The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky
 

The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky
by Joshua Snyder
The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky by Joshua Snyder

First read about it here:
"One of the most controversial scientists of our times."
CARNUTS.US • View topic - "One of the most controversial scientists of our times."

Did you really think the nuts are just on one side of the science argument?

The truth is humans don't have all the facts. We are putting the jigsaw puzzle together, but we can't even see most of the pieces yet. Anyone from either side that tries to sell you that they have the full on picture is lying to you. Do not believe them, and slowly back away from this dangerous zealot.

For me the only difference is that Science is capable of overturning its self. Something will be proposed, its accepted as the current standard, then a new thing comes along, and the apple cart gets upturned.

Real scientists live for the day the apple cart is overturned.

Historically religious applecarts getting overturned seem to have been violent bloody affairs, so perhaps it best not to upset the the religious apple cart.

Real scientists perform experiments to overturn apple carts. They don't sit around waiting for it, and definitely do not waste time on gibberish like V's stuff.

Real science is always open to any viable option. When plate tectonics was first postulated almost all geologists scoffed. Now it is considered the best theory of how the earth works. That is how real science works.

"I like turtles" :D

Not another Lew Rockwell Fastpaste...I mean quick link.:rolleyes:

I just read an interesting article about Quarks. Back in the 60s they guy that came up with the name Quarks and postulated the theory was considered a total outsider. Now it is the accepted theory. It took many decades for him to be proven correct. No one claims to know all the answers, they are still looking, still adjusting the theory.

1) There is a GULF of difference between recognizing a paradigm shift in science, and actively trying to force one. Real scientists work in the former, not the latter.
2) Velikovsky's work is based in science, he's not a nut. However, he failed to notice that he was taking several speculative conjectures in a row to reach his conclusion, and lost the causality of his work. I would not call him a nut, nor would I call science a "cartel" for dismissing his work. His work did need to be dismissed, but not because of some "cartel", but because he had moved past standard scientific methods.

It's all about the data. You can postulate all sorts of mechanisms for anything, but to overturn convention you need unassailable data.

-Science was certainly a "cartel" when Nicolai Tesla was singlehandedly building todays modern society.
-The atomic theory was certainly a stretch of the imagination when it was conceived.

I watched "The Net"(good flick), in which someone explained all truths as myths/tales to explain something we can't understand. The proven theorys added later only patch the logical gaps between the concepts, not prove them.

Please tell me you don't really use a movie that is pure fiction as a base of reality.

Like this?

Opps, my bad. I forgot there was a Hollywood film with the same name.

This movie was a german filmaker's art-documentary about the cultural and the counter cultural people during the 60's who were involved in founding the internet and other businesses today(suprisingly some were one in the same). Some of these were major founding scientists and businessmen and the theme was generaly how artist druggies used their experimental talents in founding things like plug-ins and email and online shopping. Interwoven was the unabomber's opposition to the everything.

Anyways, there was an interview with an 90yo hoot where he explains development of theory as patching holes in our existing concept of "reality".
http://www.amazon.com/Net-Unabomber-LSD-Internet/dp/B000EMGIWI

An old planet with run away greenhouse heating due to an atmosphere 90X denser than earth and composed of 95% CO2 and virtually no water explains surface temps as well or better so no unassailable data to suggest a young Venus.