an effect caused by the residents of North Wales consuming their vast stocks of so-called “legal highs” in advance of the implementation of the Psychoactive Drugs Bill a.k.a. blanket ban on all psychoactive substances, at the end of this month.
This consumption of stockpiles is particular to N. Wales because, as many visitors to N. Wales can testify, the N. Wales police force is known to be over-zealous in its attention to the precise letter of the law.
Whilst you yourself are unlikely to have consumed any specific non-excluded substances (with the exception of the psychoactive amines contained in mature cheddar), the effect of mass consumption is transferred through the “morphogenic field” (I refer the reader to the works of Sheldrake and Chopra) and hence, even non-consumers are now experiencing hallucinogenic lights in the sky.
The experience of subjective consciousness remains mysterious to science and so my theory is likely to remain forever untestable.
Hence, I am assured in declaring that it is correct.
If anyone would like to offer me a book deal then I can expand my baseless declarations on this and related topics to several thousand words.
Thankyou to all readers of this post – for allowing me to scurrilously waste your time. 😉
You’re welcome.
I see a big future for you in the Climate Science field 😉
I coped ok with the lights, it was the Dragons ( Ddraig Goch) which were the problem. Many people see fairies we see Dragons, big ones, because our delusions are also elitist!
It is always difficult to challenge beliefs. Some are passed on with mothers milk, others await a formal education. The central premise must not be challenged because that is the foundation of “accepted/consensus” science. For instance, we all know that the surface of the earth is just a thin skin floating on a sea of magma because that is what we have been told. We don’t know if it is true, but that model has gained acceptance and explains the observations. Any deviation from this model would bring ridicule from people both high and low on the spectrum of education. Even if the burden of proof were to be satisfied, breaking through the wall of belief would be nearly impossible since the power of publication, grant allocation, and theoretical acceptance lies with those operating under the delusion of belief.
As for Velikovsky, he didn’t have the scientific education to ossify his thinking. He deduced many things from observation and research. As climate scientists, you people will believe a core sample to contain the truth but deny many and varied historical accounts that agree? Do you also deny the little ice age because there are myriad written accounts but few physical proofs?
Velikovsky was right about the universe being electro-magnetic in nature. Everything operates under the force of electrons. The electrical force is reckoned to be 10 to the power of 36 times the force of gravity. It operates alone on the atomic scale and in concert on the macro scale for us to move objects with our fingers or set certain (learned) neurological pathways that lead to denial of simple fact. Even to writing antagonist rebuttals in support of ones own ideas. Electrons do it all.
Electrons YES! Molecules NO!
Some of the comments show the ignorance of their author. For example, the claim that V was not a scientist by any measure, contradicts his formal education and life work. He worked and communicated extensively with Einstein on matters of science, in particular electromagnetism. Einstein had no problems with his credentials or abilities, and if he is good enough for Einstein he is good enough for me.
Then there are those who ask what predictions he made that were correct. This only confirms they never read his work or subsequent discoveries and discussions. If they did they would find his predictions that flew in the face of the then scientifically held wisdoms.
Here are two quotes to illustrate the point.
—————-
On 14 October 1953, Immanuel Velikovsky, addressing the Forum of the Graduate College of Princeton University in a lecture entitled “Worlds in Collision in the Light of Recent Finds in Archaeology, Geology and Astronomy: Refuted or Verified?,” concluded the lecture as follows: “The planet Jupiter is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars. I suggest that this be investigated.”
http://www.velikovsky.info/On_the_Recent_Discoveries_Concerning_Jupiter_and_Venus
In 1963, Professor H. H. Hess, then Chairman of the Space Board of the National Academy of Science, wrote to Velikovsky:
“We are philosophically miles apart because basically we do not accept each other’s form of reasoning — logic. I am of course quite convinced of your sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have painstakingly acquired over the years.
“I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.”
“Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing.”
————–
One wishes the IPCC and even many of the so-called skeptics commenting here achieved such predictive accuracy.
I suggest these people read the last line of the letter from Professor Hess. It is the very definition of indoctrination.
I also suggest people consider V in the vein of Thomas Huxley’s comment
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
I will not write about V again. People have and will judge the merits of my argument for themselves. Sadly, it is obvious very few of the nasty commentators read what V wrote. All they did was display their prejudices and parochialism. Einstein read and discussed with V at length his ideas and what he wrote. He also took up and pursued V’s request for others to “investigate.” For example,
My main point is that you can make up your own mind about V and his work, but please do it after you have read the man’s words and work. If you then disagree with his work explain why from knowledge and reason. Please do not join the shameful attacks and destruction of the man – the nasty ad hominems that are the weapons of such cowards. Indeed, you should actively condemn such behaviour rather than join the carping chorus.
I was shocked when the CBC recently described Velikovsky’s work as largely discredited and left it at that. This was an article we were not allowed to comment on which was a shame. I have nothing but admiration for the man. My point is…think outside the box…catastrophe is not impossible and is recorded in many extinct civilizations around the world. The accounts do not say exactly the same thing but are very similar. Modern catastrophism theory is still a viable area of study. I would urge all people to review the evidence and never close their minds. Leave the consensus behind…all it causes is trouble.
Some correct predictions do not make a scientist. Velikovsky’s reasoning was non-scientific. The scientific elite was not wrong to show up Velikovsky’s egregious errors and it is hard to see why you feel the need to defend him. Again.
For those not in the know, large parts of the above article appeared at Dr Balls’s website in 2011. Word for word.
“… it is hard to see why you feel the need to defend him.”
