Forbidden Science

[love]

Velikovsky's claim ... is that Venus has a high temperature because it was ejected from Jupiter and ping-ponged around the Solar System. This can't be considered a hit. His reasoning is simply not backed up by the evidence.

I really am having trouble understand how his reasoning is not backed up by the evidence in this case. Can you explain?

 

[Mojo]

Pretty much the only thing he said about Venus (that I know of; perhaps you can give us some other examples?) that is supported by the currently available evidence is the temperature. And the greenhouse effect provides a perfectly acceptable explanation for that.

 

[Melendwyr]

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

It's called "Affirming the Consequent", and it's why Velikovsky is not supported by the evidence.

 

[love]

Consider hypothesis H0 vs hypothesis H1
H0 predicts cold Venus,
H1 predicts hot Venus.
Experiment: measure temperature of Venus.
Result: hot
Conclusion: Evidence to prefer H1 over H0 found.

It's called hypothesis testing. It's the way Science used to be done.

I guess they don't teach this in schools nowadays, they just tell you what the conclusion should be, and then you fit the experiment around that.

 

[love]

Pretty much the only thing he said about Venus (that I know of; perhaps you can give us some other examples?) that is supported by the currently available evidence is the temperature. And the greenhouse effect provides a perfectly acceptable explanation for that.

This seems to be another prevalent attitude, that if you have an explanation, then that's fine. As long as it's 'scientific'.

Where did the testability go. If you explain stuff retrospectively, you are not really doing science.

Science requires testing. Explanations are just philosophy.

In science, if your theories fail to predict something, you work out how to adjust the theory (then test it), not simply adjust the explanation to fit the results.

 

[love]

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

It's called "Affirming the Consequent", and it's why Velikovsky is not supported by the evidence.

That doesn't stop all scientific experiments being based on this reasoning, though.

Science never really proves anything, merely gathers "evidence", which are examples of where the theories happen to predict the results.

 

[wollery]

Consider hypothesis H0 vs hypothesis H1
H0 predicts cold Venus,
H1 predicts hot Venus.
Experiment: measure temperature of Venus.
Result: hot
Conclusion: Evidence to prefer H1 over H0 found.

It's called hypothesis testing. It's the way Science used to be done.

I guess they don't teach this in schools nowadays, they just tell you what the conclusion should be, and then you fit the experiment around that.

Yes, Velikovsky was right, Venus is hot, and that's all well and good.....

Except that he didn't say that Venus was hot because its atmosphere consisted largely of CO2. He came up with a convoluted scenario involving Venus being a comet ejected from Jupiter which then changed into a planet, and was hot as a consequence of this.

Venus was never a comet.

It wasn't ejected from Jupiter.

It has been in the orbit it currently occupies for billions of years.

Velikovskys prediction was based on utterly erroneous "science" and is therefore worthless as a scientific prediction, despite the fact that on that one point it was correct.

I'll go further, his methodology was to attempt to provide physical explanations for biblical stories. His "science" was lead by the conclusions he wished to reach.

That's why I've put the word science in quotes, what Velikovsky did wasn't science. It wasn't even close.

ps I'm a professional astronomer. Astronomy, as all sciences, is evidence based. Conclusions are based on observations. If you try to do it the other way round you won't get published in any reputable journal.

 

[love]

Velikovsky used many ancient sources to form his hypotheses. In science, it doesn't matter how you come up with your hypotheses.

Using historical documents as a guide to what happenned strikes me as a clever, if unoriginal idea.

Saying Venus was never a comet, is simply an assertion.

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

Velikovskys prediction was based on utterly erroneous "science" and is therefore worthless as a scientific prediction, despite the fact that on that one point it was correct.

You seem to think you can decide what is erroneous based on what is believed, rather than what is evident.

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

This old science failed to predict these basic things about Venus, that Velikovsky got right.

Yeah, maybe he was just very lucky. But maybe he is onto something.

 

[Roboramma]

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

The fact that I am a multicelled organism with a backbone, who is warm blooded, and has a naval, are all evidence that I am a beaver.

Do you think this post is good evidence that beavers have learned to use computers?

 

[Ladewig]

Velikovsky used many ancient sources to form his hypotheses. In science, it doesn't matter how you come up with your hypotheses.

Using historical documents as a guide to what happenned strikes me as a clever, if unoriginal idea.

Saying Venus was never a comet, is simply an assertion.

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.


You seem to think you can decide what is erroneous based on what is believed, rather than what is evident.

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

This old science failed to predict these basic things about Venus, that Velikovsky got right.

Yeah, maybe he was just very lucky. But maybe he is onto something.

I'd like to address the issues you raise, but I will need a couple of days to get to the library to read Velikovski's books.

 

[geni]

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

Comets tend not to be hot.

Venus does not have a hydrocarbon atmosphere.

 

[wollery]

Velikovsky used many ancient sources to form his hypotheses. In science, it doesn't matter how you come up with your hypotheses.

Using historical documents as a guide to what happenned strikes me as a clever, if unoriginal idea.

Saying Venus was never a comet, is simply an assertion.

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

You seem to think you can decide what is erroneous based on what is believed, rather than what is evident.

Saying Venus was never a comet is based on hard science - it's got completely the wrong physical constituents.

Venus being hot is due to its thick atmosphere, which is rich in carbon dioxide. That's CARBON DIOXIDE, not HYDROCARBON, they are very different things. If you don't understand that then I suggest that you go read a chemistry textbook.

