Oh, NO, Not MORE Velikovsky!!!!!!!!!

The greatest author of the 20th Century, carrying even into this
21 Century, was -- no question -- Immanuel Velikovsky.

You see, cute words don't do it. Courage of conviction does.

And when Velikovsky wrote his masterpiece, "Worlds in
Collision," it shook up the Pseudoscientific Establishment
so much -- this challenge to their fiction and fantasy -- that it
badmouthed, belittled and blackballed perhaps the greatest
scientist of the past century.

All Velikovsky did was write that scientists think they know it all --
but certainly don't -- and that the earth wasn't the peaceful place
that Science proclaimed. He offered substantial evidence from
around the globe pointing to catastrophe after catastrophe.

And all of the pseudo horses and all of the pseudo men couldn't put
Humpty Dumpty back together again, although they did step into the
sewer to ridicule Velikovsky's acute -- and accurate -- observations.

When vehmently criticized and given a total Royal screwing by the
Scientific Establishement, Velikovsky simply turned the other cheek
and wrote a follow-up monumental book, "Earth in Upheaval."

It was the courage of conviction exemplified by Immaneul Velikovsky
that, some 20 years ago, ignited the fire in my rear end and has me
going ever since.

Until then, I sort of thought the Scientific Establishment was
somewhat honest. I soon learned it's phonier than a $3 bill.

Ed Conrad
http:www://edconrad.com
Man as Old as Coal

==============================================

"THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR"
Foreward
(by Alfred de Grazia)

In 1950, a book called Worlds in Collision, by Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky, gave rise to a controversy in scientific and intellectual
circles about scientific theories and the sociology of science.

Dr. Velikovsky's historical and cosmological concepts, bolstered by
his acknowledged scholarship, constituted a formidable assault on
certain established theories of astronomy, geology and historical
biology, and on the heroes of those sciences.

Newton, himself, and Darwin were being challenged, and indeed
the general orthodoxy of an ordered universe.

The substance of Velikovsky's ideas is briefly presented in the first
chapter of this book.

What must be called the scientific establishment rose in arms, not
only against th new Velikovsky theories but against the man himself.
Efforts were made to block dissemination of Dr. Velikovsky's ideas,
and even to punish supporters of his investigations.

Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses, the popular press
were approached and threatened; social pressures and professional
sanctions were invoked to control public opinion.

There is no doubt that in a totalitarian society, not only would Dr.
Velikovsky's reputation have been at stake, but also his right to
pursue his inquiry, and perhaps his own personal safety.

As it was, the "establishment" succeeded in building a wall of
unfavorable sentiment around him: to thousands of scholars
the name of Velikovsky bears the taint of fantasy, science-fiction
and publicity.

He could not be suppressed entirely. In the next few years
he published three more books. He carried on a large
correspondence. And he was helped by friends and by a large
general public composed of persons outside of the establishments
of science.

The probings of spacecraft tended to confirm -- never to disprove --
his arguments.

Eventually, the venomous aspects of the controversy,
the efforts at suppression, the campaign of vilification
loomed almost as large, in their consequences to science,
as the original issue.

Social scientists, who had been generally aware of Dr. Velikovsky's
work, now found themselves in the thick of the conflict.
The involvement of the social and behavioral sciences in the
scientific theories of Velikovsky was higher than had been earlier
appreciated.

The social sciences are the basis of Velikvsky's work: despite his
proficiency in the natural sciences, it is by the use of the
methodology of social science that Velikovsky launched his challenge
to accepted cosmological theories.

No one pretends that this method is adequate. New forms of
interdisciplinary research are needed to wed, for example, the study
of myth with the study of meteorities.

Nor does one have to agree that Velikovsky is the greatest technician
of mythology, even while granting his great conceptual and
synthesizing powers.

Whatever the scientific substance, the controversy inself could not
be avoided or dismissed by behavioral science.

The problem of sicence is one of the agitating problems
of the twentieth century. The issues are clear: Who determines
scientific truth: Who are its high priests, and what is their
warrant? How do they establish their canons? What effects
do they have on the freedom of inquiry, and on public interest?

In the end, some judgment must be passed upon the behavior of the
scientific world and, if adverse, some remedies must be proposed . . .

It is our hope that the publication of these papers in the present
volume (a revised and enlarged version) will make it less easy for
Velikovsky's new work to be suppressed, or lightly dismissed.

We hope, too, that they will help scientists and interested laymen
everywhere to rehearse the problems and to reform the errors
of the vast enterprise of science.