Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research,net.misc
Subject: Re: Newman, Edison, Velikovsky
Message-ID: <3326@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 17-Nov-85 19:19:54 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3326
Posted: Sun Nov 17 19:19:54 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 07:49:53 EST
References: <175@tulane.UUCP>, <441@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.physics:3589 net.research:339 net.misc:8902

> > For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on,
> > he missed several others.  This perhaps entitles
> > him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon.
> 
> Hey Doug,
> Aren't you being a little rough on the guy!  I mean if you
> say things like this, and,  it's not going to make A. Einstein look
> that great either.  Let's just say the man had guts.

Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much.  You might count his
position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him,
although his best objections have never been answered to my
satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified
field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he
knew what he was doing there).  In his favor are dozens of
major achievements, many of them more radical than what
Velikovsky proposed (although, and here is a significant
difference, they clarified troublesome areas of physics
rather than contradicting known areas of physics).  The
significant difference between the two men as physical
theorists is that Einstein made definite, mathematical,
theories that extended our physical understanding, whereas
Velikovsky made relatively imprecise, intuitive arguments
aimed specifically at supporting a specific postulated
historical interpretation of certain myths and without
other physical basis.

I have to admit that some of the theories I have seen from
reputable physicists appear to be not much better founded
than Velikovsky's speculations, but at least they usually
implicitly agree to have their ideas tried by the operation
of normal science research, including peer evaluation and
experimental testing.  This makes their work "more
scientific", even if not more correct.  The process of peer
review and refereed publication is certainly not ideal, but
it is better than the obvious alternatives.  If someone has
a really good idea how potentially valuable ideas can filter
through the system using some other approach, it would be
quite a service to explain how.  (Il Nuovo Cimento is one
journal that publishes more speculative papers, but even it
uses peer review to keep out obvious trash.  I have no
special love for the process, which rejected my anti-tachyon
paper due to being reviewed by people whose funding was for
pro-tachyon research, but I see the necessity for something
of the sort.)