Velikovsky - Great Scientist or Bogus fraud

[shunyadragon]

Velikovsky has probably sold more books that any other scientist in history, but to most scientist he is a total fraud and his work and conclusions have no basis in serious science.

Why do most scientists trash him so brutally?

Did Einstein ever lend support to his theories and views on cosmology and physics?

Why was Velikovsky so popular with the public?

[shunyadragon]

I had problems entering my poll for Velikovsky and the system will not allow me to edit it. The instructions were not clear on how to seperate the choices in the poll. :rolleyes: :confused:

[Pooeypants]

Edit done, hope you don't mind. :)

PS, I've got no idea whom he is, can you post some excerpts from articles on works?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Edit done, hope you don't mind. :)

PS, I've got no idea whom he is, can you post some excerpts from articles on works?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Do not mind at all. It needs to be divided on each sentence into more choices.
How did you do it?

[Pooeypants]

2nd edit done, I used the edit button btw.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
2nd edit done, I used the edit button btw.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I think the moderator only has access to the edit button for polls. How are polls divided into choices?

Velikovsky was a prolific science writer beginning in the 50s, I think. His popularity reached it's peak in the 60s and 70s, but continued into the 80s and possibly the earky (Not a mis spelling the 90s did become irky)90s. He had many rather bizarre theories that viewed the solar system and the possibly the universe like a pinball machine. Check out websites on him. I am sure his ideas are still bouncing around every time you put a quarter in. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

Regarding the polls, when I choose edit there were option blocks, about 30 or so thus allowing a massive poll selection, not sure why there's so many though.

Anyway, which recent thread was he also mentioned in? I'm sure I saw it somewhere, hmm, search button here I come.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Regarding the polls, when I choose edit there were option blocks, about 30 or so thus allowing a massive poll selection, not sure why there's so many though.

Anyway, which recent thread was he also mentioned in? I'm sure I saw it somewhere, hmm, search button here I come.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I am not a good speller and names like this are often a problem. Please change spelling in poll to Velikovsky and add a choice: I do not have the foggiest idea who Velikovsky is.

Apparently he is not well known today.

The website www.webeverything.co.uk has a lot of references on him.

Velikovsky was a believer in catastrophism and a sort of young earth advocate that put him the same league with many 'Creation Science' advocates of his time.

[Pooeypants]

3rd edit done. Okay folks, let's get some voting done.

[glenn_w_l]

Velikovsky was a psychiatrist who wrote a series of books on history and astronomy that created much controversy in the 50's and 60's.
His most controversial book 'Worlds in Collision' attempted to establish (mainly from historical data) that Venus was a new planet which had been ejected from Jupiter, and that it had disrupted the old order of the solar system and passed close to the Earth causing a major catastrophe which is remembered as the Flood. The companion book to WIC was 'Earth in Upheaval' which examines the geological evidence of the catastrophe. He also wrote a series of three historical books 'Ages in Chaos', 'Ramses II and his Time', and 'Peoples of the Sea'. In these books he identifies a six hundred year period where ancient Egyptian history has been accidentally duplicated so that the same sequences of people and events recur (with different names) after an interval of six hundred years. Much of the confusion in ancient history is caused by this duplication. He wrote a book called 'Oedipus and Akhnaton' in which he uses historical and archaeological evidence to identify the Egyptian king Ahknaton as the original model for the Greek Oedipus legend. His final book was 'Mankind in Amnesia' which compares the loss of memory and strenuous denial of the catastrophe to the psychiatric condition of amnesia after the experience of a severe shock.
I read all of his books many years ago and they considerably influenced my thinking.
Apart from the novel hypothesis that Venus was the cause of the catastrophe, worlds in collision and earth in upheaval are a modern resurrection of the widely held catastrophist arguments that were (perhaps unjustifiably) supplanted by uniformitarianism in the first half of the nineteenth century.
The three historical books are very interesting and original, though less well known, and in my opinion place Velikovsky in the genius category. Oedipus and Ahknaton is a cameo of this period which demonstrates how the fusion of Mythology, Ancient History, and Archaeology can resolve with amazing detail events of long ago.
Mankind in amnesia is interesting but dry, and suggested that war might be the expression of the repressed memory of the catastrophe.
Interesting follow-up books were published, mainly 'Velikovsky Reconsidered' (for) and 'Scientists Confront Velikovsky' (against).
Also very interesting is the book 'The Velikovsky Affair' by Alfred de Grazia, which narrates the trials Velikovsky suffered, mainly from the degree of hostility shown by establishment scientists opposed to the publication of his work.
The main value i derived from reading his books was that Velikovsky taught me to 'think outside the square'.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
Velikovsky was a psychiatrist who wrote a series of books on history and astronomy that created much controversy in the 50's and 60's.
His most controversial book 'Worlds in Collision' attempted to establish (mainly from historical data) that Venus was a new planet which had been ejected from Jupiter, and that it had disrupted the old order of the solar system and passed close to the Earth causing a major catastrophe which is remembered as the Flood. The companion book to WIC was 'Earth in Upheaval' which examines the geological evidence of the catastrophe. He also wrote a series of three historical books 'Ages in Chaos', 'Ramses II and his Time', and 'Peoples of the Sea'. In these books he identifies a six hundred year period where ancient Egyptian history has been accidentally duplicated so that the same sequences of people and events recur (with different names) after an interval of six hundred years. Much of the confusion in ancient history is caused by this duplication. He wrote a book called 'Oedipus and Akhnaton' in which he uses historical and archaeological evidence to identify the Egyptian king Ahknaton as the original model for the Greek Oedipus legend. His final book was 'Mankind in Amnesia' which compares the loss of memory and strenuous denial of the catastrophe to the psychiatric condition of amnesia after the experience of a severe shock.
I read all of his books many years ago and they considerably influenced my thinking.
Apart from the novel hypothesis that Venus was the cause of the catastrophe, worlds in collision and earth in upheaval are a modern resurrection of the widely held catastrophist arguments that were (perhaps unjustifiably) supplanted by uniformitarianism in the first half of the nineteenth century.
The three historical books are very interesting and original, though less well known, and in my opinion place Velikovsky in the genius category. Oedipus and Ahknaton is a cameo of this period which demonstrates how the fusion of Mythology, Ancient History, and Archaeology can resolve with amazing detail events of long ago.
Mankind in amnesia is interesting but dry, and suggested that war might be the expression of the repressed memory of the catastrophe.
Interesting follow-up books were published, mainly 'Velikovsky Reconsidered' (for) and 'Scientists Confront Velikovsky' (against).
Also very interesting is the book 'The Velikovsky Affair' by Alfred de Grazia, which narrates the trials Velikovsky suffered, mainly from the degree of hostility shown by establishment scientists opposed to the publication of his work.
The main value i derived from reading his books was that Velikovsky taught me to 'think outside the square'.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Very good post. I read 'Worlds in collision' and 'Earth in Upheaval' and due to my strong scientific background I rejected Velikovsky completely, because his catastrophic theories were so far off my knowledge of basic physics, geology and astronomy. I saw an excentric genius underieing his work, but lost patience and went no further. I was deeply disapointed in the lack of basic scientific knowledge and understanding expressed by him and the millions of people who supported him during the peak of his popularity.

It would be interesting read his historical works.

I feel I have an open mind and definitely think outside the square, but concerning science I am probably a fanatic concerning the scientific method and respect for the great thinkers like Einstein. My renewed interest in Velikovsky has to with his great popularity at the time he wrote and the fact that today he has faded into the near oblivion except for the older generation. The limited response to this thread demonstrates this. It appears interest in him and his theories has been replaced by a greater interest in 'Young Earth Creationists.'

[Pooeypants]

I'm sure I've heard of the title Worlds in Collisions but I don't remember the name Velikovsky. Are you sure he's sold more books than any other scientist in history? (Including Stephen Hawkings ofc)

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
I'm sure I've heard of the title Worlds in Collisions but I don't remember the name Velikovsky. Are you sure he's sold more books than any other scientist in history? (Including Stephen Hawkings ofc)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yes, I am almost absolutely certain. He made the best sellers list a bunch and had a lot of paperback editions in the US and Europe.

[glenn_w_l]

Though the works of Velikovsky himself have been sunk into oblivion, many of his ideas have resurfaced in books by 'establishment' scientists/historians. The 1982 book 'The Cosmic Serpent' is amusing in that after astronomers Napier and Clube spend most of their book rehashing Velikovsky's astronomical ideas (replacing Venus with a giant interstellar comet), they follow the traditional scientific procedure of laying the boot into Velikovsky.
The main points of Velikovsky's historical ideas reappeared in the book 'Centuries of Darkness' by historian Peter James in 1991.In this book there is a shameful lack of acknowledgment of Velikovsky's precedence in untangling the historical knot.
Concerning Velikovsky's relationship with Einstein they were friends and correspondents. On page 43 of 'Velikovsky Reconsidered' there is a facsimile of a letter sent by Einstein to Velikovsky in acknowledgment of a copy of 'Ages in Chaos' sent by Velikovsky to Einstein as birthday gift. Part of this letter reads...
"I have already read carefully the first volume of the memoirs to 'Worlds in Collision' and have supplied it with a few marginal notes in pencil that can easily be erased. I admire your dramatic talent and also the art and the straightforwardness of Thackeray, who has compelled the roaring astronomical lion [Shapley] to pull in a little his royal tail, yet not showing enough respect for the truth. Also, I would feel happy if you could savour the whole episode for its humorous side."
When Einstein died soon after, this copy of Ages in Chaos was open on his desk.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
Though the works of Velikovsky himself have been sunk into oblivion, many of his ideas have resurfaced in books by 'establishment' scientists/historians. The 1982 book 'The Cosmic Serpent' is amusing in that after astronomers Napier and Clube spend most of their book rehashing Velikovsky's astronomical ideas (replacing Venus with a  giant interstellar comet), they follow the traditional scientific procedure of laying the boot into Velikovsky.
The main points of Velikovsky's historical ideas reappeared in the book 'Centuries of Darkness' by historian Peter James in 1991.In this book there is a shameful lack of acknowledgment of Velikovsky's precedence in untangling the historical knot. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I would like more specifics concerning Velikovsky's ideas that are still seriously considered by scientists today. I know that his belief that Venus (I think?) rotated in reverse to other planets is true, but it was not a new idea in his time. It was an idea among some scientist to describe the odd behavior of the planet. I will have to check on this, because my strong point is not planetary astronomy.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Concerning Velikovsky's relationship with Einstein they were friends and correspondents. On page 43 of 'Velikovsky Reconsidered' there is a facsimile of a letter sent by Einstein to Velikovsky in acknowledgment of a copy of  'Ages in Chaos' sent by Velikovsky to Einstein as birthday gift. Part of this letter reads...
"I have already read carefully the first volume of the memoirs to 'Worlds in Collision' and have supplied it with a few marginal notes in pencil that can easily be erased. I admire your dramatic talent and also the art and the straightforwardness of Thackeray, who has compelled the roaring astronomical lion [Shapley] to pull in a  little his royal tail, yet not showing enough respect for the truth. Also, I would feel happy if you could savour the whole episode for its humorous side."
When Einstein died soon after, this copy of Ages in Chaos was open on his desk.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This has been later interpreted as an endorsement of Velikovsky by Einstein, but I think as I remember that there is more to the letter that questions Velikovsky's knowledge of basic physics, like the principle of angular momentum. I would like to see the whole letter if it can be posted or a source given to see it, as well as the footnotes and any other letters by Einstein to Velikovsly.