Material on Velikovsky (2)
Various authors
15 Jul 93 02:32 news: Ginenthal's "Sagan and Velikovsky"/ The AAAS inquisition
The following very long quote is from Charles Ginenthal's "Sagan and Velikovsky", with the author's permission. I'd like for readers to get a flavor for some of what the book contains, and particularly what it has to say about Sagan's greenhouse theory, and about the AAAS meeting in 1974 which became the basis for "Scientists Confront Velikovsky", which I presume is the basis for at least some of the contents of the Meritt FAQ.
A CASE OF PROFESSIONAL HYSTERIA
Even before Worlds in Collision had reached the bookstore it was enveloped in controversy.
In 1950. after more than a dozen publishing houses had rejected Velikovsky's manuscript, it was accepted by Macmillan. Having announced forthcoming release of the book, Macmillan was soon caught in what appeared to be an organized boycott, initiated by the well-known astronomer Harlow Shapley, then director of the Harvard College Observatory. In a personal letter to the publisher, Shapley sought to block the book's release, threatening to "cut off" his relations with Macmillan. Letters from other authors of Macmillan books followed, along with threats from professors who could not imagine using the company's textbooks any longer if the publisher were to discredit itself in the rumored fashion.
Though the book had already been reviewed by several critics at Macmillan's request, and though it was now on the presses, the company hastily submitted the manuscript to three additional reviewers. These too recommended publication by a two-to-one vote.
So, in April, 1950, Macmillan decided to go ahead with publication of the already controversial book.
Despite the immediate furor, one of those who saw merit in Velikovsky's ideas was Gordon Atwater, chairman and curator of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History. In a preface to a 1950 article by Fulton Oursler in Reader's Digest Atwater contended that, in light of the Velikovsky thesis, "the underpinnings of modern science can now be re-examined." In fact, Atwater himself planned to mount a star show at the planetarium illustrating the new possibilities opened up by Worlds in Collision. And in This Week magazine, a cover story by Atwater called for an open mind on Velikovsky's theory.
But the day before the article appeared. and in a move that seemed to set the tenor of the events to follow, Atwater was, without explanation, dismissed from the museum. Under growing pressure to abandon Worlds in Collision, Macmillan fired the editor who contracted the book, then, eight weeks after its publication, transferred its rights to Doubleday -- a move unparalleled in publishing history: the book had already become number one on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list.
The many bizarre responses be professional scholars -- before and after publication of Worlds in Collision -- have been fully detailed elsewhere. They include horrendous misrepresentations of the thesis by well respected astronomers and others who had never seen the book; repeated refusals by scientific journals to grant Velikovsky an opportunity to reply to his critics; and refusals to retract factually erroneous and even farcical 'summaries' of his views.
For two decades following the appearance of Worlds in Collision Velikovsky was, with rare exceptions persona non grata on college and university campuses and his work treated as a joke by established publications.
This was to change somewhat toward the end of the sixties, however. By this time the space age was well underway, with volumes of extraterrestrial data flowing into Earth's computers. Stunning pictures, rock samples, measurements of every kind. The profile of the planets were shifting with each subsequent revelation, and it was clear that many surprises on balance weighed in Velikovsky's favor. The unexpected, massive clouds of Venus, the planet's strange retrograde rotation and its surpassing temperature, the stark figures of the tortured planet Mars, verification by the Moon landings of radio active hot spots and remnant magnetism predicted by Velikovsky; the growing recognition of electromagnetism in celestial mechanics -- these and other discoveries may not have produced the pristine verdicts proclaimed by some of Velikovsky's loyalists, but were enough to encourage a number of scholars to take a new look at Velikovsky's thesis.
In 1972 a group out of Portland, Oregon began publishing a ten-issue series "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered", presenting a wide range of scholarly opinions on Velikovsky, with many contributors calling for a wholesale reevaluation of his work in view of new data. The first issue published, produced quite a stir, both in this country and abroad. In the following months. most of the country's general scientific publications addressed the Velikovsky question -- some calling for more openness and tolerance of unpopular views, others wondering aloud how to preserve the integrity of science from intellectual con artists.
This was the beginning of some new and fascinating episodes, culminating in a widely publicized symposium on Velikovsky in 1974, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
LOOKING FOR VELIKOVSKY'S COMET
Since publication of Worlds in Collision in 1950, many aspects of Velikovsky's thesis have been debated by various scientific spokesmen who have assured us that certain ironclad principles of astronomy and the Earth sciences refute all of the book's primary claims. But can it honestly be said that the sum of the discussion so far has provided a definitive answer to the issues first raised by Velikovsky 40 years ago?
What is the evidence and how does it relate to Velikovsky's hypothesis? The question of the evidence is, of course, related to Sagan's criticism. For some, Sagan's criticisms of Velikovsky are sufficient to put the views he offers out of the realm of science. For example, Anthony R. Aveni's article "A Marshaling of Arguments" presented in Science, (Jan. 20. 1978), pages 288-89, states, "Carl Sagan's paper... is amusing, acrid, and totally devastating... his essay alone is sufficient to reduce the Velikovsky theory to anile fancy... Velikovsky is flatly and totally disproven... As far as Velikovskyanism is concerned, it is dead and buried. The final nail has been driven. It is now hoped that we can move on to more exciting things." When letters were sent to Aveni critical of his review presenting evidence contrary to that presented by Sagan, Aveni sent a letter in response. 'My review says that I'm tired of listening. I've spent too much time listening, and all of it isn't worth listening to -- and that is an objective statement."
As pointed out earlier, E.J. Opik stated, "Dogma differs from hypothesis by the refusal of its adherents even to consider the aspects of its validity. Legitimate disagreement or controversy creates dogma when arguments are no longer listened to." In science, evidence dominates all other forms of argument. Therefore, Aveni's attitude may well a personal standard for science. Only evidence should determine the natureof a scientific debate
In the following pages, this author has gathered evidence from the scientific sources and cited them verbatim on each of Sagan's criticisms. It is only the evidence that will be of paramount importance in evaluating Sagan's critique.
WHAT IS SCIENCE ?
In his introductory remarks Sagan offers his views of science, 'Scientists, like other human beings have their hopes and fears, their passions and despondencies -- and their strong emotions may sometimes interrupt the course of clear thinking and sound Practice... The history of science is full of cases where previously accepted theories and hypothesis have been entirely overthrown, to be replaced by new ideas that more adequately explain the data. While there is an understandable psychological inertia 'usually lasting about one generation - such revolutions in scientific thought are widely accepted as a necessary and desirable element of scientific progress.' (5)
There is, indeed, a clear distinction to be made between the psychological and sociological behavior of individual scientists, on the one hand and the requirement of truthfulness and responsible behavior of scientists in their symposia and journals on the other. Therefore. in order to determine whether or not Science and in particular, the AAAS symposium held on Velikovsky reflects science governed by passion or science governed by reason, we must investigate the AAAS symposium held on Velikovsky and the scientific journalistic treatment of Velikovsky.
Sagan states further that, 'The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged. The prevailing hypothesis must survive confrontation with observation. Appeals to authority are impermissible. The reasoned argument must be set out for all to see.' (6) Not only do these requirements demand that Velikovsky adhere to the rational scientific position but that Sagan in his criticisms fulfill these same ideals. If as Sagan suggests reason has come to rule passion in the case of Velikovsky then criteria of fairness and justice will be observed. If passion rules reason then dishonesty and injustice will be observed.
Sagan adds, 'Indeed the reasoned criticisms of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that belief. If they are incapable of defending it they are well advised to abandon it. This self questioning and error correcting aspect of the scientific method is its most striking property, and sets it off from many other areas of human endeavor such as politics and theology' (7) "where credulity is the rule." (8)
In order for anyone to defend his views he must have access to the journals that raise criticisms of his thesis. The question arises: Was Velikovsky permitted full access to the scientific journals to defend his hypothesis and also to the AAAS publication for this debate? Furthermore, was Velikovsky given sufficient space to answer all attacks on his evidence?
As a case in point, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for April, 1964 saw fit to publish an "abusive" article by a Howard Margolis.
'The editor of the Bulletin, Dr. Eugene Rabinowitch, in a letter to Professor Alfred de Grazia (who as) editor of the American Behavioral Scientist (had protested the 'abusive' article) offered Velikovsky an opportunity to reply with an article 'not more abusive' than that of Margolis or instead to have some of his views presented in the Bulletin by some scientist of repute. Then Professor Harry H. Hess [Chairman of the Department of Geology at Princeton and President of the American Geological Society] submitted Velikovsky's article 'Venus - A Youthful Planet" to Dr. Rabinowitch. The latter then returned it with the statement that he did not read Velikovsky's book nor the article.' (9)
How can science be a self-correcting mechanism if it refuses to read or permit a reasoned response in the organs of scientific literature? Although the deplorable. irrational behavior of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists took place in 1964 was there a different attitude -- one more just and rational -- governing the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky held ten years later? Was the symposium convened in San Francisco, at which Sagan presented his paper, a meeting to honestly discuss and debate Velikovsky's thesis or was it actually organized to ridicule and humiliate Velikovsky?
Professor of Philosophy, Lynn E. Rose of SUNY Buffalo published the following letter sent to Velikovsky, in which he states,
'...I urge you (Velikovsky) not to waste any more time with AAAS people or with their volume that was supposed to be a report of the AAAS sessions on your work held in San Francisco in 1974. 'The behavior of the AAAS people has been deplorable from the start. Their intention never was to examine or to debate your work; all along their intention was to find a way to ridicule and to belittle your work before the public.
'The AAAS people sat up the program so that four panelists would speak against your theories and you alone would be allowed to speak in your defense... Not a single scientist working with you was allowed to participate in the panel discussion. This violated the AAAS promise that there would be as many panelists speaking for your theories as there were panelists speaking against your theories.
'All the panelists, including yourself, were to be given 'equal time'. Each of the four negative panelists then proceeded to enumerate alleged errors on your part and alleged evidence against your theories. Clearly the intention was that these 'equal time' arrangements would permit them to introduce so many points that you would not have enough time to answer them all.
'This same strategy is being used by the AAAS people, in the arrangement for their proposed volume on the San Francisco sessions. They wish to retain the four-to-one odds. and have still not allowed anyone in addition to yourself to argue in support of your theories. They wish to keep all the arrangements for the volume in their own hands. and to prevent any balanced and serious examination of your work. They wish to provide far more space for negative comments from your opponents than for positive comments from you. And they wish to allow the four negative participants to include additional remarks that you will not have the opportunity to answer. It is possible that they will not even show you those additional remarks until the volume has already gone to press. It is also possible that, after you have spent so much time preparing material for their volume, they may suddenly decide not to publish it at all, thus leaving you with little to show for your time and effort...'
'When a forum really is devoted to serious examination and criticism of a man's work, the format and atmosphere are light years away from what the AAAS people are doing. I have in mind for example, the Library of Living Philosophers series edited by Paul A. Schilpp. That series includes publications of Einstein on Russell, and of many others. Each such volume includes a long bibliography of the man's writings and a long preliminary assay by him in the form of an intellectual autobiography. There are a number of critical articles included in such a volume, but the man whose work is at issue is given as much time and space as he needs to reply to each criticism. The entire approach is serious and fair; there is debate and argument, but not abuse and slander. And the volume is presented to the reading public as if it were an honor and a form of recognition for the man who is its subject. What a far cry from the way the AAAS people are treating you...' (10)
There is a difference between the behavior of the editors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the AAAS scientists. However, the difference is of degree. While the Bulletin acted crassly and openly to suppress Velikovsky's work, the AAAS scientists acted subtly and cunningly to give the appearance to the public of holding an open forum which was all the while a public relations gimmick to accomplish the same ends. We shall return to this irrational aspect of the AAAS scientist further on.
Sagan proceeds, "The idea of science as a method rather than as a body of knowledge is not duly appreciated outside of science, or indeed in some corridors inside of science. For this reason and some of my colleagues in the American Association for the Advancement of Science have advocated a regular set of discussions at the annual AAAS meeting of hypotheses that are on the borderline of science and that have attracted substantial public interest. The idea is not to attempt to settle such issues definitively, but rather to illustrate the process of reasoned disputation to show how scientists approach a problem that does not lend itself to crisp examination, or is unorthodox in its interdisciplinary nature or otherwise evokes strong emotions.' (11) Commendably Sagan asks for 'reasoned disputation' as the proper approach to Velikovsky's 'unorthodox' and 'interdisciplinary' material especially materials 'that have attracted substantial public interest.'
RELIGION, ASTROLOGY, SUPERSTITION
Sagan continues. "Vigorous criticism of new ideas is a commonplace in science. While the style Of the criticism may vary with the character of the critic, overly polite criticism benefits neither the proponents of new ideas nor the scientific enterprise. Any substantive objection is permissible and encouraged, the only exception being ad hominem attacks on the personality or motives of the author are excluded.' (12) This statement though laudable is, however, belied by Sagan impugning the motives of Velikovsky wherein he states '...how is it that Worlds in Collision has been so popular? Here I can only guess. For one thing, it is an attempted validation of religion. The old Biblical stories are literally true, Velikovsky tells us, if only we interpret them in the right way... Velikovsky attempts to rescue not only religion but also astrology ; the outcomes of wars, the fates of whole peoples, are determined by the position of the planets.' (13) (emphasis added)
This undisguised slur on Velikovsky's motives by Sagan was strongly responded to by Velikovsky when he stated,
'Sagan next presents 'Velikovsky's Principal Hypothesis' and he purports faithfully to tell what it is... Sagan states, 'at the moment Moses strikes his staff upon the rock, the Red Sea parts... 'Later, 'after the death of Moses... the same comet comes screeching back for another grazing collision with the Earth. At the moment when Joshua says. 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon and thou Moon, in the Valley of Agalon'... the Earth obligingly ceases its rotation.' He (Sagan) later says that I, 'attempt to rescue old time religion.' To tell of Velikovsky's principal hypothesis in this vein is nothing but purposely misleading.' (14)
Velikovsky was justifiably incensed because, in Worlds in Collision, just the opposite information was presented, 'The sea was torn apart. The people attributed this act to the intervention of their leader; he lifted his staff over the waters and they divided. Of course there is no person who can do this and no staff with which it can be done. Likewise in the case of Joshua who commanded the sun and the Moon to halt their movements." (15) To attribute to Velikovsky information which he never presented in his book is essentially an ad hominem attack on Velikovsky's personality and motives. The earlier laudable statements of Sagan are contradicted by his own words.
What is Velikovsky's view of religion, astrology and superstition? In Earth in Upheaval, Velikovsky presented his opinion regarding Darwin and The Church on evolution.
'Darwin's theory represented progress as compared with the teaching of the Church. The Church assumed a world without change since the beginning. Darwin introduced the principle of slow but steady change in one direction from one age to another, from one eon to another. In comparison with the Church's teaching of immutability, Darwin's theory of slow evolution through natural selection or the survival of the fittest was an advance.' (16)
Sagan's view that Velikovsky's hypothesis is 'an attempted validation of religion' does not correspond with this statement. If Velikovsky wished to validate religion. his position should have been lust the opposite. Sagan also claims that "Velikovsky attempts to rescue... astrology." Astrology is a pseudoscience which holds that our destiny is determined by where the planets and the sun and Moon are in the twelve signs of the zodiac. Velikovsky does say that when a planet on a cometary orbit nearly collided with the Earth whole nations were destroyed. This is not astrology. Astrology holds that certain days are unlucky while others are lucky. In particular, the thirteenth day of the month is astrologically unlucky. Here is what Velikovsky has to say regarding the thirteenth day of the month,
'In the calendar of the Western Hemisphere on the thirteenth day of the month. called olin, 'motion' or 'Earthquake'. a new sun is said to have initiated another world age...' (The Earth experienced a global catastrophe.)
'Here we have en passant the answer to the open question concerning the origin of the superstition which regards the number 13, and especially the thirteenth day, as unlucky and inauspicious. It is still the belief of many superstitious persons, unchanged through thousands of years and even expressed in the same terms: the thirteenth day is a very bad day. You shall not do anything on this day.' (17)
Again Sagan's claim is not supported by Velikovsky's statements. It is difficult to conclude that Velikovsky, who calls people 'superstitious', that believe the thirteenth day of the month unlucky is in any way a validation of astrology.
Lastly, Sagan's remarks regarding Moses and Joshua suggest that Velikovsky accepts supernatural causes for events. In Age of Chaos. Velikovsky tells us,
'The biblical story of the last plague [of Exodus] has a distinctly supernatural quality in that all the firstborn and only the firstborn were killed on the night of the plagues. An Earthquake that destroys only the firstborn in inconceivable because events can never attain that degree of coincidence. No credit should be given to such a record.
'Either the story of the last plague, in its canonized form. is a fiction, or it conceals a corruption of the text.' (18)
In this case it is also rather clear that Velikovsky rejected the idea that there is a supernatural cause of events.
In the first three major works of Velikovsky: Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos, are concise statements that indicate Sagan's impugning Velikovsky's motives and evidence are thoroughly misinformed. When Velikovsky called Darwin's theory an advance over the teachings of the Church, he was not rescuing religion; when he called people who believe the thirteenth day of the month unlucky, "superstitious", he was not defending astrology; and when he held that the biblical story of the last plague of the Exodus, in which only the firstborn are killed, was "supernatural", "inconceivable" and "no credit should be given to such a record', he was attacking supernatural interpretation of events.
Eric Larrabee remarks that Velikovsky's thesis, "in no way involved the supernatural, even by implication. Either Velikovsky's thesis could be proven scientifically or it would fall to pieces. Far from seeking to confirm fundamentalist beliefs (as he was accused of doing) he offered them the most fundamental challenge of all, which was to provide a natural interpretation of 'miraculous' events rather than merely to dismiss them as legendary.' (19) In fact, at the symposium at which Sagan presented his paper, one of his colleagues, Dr. Derral Mulholland argued that 'Velikovsky's challenge is not one to be decided on the basis of belief or unbelief. He does not say 'trust me', he says 'this conclusion is suggested by the observations' that involve testable ideas. He is not a mystic.' (20) Thus, Sagan's smear of Velikovsky's motives is even denied by Mulholland.
Sagan states in Broca's Brain, page 84 that "Catastophism began largely in the minds of geologists who accepted a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and in particular, the account of the Noahic flood." How accurate is this statement?
What Velikovsky had done was employ the Bible and folklore and legends of ancient people to show that ancient man witnessed global catastrophes. His approach is similar to that of Georges Cuvier, the founder and father of the science of paleontology -- the study of fossils. Stephen Jay Gould, the well-known Harvard biologist and historian of science says this about Cuvier's method of employing the Bible and folklore and legends of ancient people to prove that there was a universal flood in ancient times.
'Cuvier's methodology may have been naive, but one can only admire his trust in nature and his zeal for building a world by direct and patient observation, rather than by fiat, or unconstrained feats of patient imagination. His rejection of received doctrine as a source of necessary truth is perhaps most apparent in the section of the Discours preliminaire that might seem superficially, to tout the Bible as infallible -- his defense of Noah's flood. He does argue for a world-wide flood some five thousand years ago, and he does cite the Bible as support. But his thirty-page discussion is a literary and ethnographic compendium of all traditions from Chaldean to Chinese. And we soon realize that Cuvier has subtly reversed the usual apologetic tradition. He does not invoke geology and non-Christian thought as window dressing for 'how do I know, the Bible tells me so.' Rather, he uses the Bible as a single source among many of equal merit as he searches for clues to unravel the Earth's history. Noah's tale is but one local and highly imperfect rendering of the last major paroxysm.' (21) Gould has remarked '...it seems unjust that catastrophists, (like Cuvier) who almost followed a caricature of objectivity and fidelity to nature, should be saddled with a charge that they abandoned the real world for their Bibles.' (22)
The same year as Gould's statement regarding Cuvier was published, Velikovsky wrote in Stargazers and Gravediggers, (N.Y. 1983) p. 284,
'In the astronomer's view, there can be no greater effrontery than the questioning of their truths and nothing enrages them more than to challenge such a perfect science by recourse, horrible dictu, to the Scriptures as a historical document. That Worlds in Collision contains much folklore, or 'old wives' tales', was not so ludicrous as the fact that it brought the Old Testament back into the debate. The citation of passages from the Vedas, the Koran, and Mexican holy books was not so insulting as quotations from the Hebrew Bible. It is irrelevant that this book is among the most ancient of written literary documents in existence. As the theologian believes with blind faith that the Scriptures contain only truth, that their authorship is from God, and therefore, that every verse in them can be quoted as an irresistible argument. so the astronomer believes that where a passage is reproduced from the Scriptures, there must be a blunder, a softening of the brain tissue, or an attempt to hoax the credulous, as if the Scriptures were written by the devil.
'To my way of thinking, these books of the Old Testament are of human origin; though inspired, they are not infallible and must be handled in a scientific manner as other literary documents of great antiquity. Yet I must admit that I had a share of satisfaction upon discovering that the so-called miracles of the Hebrew Bible were physical phenomena, and like the disturbance [seen by] other peoples of great antiquity in different parts of the world, they are also found preserved in the ancient literature of other nations.'
Like Cuvier, Velikovsky 'uses the Bible as a single source among many of equal merit as he searches for clues to unravel the Earth's history." The charge brought by Sagan against Velikovsky's aims and motives is precisely the same as that he used to describe the early catastrophists and is described by Gould of the attack upon Cuvier.
Velikovsky had become reacquainted with Professor Albert Einstein while both lived at Princeton, and Einstein did read Worlds in Collision, which he often discussed with Velikovsky. What was Einstein's opinion? He stated, 'not once and not twice but also in the presence of his secretary: 'The scientists make a grave mistake in not studying your book [Worlds in Collision] because of the exceedingly important material it contains.' (23) Was Albert Einstein so naive as to believe that Velikovsky was presenting his book, Worlds in Collision, to validate religion, astrology and the supernatural? The week of Einstein's death he was rereading Worlds in Collision because evidence from Jupiter had confirmed one of Velikovsky's predictions.
R.F. Shaw writes in Nature (June 13, 1985, page 536) "Critics have made much of Velikovsky's alleged appeal to the ignorant and also to his supposed religious motivation, something never documented and which I do not find in his books." (emphasis added)
Thus, Sagan's accusation that Velikovsky eschewed scientific evidence to support his theory is without substance. Stephen J. Gould's comment in Times Arrow Times Cycle, (Cambridge, MA 1987, page 113), applies to Sagan's accusation of Velikovsky: "What a vulgar misrepresentation! Cuvier, perhaps the finest intellectual in the nineteenth century was a child of the French Enlightenment who viewed dogmatic theology as anathema in science. He was a great empiricist who believed in the literal interpretation of geological phenomena... His Earth, though subject to intermittent paroxysm was as ancient as Lyel's.' The reader shall see that in the fourth problem there is much geological evidence that supports Velikovsky's view for a recent catastrophe to the Earth.
HOW SCIENCE OPERATES
When Sagan upholds the objective scientific model of debate it seems strangely at odds with his statements. Why then did Sagan resort to such tactics? Here, Velikovsky's words may indicate causes.
'As my opponent for the fourth tournament, the astronomical establishment selected Sagan. To answer his nearly 90 pages and nearly 30,000 words (1976 version), I am left with barely one-tenth of that amount, though an answer usually requires more space than an accusation, especially those that are bland and unsupported: I must first state what the charge was, then state what the truth is, what I really wrote, etc., and then present the evidence for what I said... therefore, I am in the position of standing against the entire establishment, though greatly limited as to space and time, and blindfolded as to any additional counter arguments my opponents may bring before I see the printed book. I am not abandoning the project and will do my best under the circumstances, to the limits of what decency can tolerate.' (24)
Therefore when Sagan remarks, 'The objective of such criticism [namely his own or that of the AAAS scientists] is not to suppress but rather to encourage the advance of new ideas.' it is cynically amusing since it has been shown that the AAAS scientists used none of Sagan's criteria in dealing with Velikovsky. Sagan continues. 'those [papers] that survive a firm skeptical scrutiny have a fighting chance of being right or at least useful.' (25) How can a response which is censored by being limited in presenting a full answer have a chance of being fairly evaluated? Such a tactic is devised strictly to suppress rather than to encourage the advance of new ideas.
Sagan states. "My own view is that no matter how unorthodox the reasoning process or how unpalatable the conclusions, there is no excuse for any attempt to suppress new ideas -- least of all by scientists." (26) If this is so, why didn't Sagan or any of the AAAS scientists demand that Velikovsky be given sufficient time and space in the publication to answer all attacks ? Why did he and they take part in a blatantly one sided debate where the scholar under attack was so unfairly treated?
Frederic B. Jueneman, Director of Research for Innovative Concepts Associates of San Jose, chemist, and columnist discussed the AAAS symposium.
'Jueneman called (Ivan) King [one of the symposium's organizers] to inquire about the symposium and the events which led to it. According to Jueneman. King stated that the intent was to take another look at Velikovsky's work since there was renewed interest in it. He also said that the participants would be from the hard sciences, which do not include sociology.
'Jueneman asked if it might be a move to stem criticism of the AAAS for the actions of its members in the Velikovsky affair. King replied that to some extent it was, but that only individual members of the AAAS were involved in the excesses against Velikovsky, not the AAAS itself...
'Soon it became apparent that the organizers of the symposium had no intention of pursuing a scientific discussion. King later said, 'None of us in the scientific establishment believes that a debate about Velikovsky's views of the Solar System would be remotely justified at a serious scientific meeting.' It is clear therefore, that the meeting was arranged, as Jueneman said, to be a contemporary court of inquisition, and that the discussion was designed to convince the public that they should ignore the increasing number of scientists who were taking the time to analyze Velikovsky's work. Since the organizers admitted that they did not consider the meeting a scientific one, perhaps that is how they justified to themselves, the misleading and sometimes false statements used to support their position.' (27)
Actually the full statement by Ivan King is as follows:
'What disturbs the scientists is the persistence of these [Velikovsky's] views, in spite of all the efforts that scientists have spent on educating the public. It is in this context that the AAAS undertakes the Velikovsky symposium. Although the symposium necessarily includes a presentation Of opposing views, we do not consider this to be the primary purpose of the symposium. None of us in the scientific establishment believes that a debate about Velikovsky's views... would be remotely justified at a serious scientific meeting. '
Mark Washburn in his book, Mars at Last, (N.Y. 1977), page 95, states,
"There is something to be said for Velikovsky's side of it, however. To continue the structure-of-science metaphor a little longer, Velikovsky argued that the scientific establishment had constructed its own castle, complete with moat, drawbridge and battlements. If you didn't belong to the club, you weren't welcome. There was no room for the radical theorist who had new ideas about how the structure should be built.
"There was enough truth in Velikovsky's charges to make the scientific establishment uncomfortable. It was a difficult situation. If they debated VeIikovsky's theories in the same manner as they would the theories of a reputable scientist, they would be lending legitimacy to a man who had perverted the principles of science... But if they refused to debate Velikovsky,it would seam that they were afraid of him.'
Based on Ivan King's remarks and those of Washburn. the scientific establishment set up the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky not to debate Velikovsky's theories in the same honest and respectful manner as they would the theories of members of the their club. To do so would imply that Velikovsky's work was scientific. Therefore. Washburn and King are telling us that Velikovsky's work was not discussed in the same way as that of other scientists, that is, the rules of the debate were no longer to be carried out in an honest and respectful manner. In fact, the concept of objectivity had been thrown out the window. The aim of the meeting was to discredit and not evaluate Velikovsky's work. What appears to be obvious, at the outset, is that the ugly clannish passions of the scientific establishment had come to rule reasoned debate. George Orwell in his book 1984 called this 'double speak', which for Orwell meant 'double talk'. The debate was not a debate. The outsider was to be destroyed. And as Sagan said. 'overly polite criticism' was not to be employed.
Therefore, the meaning of Sagan's statement. "I am very pleased that the AAAS held a discussion on Worlds in Collision, in which Velikovsky took part' (28) seems clear. Sagan took part in a meeting that the organizer said, 'None of us in the scientific establishment (including. of course, Carl Sagan) believes that a serious debate about Velikovsky's views... would be remotely justified at a serious scientific meeting.'
