Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hounx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort From: kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: The realm of physics, and the late Immanuel Velikovsky Message-ID: <405@hounx.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 10:10:44 EST Article-I.D.: hounx.405 Posted: Mon Nov 18 10:10:44 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 04:19:53 EST References: <457@imsvax.UUCP>, <739@ecsvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 23 Velikovsky presents the scientific community with a challenging paradox. On the one hand, he proposed bold theories which shook the foundations of conventional theory. For this alone, he cannot be condemned. After all, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein did the same. Velikovsky correctly predicted that his theories would be ridiculed. For this he had ample precedent (e.g. Galileo). I think Velikovsky's main error was not in his scientific theorizing--after all, much of the labor of science is to conceive of experiments to confirm or refute hypotheses about the nature of things. I think Velikovsky's main error was his arrogant manner of presenting his theories as revelations to a naive and gullible public. In this regard, I feel Velikovsky did a grave disservice to Science by undermining the process of testing proposed theories against evidence and logic. But the other side of the coin is that he forced the scientific community to clarify the process by which successful theories are filtered out from the many ideas that are put forth to explain how the universe came to be in the state that we find it in our present epoch. Here I commend that much- maligned populist-scientist Carl Sagan who took the time and effort to explain in layman's terms how science is done, and how science deals with pseudo-science theories such as those of Velikovsky and the Creationists. (See e.g. Chapter 7 of Sagan's _Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science_.) --Barry Kort