What is evident, based on all the available science, is that the majority of Velikovsky's theory about Venus is in error. In terms of its gross chemical and physical attributes Venus is almost identical to Earth.

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

Science that is so accurate in its ability to describe and predict the motions of the planets that it is possible to predict celestial events decades (centuries even) ahead of time with accuracies of a few metres and a few seconds. All this electromagnetism which you seem to want to include appears to have no effect on these predictions. So if it was capable, a few thousand years ago, of completely altering the path of such a large body as Venus then what is it doing now?

This old science failed to predict these basic things about Venus, that Velikovsky got right.

The "old science" as you put it was short on a few facts. Once those facts came to light the conclusions were obvious.

Yeah, maybe he was just very lucky. But maybe he is onto something.

He was extremely lucky, and he wasn't onto anything

 

[geni]

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

No it doesn't. Velikovsky's claims about electromagnic forces are not consistant with what we observer.

 

[PixyMisa]

Velikovsky's "hypothesis" also predicts that:

1. Venus is composed of the same stuff as Jupiter, that is, hydrogen, helium, and traces of heaver elements.
2. Venus's atmosphere is composed of hydrocarbans. (Contradicted by 1.)
3. Venus's atmosphere is composed of carbohydrates. (Contradicted by 1 & 2.)
4. The Earth and Moon will show signs of a multiple, recent, extremely close encounters with Venus. Some such signs would be a highly elliptical, inclined, or even retrograde orbit for the Moon; widespread vulcanism and melting of the crust or both the Moon and the Earth; the vaporisation of entire oceans; and the extinction of all life. This is contradicted by... Well, I'll let you work that one out.

 

[Flange Desire]

This bandwagon needs more passengers.

Saying Venus was never a comet, is simply an assertion..

You saying "simply an assertion" is simply an assertion.

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

The evidence is considerable for Venus not having been comet.

You seem to think you can decide what is erroneous based on what is believed, rather than what is evident.

This kettle is not black.

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

You imply that some 'new science' considers electromagnetic forces in determining the origin of Venus.
This sounds a bit like 'new improved rinso', which is very much like the old rinso, but with a new label.

 

[PixyMisa]

The evidence is considerable for Venus not having been comet.

That's one way to put it.

A comet is a ball of ice and dust a few kilometres to a few tens of kilometres across, most often seen in a highly eccentric orbit. (Most of them are probably in fairly stable orbits out in the Oort Cloud, but we don't see those ones.)

Venus is a ball of rock over ten thousand kilometres across in an almost exactly circular orbit.

Therefore Venus is not a comet.

 

[valis]

Actually, they openly mix some of the most toxic chemicals known to man into vaccines. There is no need to keep it secret because most people cannot think for themselves. They have a television to do it for them, and people generally act according to the programming coming from the TV.

Honest to Christ why do people who listen to this fringe stuff then decide they are smarter than everyone else who disagrees with them.

I have spent a ton of time around fringe politics and health and this whole attitude gets so old. If people find the TV more useful than what you have to say perhapps it is because you; yes you and not the great uneducated, are wrong.

BTW: don't forget to call them 'Sheepole'

 

[moopet]

You imply that some 'new science' considers electromagnetic forces in determining the origin of Venus.
This sounds a bit like 'new improved rinso', which is very much like the old rinso, but with a new label.

Smart.

 

[Dancing David]

This seems to be another prevalent attitude, that if you have an explanation, then that's fine. As long as it's 'scientific'.

Where did the testability go. If you explain stuff retrospectively, you are not really doing science.

Science requires testing. Explanations are just philosophy.

In science, if your theories fail to predict something, you work out how to adjust the theory (then test it), not simply adjust the explanation to fit the results.

So did Venus get ejected from Jupiter?

What are your evidences , please.

 

[Dancing David]

Velikovsky used many ancient sources to form his hypotheses. In science, it doesn't matter how you come up with your hypotheses.

Using historical documents as a guide to what happenned strikes me as a clever, if unoriginal idea.

Saying Venus was never a comet, is simply an assertion.

And your assertion is unsupported by any facts. Venus has an atmosphere parts of which were probably added by cometary impact, as were parts of the planet it self. This does not however make Venus a comet, it is mainlt composed of heavier elements than are found in the cie/gas mix of comets. Unless you want to say that a comet is any body in orbit.

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

Venus being hot is a result of it being covered with a heat retaining atmosphere. The compsoition of which is not similar to comets. And it doesn't have an atmoshere that is similar to the composition of comets.

So what did you mean to say?

You seem to think you can decide what is erroneous based on what is believed, rather than what is evident.

Uh, what is evident that Venus is a comet?

Your evidence that Venus has been in orbit for billions of years is based on old science which has a purely gravitational view of the universe and neglects electromagnetic forces.

this is just silly, the electromaganetic forces can be computed and guess what, they don't effect the orbut of Venus, sorry.

You do realise that mainstream scientists also make silly statements that aren't born out by the facts. This Veliosky isn't being singled out, there is also Hoyle and planetary formation and the steady state universe.

This old science failed to predict these basic things about Venus, that Velikovsky got right.

Excuse me what things does modern sceience fail to predict about Venus?

That Newton practised alchemy, what?

Yeah, maybe he was just very lucky. But maybe he is onto something.

And maybe, he wasn't. Jules Verne wrote a book called Journey to the Center of the Erath and there are lava tubes that go for miles and miles underground, maybe the earth doesn't have a molten core and we can go live on the inside because he was onto something.