PEER REVIEW
Sagan discusses how scientific papers are properly dealt with in science journals. He tells us that 'Most scientists are accustomed to receiving... referees' criticisms every time they submit a paper to a scientific journal. Almost always the criticisms are helpful. Often a paper revised to take these critiques into account is subsequently accepted for publications.' (29) In total, Sagan suggests that a scientific hypothesis offered to the scientific community be subject to review by peers -- other scientists -- that it be published in recognized science journals and that the submitter comply with valid criticisms.
The question arises does Sagan himself always follow 'procedure'? In recent years Carl Sagan has become the leading exponent of a very controversial theory termed "Nuclear Winter." This hypothesis offers an explanation for the death of the dinosaurs. If a meteor about six kilometers in diameter struck the Earth 65 million years ago, Sagan claims that the dust thrown into the atmosphere and the smoke from forest fires would be so great as to have blocked sufficient sunlight from reaching the Earth and thus caused a global freeze which he calls "nuclear winter". Sagan further claims an atomic war would produce the same effect. However, in the 'News and Comment' section of Science, an organ of the AAAS, Sagan's use of scientific procedure is subjected to criticism:
'A study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests most of the world would experience a mild nuclear winter, not a deep freeze... (however) the best known presenter of the original theory, Carl Sagan of Cornell, claims there is 'nothing new' to make him alter his description of nuclear winter or the conclusions drawn from it... Sagan's refusal to acknowledge merit in the NCAR's (Nat. Cent. for Atmos. Res.) analysis '- known as 'nuclear autumn -- sends some people up the wall. One wall climber is George Rathjens, professor of political science at M.I.T... 'Is this another case of Lysenkoism?' he asks, referring to an erroneous genetic theory forced on Soviet scientists in the late 1940's... Rathjens answers himself: 'I am afraid there's a certain amount of truth in that. The claim that 'the original nuclear winter model is unimpeached', he adds, is 'the greatest fraud we've seen in a long time'... [this has led to other criticisms of Sagan's theory]. One such attack by Russell Seitz, a fellow et Harvard's Center for International Affairs, appeared recently in The National Interest, a Washington D.C. quarterly, and the Wall Street Journal. Seitz. who is not a diploma-holding scientist gibes at TTAPS's [Sagan and his co-authors] for mixing of physics and advertising. Seitz notes that Sagan published the nuclear winter thesis in Parade magazine a month before it appeared In Science. He writes: 'The peer review process at Parade presumably consists in the contributing editor conversing with the writer, perhaps while shaving -- Sagan is both.' Anyone who wants to verify the data on which the conclusions were based, according to Seitz, has to set off on a paper chase' [Sagan's conclusions] rested on an unpublished... Science article, 'details may be found in (15).' Reference 15 states ln full: 'R.P. Turco. O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, C. Sagan in preparation.' It refers to a paper that has never been published in a peer-reviewed (or any other) journal. Rathjens also grumbles about the hard to get data. The entire thesis, he says. is 'a house of cards built on reference 15.' (30).'
Nor did Sagan's first Nuclear Winter article in Science benefit from the standard review process.
Did Velikovsky play by the rules of peer review that Sagan suggests? Before publication of Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky reported in Stargazers and Gravediggers. (N.Y. 1983). p. 87. 'The book was given to the [peer review] censors... [Velikovsky] was not informed of what was going on... As [he] heard... at a much later date. in 1952, two of the three censors were for the publication of the book, and one was against.'
Thus, it is quite clear that Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision was evaluated by the peer review process that Sagan requires. On this matter of peer review, it appears that Velikovsky's book passed the review while Carl Sagan's paper on nuclear winter essentially bypassed the review process. The only suggestion that seems to offer itself is that Sagan should follow his own advice.
When Sagan states. '...the reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it. This self-questioning and error correcting aspect of the scientific method is its most striking property.' (31) What is observed is that Sagan neither subscribes to nor follows the ideals he so readily professes. Hence it is suggested that Sagan follow his own advice. It is further suggested that the AAAS scientists ignored not only the high ideals to which Sagan alludes. but that they ignored the simple cannons of ordinary decency.
As I heard it, Sagan was running around telling people that the oil fires in Kuwait were going to cause a nuclear winter. Somehow, from the author of the "super greenhouse" theory, that doesn't really surprise me.
[ Cosmology ][ Sumeria ]