Re: Velikovsky's [sic] was an imbecile

From: John Marlow (
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 05:11:59 MST

As I said, I haven't read the guy, and will not defend or excoriate
his theories without having done so, however much of a nutball he was
(or was not). There is no other reasonable course.

john marlow

On 18 Jan 2001, at 10:50, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> "John Marlow" <> writes:
> > **Actually, quantum theory sounds a whole lot kookier than Velikovsky-
> > -but it does seem to be correct. And I refuse to discount a theory
> > based upon the opinion and characterizations of an individual who has
> > examined said theory for a total of 4.3 seconds.
> If you judge theories on how they sound, then you are going to make
> many mistakes. Instead look at their predictions. Does it look like
> all known orbital mechanics is dead wrong, the laws of thermodynamics,
> energy conservation and momentum conservation are disobeyed by
> planetary masses and that every culture in the world except for the
> one at ground zero suffers collective amnesia of dramatic
> world-spanning events? Also, consider whether they can be falsified -
> can you prove that Velikovsky's cosmic billiards did not happen when
> he can (in principle, since he is dead) always blame lack of evidence
> or contradictions on collective amnesia, changes in physics or
> catastrophes being brief. I guess this may take longer to evaluate
> than 4.3 seconds, but not much longer.
> If you do the same with quantum mechanics you get completely different
> answers. They might be weird, but they actually fit with known facts,
> only change the previously known laws of physics at certain scales and
> the whole theory is quite falsifiable.
> > *"I have already carefully read the first volume of the memoirs to
> > “Worlds in Collision,” and have supplied it with a few marginal notes
> > in pencil that can be easily erased..." --Albert Einstein, letter to
> > Immanuel Velikovsky, March 17, 1955
> > **Apparently Mr. Einstein thought the matter warranted a wee bit more
> > than 4.3 seconds of "his" time--though it must be said that he did
> > not support the Venus contention, and found parts of V's works to be
> > fanciful, as of 1954-55.
> Do you know that followers of Willhelm Reich also claim that Einsteing
> approved of his theories of orgone power? The real story is that Reich
> often dragged over his neighbour in Princeton (?) to show his latest
> gadgets like orgone boxes and cloud/anti-UFO cannons, and the
> peace-loving Einstein never had the heart to tell him he was a
> crank. So his followers now claim Einstein supported Reich.
> 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.
> Even an infinite posthuman lifespan is not long enough to consider all
> forms of junk thinking - the cardinality of the set of incoherent,
> unsupported or nonfalsifiable ideas is much larger than the
> cardinality of its complement.
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

John Marlow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT