Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: More Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <1228@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Mar-86 22:38:16 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.1228
Posted: Fri Mar 28 22:38:16 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 03:25:06 EST
References: <489@ccivax.UUCP> <855@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4762 net.sci:665

In article <855@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>
>In article <489@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes:
>>
>>I've been reading a book called "Velikovski Reconsidered" which includes
>>a great number of examples of how leading scientists have effectively
>>shown "contempt" for what could be a very valid theory.  The interesting
>>thing is that the facts, as they come in, are in Velikovski's favor.
>
>This is not really true:  Mars has no carbohydrates, the greenhouse effect
>is in operation on Venus, the red spot on Jupiter is a perfectly ordinary
>cyclonic storm not a cometary exit hole, etc..  In science, the failure of
>a theoretical prediction is the same as the failure of the whole theory.
>Velikovski supporters conveniently ignore the failures of their theory.  If

I was at the library the other day, and happened to be looking up some
things in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?), and while flipping through
the micropedia (?), I noticed they had a biography of Velikovski.

Guess what?  The Brittanica is about as acurate as the first posting
above!  None of the failures mentioned by Jim Giles in the second posting
above are mentioned.  In fact, no failure of his theories are mentioned!

I know one encyclopedia I shall never purchase...
-- 

Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim