Full Disclosure – by Tim Ball and Anthony Watts
In a recent set of Tweets (seen in the image above) Dr. Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ infamy, accused Tim Ball and Anthony Watts of supporting the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. He based his claim on an article about scientific elitism [Ball] wrote that Anthony Watts kindly published on his web site. Mann’s accusation is completely false and indicates he either failed to read the article or if he did, failed to understand its purpose. The objective of the original article and follow up was to show how self-appointed elitists hinder the advance of science. A majority who made written comments about the article understood and agreed with the premise.
The article examined the reaction and behavior of the scientific elite to anyone who produced ideas and information that challenged their views. It used the example of Immanuel Velikovsky as a person who was demonized by the scientific elitists because he hypothesized a different interpretation of planetary motion and interactions involving electromagnetism. Worse, he used historical records including the Bible to establish a database and time sequence of apparently natural events.
Neither Anthony nor I ever said we agreed with Velikovsky’s views on planetary motion. We pointed out that he worked with Einstein, who knew his claims and encouraged him. We also pointed out that some who initially attacked his work, like Professor Hess, later conceded that many of his predictions were confirmed. What Ball condemned was the nastiness and unsubstantiated basis of the attacks by high priests of the prevailing wisdom. The combined effect of the automatic rejection of new ideas with the character assassination of those who present them works to preclude steady advances in science. In other words, skepticism is not allowed, and skeptics are persona non grata. This results in mainstream science effectively claiming the debate is over, and the science is settled.
This is precisely what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of which Michael Mann was a member, did. Like Velikovsky, few of their conclusions were correct. More important, people can make judgments about Velikovsky because all of his data and ideas were available. The proper scientific method of presenting and testing a hypothesis was carried out in Velikovsky’s case. Unfortunately, the same was not true of the IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, in which, as Richard Lindzen said very early in the process, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.
Again, for the record, neither of us support Velikovsky’s views on planetary motion. Some of them are rightly labeled as ridiculous. However, to claim that we do, simply because the articles used him as an example of how some in science turn spiteful when confronted with ideas they see as threatening, is wrong, and the elitist premise is well illustrated by the ugly behavior of Dr. Mann and others.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I read Dr. Ball’s reference to Velikovsky, the red flags went up. But as I read the post carefully, it seemed clear to me that Dr. Ball was not endorsing Worlds in Collision, but using Velikosvsky’s personal treatment as a case in point. If I could figure that out, Dr. Mann should have been able to as well.
..And lsvalgaard…
Exactly. It was very clearly an article about mistreatment. A good article too, I bookmarked it.
…and Mosher and McIntyre….
Mosher isn’t really capable, either. McIntyre is the one I find disappointing in this case. Falling for the game of political correctness, and that’s what this amounts to, is the child’s game.
While I agree that Immanuel Velikovsky was unfairly ostracized and demonized by mainstream astronomy, as others pointed out in the previous thread, his fate was probably not the best example of the dogmatism of scientific elites. The reason is that Velikovsky was not, strictly speaking, a scientist; he did not work in a lab or at a telescope; he did not conduct experiments or do field work. He was a polymath and a scholar of immense erudition and syncretic abilities. He was also insatiably curious (more so than many scientists, sad to say) and driven to investigate questions and connundrums wherever he found them.
Velikovsky was a psychiatrist interested in ancient history, and so discovered a striking parallel between the Oedipus legend as told by Sophocles and the life of the Egyptian pharoah Akhnaton—was there a connection (see his Oedipus and Akhnaton)? He discovered a neglected papyrus of old Egypt called The Papyrus Ipuwer that told of a series of calamities that were strikingly reminiscent of those that in the Bible led to the Exodus of the Jews. Was this coincidence? But the dates were wrong, so Dr. Velikovsky plunged into the history of ancient Egypt. His conclusion was revolutionary: the some six centuries in the standard dynastic history of pharonic Egypt were actually duplicates, mirror images, of the preceding centuries, so the dates were all off (see his Ages in Chaos, Peoples of the Sea, Ramses II and His Time). Needless to say, the small circle of professional Egyptologists were less than thrilled with his reconstructions.
