Re: Re: Impact Scenario/New Ref.

[Willa25743@aol.com]

Re: the comments of tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov (Tom Holtz)

Quoting Willa25743@aol.com discussing Duncan Steel's "Rogue Asteroids 
and Doomsday Comets" (John Wiley & Sons, NY: 1995):

>>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.

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

Willard Harrison