Re: pseudoscience and fossils

Scott H Mullins (
12 Jan 1995 17:42:40 GMT

In article <> (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
[deleted a mediocre summary of the history of Velikovskianism]

>tested (at least at the time they were written; the late 1970's started
>knocking them down); and there was a following of un-wavering supporters
>who claimed "unfair" treatment by the scientific orthodoxy.
> Sound familiar?

Not really. I should say, not yet. The AAT hypotheses does not,
so far as I know, contradict the laws of physics. There are no AAT
supporters arguing that the whole of modern science must be
overturned to support some mythological interpretations.

The real question that I wanted to ask, Mr. Bigelow, was this:
is it really necessary that you act like such an ass? Really,
the attempt to paint the AAT with Velikovskian paint is a weak
and unctuous rhetorical ploy. You're not a lawyer, are you?