Re: Re: Impact Scenario/New Ref.

[Tom Holtz <tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov>]

>>>While well-grounded in the hard sciences, (Steel) acknowledges a debt of
>>>inspiration to science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke (who wrote the
>>>foreword), as well as the cultural methodology of Immanuel Velikovsky, if
>>>not his theories.
>
>>How about changing the last bit to read "the cultural methodology of Erik
>>von Daniken"?  After all, although he and Velikovsky have radically
>>different conclusions about the nature of the universe, the both start from
>>the same premise (i.e., that almost all peoples except for Greeks, Romans,
>>and post-classical Europeans have no imagination of their own).
>
>I think you've mis-read Velikovsky if you lump him with von Daniken. Both
>were assuredly non-scientific and should be justly vilified by true
>scientists for their colossal goofs. But I see von Daniken as more of a
>tabloid journalist interested in selling books for his own glorification.

And "World in Collision" is just SO much superior to "Chariots of the
Gods"?  Incidentally, I have and have read both, as well as other of
Velikovsky and von Daniken's books.

>As I recall it, Velikovsky was a scholar who specialized in ancient cultures
>and classical studies. When he compared stories of a worldwide flood, he
>never accused those diverse cultures of having no imagination. Velikovsky
>simply took things too literally, believing they were telling the truth:

That is precisely my point - V. and von D. both claim that the fantastic
aspects of mythology could not be the product of ancient imagination, and
so must be representations of actual events.  On the other hand, they
accept that modern peoples could come up with fantastic stories on their
own.

>he
>got into trouble by mixing fable with physics. If the Greeks said Aphrodite
>(the Roman "Venus") sprang full-blown from the brow of Zeus ("Jupiter"),

No, Aphrodite (from "aphros", foam) came from the sea.  It is Athene (who
had no classical planet) can from the brow of Zeus!

>Velikovsky assumed that ancient people has seen the planet Jupiter
>eject matter that became a giant comet that slowly coalesced into the
>planet Venus. Hey, if that happened, maybe it would explain Moses' plagues
>of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea and the pillar of fire/cloud in the
>wilderness! Or so he suggested! :-)
>
>During the 1950s, Velikovsky was particularly unpopular with scientists
>because of his "ridiculous" notions of catastrophism and that earth had
>suffered from extraterrestrial impacts.

No, Velikovsky was (and is) unpopular because he can't tell a hydrocarbon
from a carbohydrate, he belives that Venus bouncing around the Solar System
would be capable of stopping and restarting Earth's rotation, and that he
can't tell the Goddess of Love from the Goddess of War (& Arts and Crafts)!

>Nowadays it's become harder to
>find a scientist who hasn't accepted KT-astroblemes, er, make that
>catastrophes.

Oh, and while we're at it, Velikovsky did not really belive to much in
impacts.  He had planets erupting out of others, careening through the
system, starting and stopping, and raining hydrocarbons/carbohydrates in
the Mid-East, but he didn't believe that impacts were significant.

>But in being so vehement in criticizing his astronomical
>nonsense, let's not accept the mindset that we cannot find worthwhile
>information in the myths or records of past civilizations.
>
>It seems more than a bit culturally patronizing to smugly sit back and
>pay lip service to the "imagination" or creativity of earlier societies.
>Is it so difficult to believe it when someone says their story is true?
>Perhaps it is easier to laud those imaginative primitives than to
>investigate the accuracy of their stories. <g>

Note that some of these peoples (including those of China, Japan, and the
Indian subcontinent) whose stories are used by Velikovsky and von Daniken,
were technologically superior to western Europeans for much of history, and
can hardly be called "primitives".

And, we do have a way to investigate the accuracy of extraordinary claims
of past events.  This way is called Science.  And, it does not support the
idea that the Earth sits on pillars, nor is formed on the skull of Ymir,
nor is on the back of a turtle.  It does support the idea that Earth formed
from the accretion of objects some 5 - 4.5 billion years ago, and has
hosted a variety of life beyond the dreams of almost any cultures,
including the Dinosauria.

And, with that, can we get back to dinos?

                                
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.                                   
tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov
Vertebrate Paleontologist                           Phone:      703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey                                FAX:      703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA  22092
U.S.A.