Having turned psychiatry (Oedipus was no myth) and Egyptology on their heads, Velikovsky wondered about the Ipuwer calamities and what might have caused them, and so began looking at the myths and traditions of peoples around the world for similar tales and correlations. He found remarkable similarities in imagery and symbolism relating to the skies, especially the planets, which led him to the speculations about Venus, Mars, and Jupiter and their apparent interactions with the Earth within the memory of man’s early civilizations, which speculations resulted in his book aimed at a popular audience, Worlds in Collision. This was the best-selling work that so enraged astronomer Harold Shapley that he managed to get its publisher, Macmillan, which specialized in science, to withdraw it and give it to Doubleday (Shapley did this by getting other scientists to threaten to stop publishing their textbooks at Macmillan). Shapley was reported not to have actually read Worlds in Collision—just the very idea was enough for him.
Reacting to condemnation by the astronomical elite, Velikovsky followed with another popular work that eliminated myths and stories, and instead offered “stones and bones,” a compilation of evidence of catastrophic events in the geological history of the Earth (Earth in Upheaval). So now with Venus birthed from Jupiter (leaving the Red Spot?) and grazing the Earth on its way to its present orbit, and with mountains and seas thrashing about, Velikovsky challenged not only the orderly progression of the planets but the gradual uniformitarianism of the geological elite.
Velikovsky’s researches thereby challenged accepted thinking not just in astronomy, but a whole host of academic disciplines. He was not just some paperback amateur, like Van Daniken and his attempts to popularize invasion by extra-terrestrials. Velikovsky was a serious scholar, the scope and depth of whose learning vastly exceded most if not all of his critics. He was therefore a serious threat, and had to be summarily dismissed, lest the questions he raised contaminate the minds of the young, who were suppposed to be buried in the dry rote of their textbooks.
And he raised lots of questions. Was the Oedipus tale a recounting in Greek dress of the story of Akhnaton? Was Egyptian history seriously skewed by phantom centuries? Were the plagues of the Exodus real events? Why was Venus absent from the records of ancient astronomy until a certain time? Is there any significance to the striking similarities in how the planets were described in the myths and symbolism from disparate cultures around the world—do they reflect real events, or are they the result of widespread diffusion or psychic archetypes? What caused the quick freezing of the mammoths in Siberia, found intact with fresh grass in their stomachs—had some titanic force knocked the Earth enough to shift the poles?
For real scientists, the questions are more important than the answers that Velikovsky gave. I remember spending many hours arguing (in correspondence) with my late childhood friend Todd Kelso, who was an advocate for Velikovsky; my reasoning was then, as now, that his answers weren’t testable, that is, falsifiable. Some of them might be, but first they have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, it has taken half a century for even some of them to be acknowledged. Geology, paleontology, and astronomy have moved slowly to the realization that the history of the Earth and the Solar System have not proceded quite as serenely and uniformly as once supposed. We are not to the point where the planets are bouncing around like billiard balls, but the words ‘collision’ and ‘catastrophe’ are no longer forbidden.
There are plenty of examples of dogmatism in the sciences. Some heresies, like ‘continental drift’, or ulcers caused by bacteria, have been accepted. Others, like ‘intrinsic redshift’ or the ‘electric universe’ have not. None of these, nor are Velikovsky’s ideas, really comparable to the problem faced by skeptics of anthropogenic ‘climate change’, because the Climatists have become a political instead of a scientific elite, and thus immune to empirical argument.
/Mr Lynn
excellent, thanks, and despite the cacophony above, I have learned something here again today
Thanks Mr Lynn. Now I don’t have to read those books. I will watch the movie when it comes out. I think we could all use some of President Reagan’s advice about not attacking our own. I am going to read some about intrinsic red shift. I probably won’t understand it but I’m going to try.
I have not read anything by Velikovsky, and your recounting doesn’t make me want to change that. While he was obviously a creative thinker, it is equally obvious that he lacked a critical filter. Science fiction, not science, is the right way to put that constellation of mental traits to good use.
Absolutely no apologies necessary. I find Dr Ball’s articles to be my favourite ones along with Willis.
This just past article stirred up a wonderful hornets nest, great to see that Dr Ball is receiving so much flack, he is directly over the target, and has the brass components to distribute his thoughts.
There is nothing wrong with mainstream or any other stream ridiculing Velikovsky. Dr Ball’s defence of his Velikovsky argument is tenuous at best and ridiculous at worst. A far better example would have been to highlight credentialed crankism, such as the modern psychoanalytic movement which has around 36,000 members many of whom are PhD’s. The irony is that Mann and Velikovsky have more in common than different. The only distinction is that Mann’s pseudo science is fashionable and Velikovsky’s is not.
Willn… says,
————————————————————-
“The only distinction is that Mann’s pseudo science is fashionable and Velikovsky’s is not.”
==================================
You miss other major distinctions. Velikovsky displayed creative thinking in combination with observations. He demanded nothing. Mann claims CAGW to be real, with an emphasis on the “C”, and supports global political action based on his faulty science. It cost nobody anything but their time, freely given, to listen to Velikovsky, whereas Mann has his hand in my wallet and life.
As always, the written word can be misread and misinterpreted. Moreover, no amount of editing and careful selection of words/phrases will ever stop people looking for ways to misinterpret stuff if that is their goal.
I certainly see no need for any serious misgivings by Watts or Ball – of course, as AW notes, one can learn from mistakes, but adapting ones writing style or behaviour to suit the oddities of single minded egocentrics (Like MM) is not the way forward.
Normally, in scientific reports/evaluation, words are carefully chosen to mean precisely what is intended. This article was not a scientific report and I would suggest did not require such rigourous text appraisal – hence no need for any self reproach imho.
I think treating some ideas as beyond the pale of discussion is inherently authoritarian. I have read a few conspiracy theory books, and find them not credible due to obvious mistakes. The only thing I really learned is that a coverup makes it rather difficult to degtermine just what was being covered up.
I do not think Mr Watts should apologise for not knowing Velikovsky is a rather bad example.
Interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 today……. ‘Saving Science fron the Scientists’.
First in the series today and available to hear again;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0742nzq
Some very interesting points on the scientific method and the way bias etc can creep in.
No mention yet of CO2, but maybe, just maybe…………………………. nahhhh, it’s the BBC!
I listened to that as well and waited in vain for a “climate science” paper to be discussed.
As you say, it’s the BBC.
Nevertheless, many valid points made. Maybe someone can build on it with regard to AGW.
In one hundred years time the alarmists and their absurd climate hysteria will be lumped in with Velikovsky, who at least wrote a very entertaining book in Oedipus and Akhenaton.
When you can ban one person’s book, you can ban anyone’s book.
For loopiness is there much difference between the science of Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, etc and that of Velikovsky?
Michael Mann erases a past he doesn’t like and makes one up.
Kevin Trenberth basically teleports heat into the deep oceans.
Gavin Schmidt adjusts his data to create a world he wants to live in.
Phil Jones destroys his data so it can’t be used against him.
These are the people who would censor others? Ban others from publishing? In the name of Science?
Michael Mann = Velikovsky
Kevin Trenberth = velikovsky
Gavin Schmidt = Velikovsky
Phil Jones = Velikovsky
BUT THEY ARE FAR WORSE THAN VELIKOSKY. While Velikosky just sought to be published these attempt to keep others from being published demanding only they be published. Science surrenders to them to the tune of “The World Turned Upside Down”.
I think Dr. Ball did make a mistake in using Velikosky as his example. In some respects his article was similar to an article I read some years ago. The article had some interesting data and made some good points — unfortunately the article advocated the recycling of sewage water for drinking and other home use. Sort of a no starter.
But let me just say once and for all — Dr. Ball did not endorse Velikosky’s ideas — but rather he fully and completely endorsed Velikosky’s right to publish.
Eugene WR Gallun
Kuhn’s “practitioners of science” are always by definition “elitists.” They control the questions to be asked, the tools to be used, the measurements to be ascertained, the language and terminology, the interpretation of the data, and the total re-interpretation of the past in order to fit the new paradigm.
But every aspect of science benefits from open, rational criticism and continuous observations. People who think a “paradigm shift” would save science are merely claiming that if they were the new management, science would advance. Any new set of practitioners of science in a protected guild with power to:
1. describe reality,
2. tell people what is and is not possible, and
3. re-write the past to suit their paradigm
will need constant oversight and questioning by all people affected. Popper effectively argued against Kuhn’s philosophy of scientific revolutions in his book, “The Myth of the Framework.” I think Popper would say that the manmade global warming theory is an ideal example of Kuhn’s revolutionary paradigm shift. If anyone doubts, notice the past is being re-written to fit the paradigm. And the next generation is being told what is and is not possible based on the science of the Anthropocene Age paradigm.
