True true--though I must confess I give more credit based on what I
know him to Anders' dismissal of V than to Clark's--and more still to
Einstein's--who wrote (Yes, I'm citing authority!):
"I have read the whole book about the planet Venus. There is much of
interest in the book which proves that in fact catastrophes have
taken place which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes.
However it is evident to every sensible physicist that these
catastrophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and that
also the direction of the inclination of the terrestrial axis towards
the ecliptic could not have undergone a considerable change without
the total destruction of the entire earth’s crust. Your arguments in
this regard are so weak as opposed to the mechanical-astronomical
ones, that no expert will be able to take them seriously. It were
best in my opinion if you would in this way revise your books, which
contain truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this, then
what is valuable in your deliberations will become ineffective, and
it may be difficult finding a sensible publisher who would take the
risk of such a heavy fiasco upon himself."
AE, July 8, 1946, letter to IV
I suggest E was right (isn't he always?) in that some here give no
credence to what may be of value because of the Venus assertions--
which are the only ones I've seen attacked.
On 18 Jan 2001, at 8:16, Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:50 AM Anders Sandberg email@example.com wrote:
> > Anyway, even if Einstein had been the greatest admirer of Velikovsky
> > it doesn't improve the validity of his theories one bit. Arguments of
> > authority have no place in science.
> As I've argued earlier -- though Damien disagreed with me. They have no
> place in science, philosophy, or any field that hopes to be valid and true.
> Oh no! I've added to the Velikovsky thread! Argh!:/
> Daniel Ust
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT