Re: pseudoscience and fossils

Leo Matthews (hlgma@gruc21.nor.chevron.com)
13 Jan 95 22:06:29 GMT

In article <1995Jan10.030035.20564@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
>Pat Dooley continues:
>>Velikovsky has had a good going over in many forums and has been
>>thoroughly debunked by many disciplines. The same can't be said
>>for AAT opponents.
>
> Velikovsky started to publish in the 1950's (it may have been earlier, but
>the 1950's for sure). His ideas were still going strong in the late 1970's.
>That is almost 30 years of followers. Frankly, it is a little scary. Just
>because his ideas were finally put in the trash-heap of history doesn't
>mean it's a good thing. His books (_Worlds in Collision_ is one example),

You really should check out talk.origins. Velikovsky still has his ardent
followers. They have their own journals (Aeon is one), conferences (one
just this past November in Portland, Oregon), and perhaps even their own
newsgroup ( talk.catastrophism is in the works). Poor science dies hard.

>have many similarities to the Aquatic Ape books:
>For instance, they were not peer-reviewed; they created grand-scenarios;
>they had very little in the way of hard data; the theories were not easily
>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?
> <pb>

-- 

Leo G. Matthews               | "I took a course in positive thinking once, 

Chevron                       | but I knew it wouldn't work and sure enough

CTN 592-7094                  | it didn't." R. Howe, CHEERS