By the way, i should add that I really like Dr. Ball’s articles. I hope he keeps up the good work. — Eugene WR Gallun
Dr. Ball discussed Velikovsky’s work. Nowhere in the articles did Dr. Ball subscribe to or promote Velikovsky’s ideas. It is dishonest to claim things that are false.
I have long argued with my friend’s that “the science is settled” is one of the most unscientific statements of all time, given the requirement of proof and prediction for any hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, let alone a law. It shows the moral corruption of the climate science community that they did not issue a statement of this nature to correct Al Gore when he first made this proclamation..
the difference is:
Velikovsky still has his book title “worlds in collision”
mann will go into history with the term
“Mann-made global warming”
Very true, Frederik!
…and Nobel was, then wasn’t
For a clear demonstration of the scientific “establishment” pretending evidence is false because it runs counter to the existing paradigm, readers are directed to J. Harlen Bretz’ denigration by the geological establishment for his papers reporting on the channeled scablands of eastern Washington. His claim that the channels were eroded by flood waters was ridiculed because of the fear that such a large flood could only be caused by Noah’s flood, not because the evidence for a huge flood was weak.
SR
The Logic of Michael Mann:
Person A hosts a blog wherein person B writes an article wherein he refers to person V who had an occasion to entertain a marginal idea (D).
According to this man of “science” the 3 degrees of separation between D & A makes a cause and effect relationship between A and Z, (Z being general competency in Science) Thus is the thinking of Michael Mann.
This violates a whole truckload of set theory logic.
So if he is capable of this line of thinking, AND he is documented to have employed a trick to support his hockey stick lie, and he claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, doncha think it is a good thing that Mann has further undermined his powers of reasoning? I do.
If I were to write a book about the “Climate Wars” as Mann dubs it, I’d probably title it: “When Worldviews Collide”.
I like it! 🙂
How about When Models and Reality Collide?
This could be a whole new post. I bet there’s a lot of thought for a lot of good titles out there.
GIGO and Real Worlds in Collision!
Reminds me of the attempts here to name the planet modeled by the GCMs, since it clearly isn’t Earth.
Just call it, ‘Uranus’ and it will be hilarious…
Actually it’s good that articles here on WUWT are irksome enough to generate attack. I forgot that taking flak means being right over target. So now I’m rejoicing. The critics are showing themselves as just that. Critics. Nothing more, nothing less, just… critics. I will ignore them.
This the problem with Twitter. It is populated by twits. Mann…tosses out a thoughtless mucky barb… why?
He is hoping to repair his f’ed up credentials. Muck sticks to whomever touches it.
Hey Micheal….instead of Twitter, let us see your conspiratorial emails wherein you colluded with HADCRU to fake your hockey stick propaganda! You POS. You won’t derail me or Mark Stein & the National Review for that matter.
It’s been a long time since I delved into Velikovskian matters, but my recollection of his project was that he was trying to form an inference from mythology (and Biblical accounts) about possible observed events in the far past. In the spirit of trying to make contemporary sense out of such reconstructions, he proposed various hypotheses…but he never presented himself as an astronomer or orbital mechanics expert. As mentioned, Einstein thought Velikovsky was worth reading (they were friends, and one of Velikovsky’s books was on Einstein’s bedside table at his death). Another of Velikovsky’s true predictions was the high surface temperature of Venus. Take it as an interesting set of coincidences.
The issue, of course, is not what Velikovsky wrote but how he was treated as an individual. The “Velikovsky Affair” mentioned in passing above was an occasion where mainstream astronomers assembled to heap scorn and ridicule on Velikovsky. A very shabby performance. If someone has mistaken ideas, he is to be refuted or corrected, not ridiculed. Chief among the shabby critics was Carl Sagan, who up to this point I had held in some esteem. His performance completely discredited his own standing (making up a calculation on the premise that planetary motions were like random gas molecules, instead of being cyclic systems). Why would it ever be necessary to resort to sophistry if one’s position was firm? Sagan, of course, was the progenitor of the crazy “model-is-reality” school of science, with his then current theory of “nuclear winter,” so go figure. I never bothered to read a word from Sagan since that time. He was scientifically and philosophically groundless.
Velikovsky’s “crime” was to approach a topic in one field from the standpoint and methods of another field. Like territorial wild dogs, the astronomical community showed him only bared fangs. If Dr. Svalgaard wants to claim fellowship in the pack, he is in poor company.
Well said!
Very well said. My experience too regarding Carl Sagan. He lost my respect then and there.
the astronomical community showed him only bared fangs
Some people deserve bared fangs, e.g. Velikovsky, Mike Mann, Wallace Thornhill, William Dembski, and many more…
“If someone has mistaken ideas, he is to be refuted or corrected, not ridiculed.”
==============================
…is the more effective approach. “Address the idea, not the man” to paraphrase an astronomer who makes blog comments that I know of.
Some people deserve bared fangs? I think you have revealed yourself more than you intended.
This is not the place for a new topic, but now I am greatly curious about your attitude toward the inclusion of electromagnetics in the forces defining astronomical phenomena (Alfven, etc.). I have a background in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, so I will keep my ears pricked.
Can we have a character with a bunch of fiction meet a fictional character?
Michael meets Yeti
It’s Mannwich time.
The case of J Harlen Bretz with the Channeled Scablands would have been a much better example. Or Alfred Wegener &. plate tectonics. Or Thomas Gold &. abiogenic petroleum (an ongoing controversy).
Wegener did not propose plate tectonics. He proposed continental drift, without really having a well-developed concept of how it might work (how could he, without the knowledge about the oceanic crust that was accumulated over the following 40 years?).
Plate tectonics appeared as a concept in 1965 when Tuzo Wilson became aware of the research of Drummond Matthews and Fred Vine.
I’m sorry Berényi, I know I’m just being picky, but it was a such big thing for me. I was there, an inconsequential undergraduate witnessing a scientific revolution, but it left an indelible impression. It was a genuine scientific revolution because before then geology was really not much more than a lot of observations without a unifying theory, and after plate tectonics, everything just came together into this incredibly simple and stunningly beautiful picture of how the earth works. In hindsight, the most striking thing about plate tectonics, and probably all scientific revolutions, is how easy it appeared. Once you got the idea, it was obvious and you almost overnight forgot what geology felt like “before”.
But, maybe Wegener wouldn’t have been a really good example. As I understood it, most geologists at the time thought he had a point but they just couldn’t visualise how it might work. His ideas were dismissed and probably laughed at in private, but I don’t think he was ever subjected to the kind of incessant stream of scornful sniping, patronising insults and demonisation in public forums that climate sceptics receive from the self-appointed climate elite, all the bloody time. Certainly, by the early 1960s, Wegener’s theory was being taught in respectable universities along with other theories that had been proposed as to how continental drift and mountain building might actually work.
It appears from Mann’s comments he did not actually read Anthony’s original post or he would have known about the qualifier at the beginning of the post. Makes one wonder if he’s ever finished any science books, particularly those regarding climate, math, and tree rings.
Perhaps the treatment of Hungarian physician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis would be better. A physician (who was correct, by the way) was vilified by the medical establishment for his contrarian views on washing hands between patients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
From memory it took 40 years for his Idea to be widely accepted and in this day and age it just seems incredible that it took so long when he had the data to prove it.
“Hansen’s “The oceans will boil” comes to mind.”
There is a difference between water vapor produced by evaporation and boiling. Water boils or turns to steam it when the water is heated boiling point or Ts, saturation temperature. Ts @ur momisugly 1 atm = 212 degrees F.
Over the years I have noticed those calling for civility have a double standard. It is civil to say the nuclear and coal industries are killing people based on some weak theory but it is not civil to call them stupid.
Some people in the US have a bumper sticker on their cars that, using various religious symbols to suggest the letters, reads, “Coexist”.
My personal experience is that what they mean by “Coexist” is that, “You have to Coexist with me. I don’t have to Coexist with you.”
In “science” there should should be no “Coexist” bumper stickers. There should only be an attitude of, “I thought 2+2=5. Thanks for showing me that 2+2 is closer to 4.5. Let’s keep working to find out what 2+2 really equals.”
4