Well, he told you why, and even a dunce like me was able to figure it out rather easily, Ms. Tattle-tail ; )
“The planet Jupiter is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars. I suggest that this be investigated.”
Is not a valid prediction based on anything. In fact, Jupiter is not ‘cold’:
“The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter increase steadily toward the core, due to the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism. At the “surface” pressure level of 10 bars, the temperature is around 340 K (67 °C; 152 °F). At the phase transition region where hydrogen—heated beyond its critical point—becomes metallic, it is calculated the temperature is 10,000 K (9,700 °C; 17,500 °F)”.
“Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing.”
He got one and was found wanting.
You totally fail to see that you are looking at things with hindsight compared to him and give him no respect for all the research he did. You display the reason Tim Ball tried to bring the original topic up in the first place which was totally lost on you because you are blind.
mikebartnz, perhaps you could explain why V seemed to think it was significant that “cold” Jupiter’s atmosphere was “in motion”. Even before we knew much about Jupiter, we knew it received energy from the Sun and it had a gaseous atmosphere. Why wouldn’t the atmosphere be “in motion”?
Once again Gary you fail to understand Tim Balls whole reason for his article and the more I see in these comments the better I understand his reasoning
Maikebartnz, as I understand it, TIm Ball is saying that “the authorities” often impede scientific progress by summarily rejecting new ideas that may contradict current understanding, without a “fair hearing” so to speak. He uses the treatment accorded Velikovsky as an example of such prejudice, while not endorsing Velikovsky’s claims. He could have used other, possibly better examples, such as continental drift or the ionic theory of Arrhenius, but that’s his choice.
Is that a fair summary, or have I indeed missed the mark?
Personally I think “elites” or “authorities” are needed, at least to some extent, to filter the deluge of pseudoscientific crap that would otherwise occupy the time of real scientists or delude laymen who are too busy earning a living to acquire the extensive specialized knowledge required to properly evaluate pseudoscience.
Isaac Asimov said it better than I ever could, in his essay “My Built-In Doubter” in my copy of his book Fact and Fancy:
“What I am trying to say is that doubting is far more important to the advance of science than believing is and that, moreover, doubting is a serious business that requires extensive training to be handled properly. People without training in a particular field do not know what to doubt and what not to doubt; or, to put it conversely, what to believe and what not to believe. I am very sorry to be undemocratic, but one man’s opinion is not necessarily as good as the next man’s.”
Or to put it another way, extraordinary claims do and should require extraordinary evidence. Continental drift and ionic theory survived the “elites”; “worlds in collision” did not. The difference was evidence. Note that Anthony has banned certain fringe subjects at WUWT, and I support him. Life is too damn short.
BTW, note that the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) was at one time “the new kid on the block” yet was NOT blocked by the “elites” (as Dr. Ball witnessed), despite its pseudoscientific basis. Perhaps it just fit certain political agendas too well, or perhaps “elites” aren’t what they once were. In any case, it’s an object lesson in what happens when the “elites” don’t do their damn job!
Now back to my question about Velikovsky and Jupiter. It was a genuine request for information from someone who I thought might know the answer, and had nothing to do with Dr. Ball’s theme. If you know the answer, or have a good reference, I’d be grateful for your insight. If you don’t know, thanks anyway.
Could you at least say if you do think any of his conjectures are plausible? You say that you are not pushing Velikovsky, but I don’t know if that means you think he was completely wrong but unfairly treated, or if you think he was possibly correct.
For example, here’s a list of some of his ideas taken from The Velikovsky Encyclopedia
Do you regard any of these as plausible or possible?
I tried to ask this question before, but either I didn’t send it correctly or it’s been held up in a spam filter.
Tim Ball, could you say whether you think there is any possibility of any of Velikovsky’s conjectures being correct?
By conjectures I’m not referring to predictions about how hot Venus would be, but his central claims, such as Venus stopping the Earth from spinning, or that the flood was caused by Saturn entering a nova state.
I only read enough of Velikovsky to determine he was a fool not worth reading. If Einstein maintained a relationship with him he was only humoring him. If IV ever did any good science let’s hear the details. All I hear is BS. –AGF
V’s work product in the mid 20th century has since been used as a benchmark example of differentiating what is science from what is a mimicking of science. V’s example has in that sense added to the scientific community understanding of how to demarcate what is science.
John
I am not a fan of psychoanalytical archaeology or V.. Always check what the myths say from primary or good secondary sources. People should be wary and would do well never take what a Vkovskian says the myths and sacred texts say at face value. Read them yourself.
But, I will buy a Josh calender for anyone who posts a list of all the instances of planetary migration, capture, and orbital changes now accepted into celestial mechanics for our solar system–and for the exoplanets.
It was for changes in planetary orbits and for capture that V was really vilified.
Now changing orbits are regular astronomical fare, and are used to explain all kinds of retrograde spins and orbits, and for gas giants that are either too close or too far from their primary stars.
Here’s that list: ___________________
Now where’s my calendar?
No orbit anywhere is ever repeated exactly. The moon never has the same perigee or apogee twice. Min and max can be calculated for specified time frames only. A max apogee for a thousand years out will be beat 5 thousand years out. The moon was close to the earth once — 4 billion years ago.
As Lord Kelvin said, the difference between science and the rest is quantification. “Migration” means something when you specify distance over time. An inch and a half per year for the moon, measured and accounted for. A few billion miles in a few thousand years for Velikovsky’s earth and Venus, with no Newtonian accounting whatever. So what’s your point? –AGF