• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Forbidden Science

Perhaps the most interesting story in the book is about Velikovsky. He actually made several bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time. These predictions were later confirmed by science, yet his theories are still not generally accepted.

Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period.
 
Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period.

That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?

What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time.
 

With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important."

Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?
 
That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?

What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time.


Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be.
 
Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be.

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.
 
OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.


I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable.
 
I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable.

I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory.
 
I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory.

What has thoery got to do with anything. We know what a comet is and venus isn't one.
 
OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.
Not 10 because much of what he said was about the past, but here are 5

1) Velikovsky said that the atmosphere on Venus was rich in hydrogen and hydrocarbons

2) Velikovsky claimed that this atmosphere could support "vermin"

3) Velikovsky claimed that the craters on the moon were bubbles rather than collision craters

4) Claims that 1500 years has been added to middle-eastern history, not supported by fact

5) Claims that the Earth was moonless within human memory
 
With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important."

Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?

He didn't say evidence can be disregarded. He is referring to the common mistake in hypothesis testing of assuming that degree of statistical significance equates to strength of support for a claim.

Statistical significance says only that something occurred that has a low probability of happening under the null hypothesis. It says nothing about why it happened. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is determined by the extent to which the study successfully isolated only one possible cause of a phenomenon and eliminated all others. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is not affected by the degree of statistical significance.
 
A much shorter, and a much more telling list, would be of his "correct" predictions:

1) Velikovsky speculated that electromagnetic forces played a role in altering the orbits of the planets at a time when few astronomers paid much attention to magnetic fields.

- This turned out to be true, but not nearly to the degree to which Velikovsky had speculated. Velikovsky theorized that electromagnetic forces could profoundly alter the motion of planets over a matter of weeks, or even days. This is simply not the case.

2) Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves.

-It was later confirmed that Jupiter did indeed emit radio waves. However, Velikovsky was spectacularly wrong in his prediction of the physical process responsible for the emission of said radio waves. He predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves because it was a hot planet, like Venus... which also emits radio waves. In reality, Jupiter turned out to be a cold planet... encased in thousands of miles of ice. The actual mechanism by which Jupiter emits radio waves, (Because charged particles from the Sun are trapped and accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field.) was completely missed by Velikovsky, and completely contradictory to the mechanism Velikovsky had assumed.

3)Velikovsky predicted that Venus would be hotter than anyone expected.

- Bingo! An actual hit! Of course, Velikovsky never did "show his work", and explain exactly how he came to his conclusion that Venus would be hotter than expected. But hey... he got one right.

Wow. Color me impressed.

Not. :nope:
 
I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it?


I'd like to, but the Houston Public Library has no copies and I don't think I'm prepared to pay money for it, so I'll rely on what you tell me about it, Love.

So, who exactly is forbidding people from performing the science mentioned in the book?

Also, why exactly are we talking about Velikovsky? I don't recall any incidents where he was forbidden from doing science - are there incidents that I am not aware of?
 
snip...
I don't believe that vaccines make one healthier overall, anyway.
...snip
Vaccines aren't meant to make you healthier, they are meant to prevent you from contracting specific diseases, such as polio, measles, mumps & rubella. They're bloody effective at doing that, as shown by the massive drops in the rates of infection since vaccination was introduced.

Smallpox vaccination has effectively eradicated that disease globally!
 
Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?
Yes, I do, Rodney. Would you care to find out why Carroll is quite right? You can either look up the statistical concept of power, or I can direct you to some resources, or we can discuss it. Whatever you pleasure, sir.
 
Yes, I do, Rodney. Would you care to find out why Carroll is quite right? You can either look up the statistical concept of power, or I can direct you to some resources, or we can discuss it. Whatever you pleasure, sir.

Let me ask you this: If, as the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team claims, some operators can affect a machine's otherwise random data output by about one or two parts in 10,000, how would that be proven scientifically?
 

Back
Top Bottom