| |
G4XNH > TREK 08.02.04 22:03l 95 Lines 4836 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 591065G4XNH
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: Re: Asimov and Sci-Fi.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<EB2BJX<GB7YKS
Sent: 040208/1942Z @:GB7YKS.#19.GBR.EU #:54599 [Barnsley] $:591065G4XNH
From: G4XNH@GB7YKS.#19.GBR.EU
To : TREK@WW
VK3ABK wrote :-
> Jeff's Science Fiction author
Last time that I did an inventory, I did not possess any authors. Books
yes, Friends who were authors, yes, authors themselves, no.
> was simply using a well known (even then)
> scenario. A 'what if' approach, but lacking in evidence. This wasn't a
> theory: at best, it was a guess. A good one, as the Mexican Gulf is an
> obvious choice for a 'deep inpact'!
So obvious in fact that they ridiculed "his" ideas (And presumably any
other who came before him) and still do. NOW, several have claimed it as
their own "first" idea, LONG after IV expounded upon it. That is what I
was remarking on, or "Challenging" if you like. There is certainly no need
to get the proverbial lip on. ;) I am not standing on a soapbox, merely
making a comment.
> Jeff's "experts" can be wrong, and eventually they concede.
I do not possess any "experts" either. I DO know that experts are often
wrong. Many so-called experts disagree with fundmental principles, Patchet
had his contradictory adversary too. In all fields contradictions exist.
Lawyers\Solicitors make millions defending opposing "facts". Name any
field where an expert says "A" and there will be an expert who says "NO it
is B". One must often make one's own decisions eventually in trying to
understand which may be the best considered argument. In many cases, a
decision is made in expert circles which is based on incorrect analysis of
a particular subject or point. It is only later when things are seen in
the correct perspective due to the gathering of even more evidence which
negates that decision. As my father often told me, time generally tells
all.
I suspect that Velikovsky might have taken umbrage at you ridiculing "his"
theory and calling it a "guess", educated or otherwise. He did not appear
to me to be writing a fairy story, more a well-thought explanation which
seems to have borne fruit. He appeared to be sincere in his book, not
giving the impression of writing a "Sci-Fi" novel in the slightest in my
opinion. I could be wrong of course, as sadly, I have that human failing.
He and possibly others, are simply forgotten about and consigned to
oblivion. Perhaps some professional jealousy is at work, who knows, it has
happened before in such cases. I do not know who first propounded the
theory, he was merely the first author that I found who did. Nothing more
nothing less. When someone else claims to have "thought about it" 30 years
after I have read such a good "guess", it seems rather arrogant to me. The
subsequent discovery of that proof some 40 years + later, merely proved
what he (Or others before him possibly) had said.
All credit to the chap who "found" the proof of course, but that does not
detract from IV at all. People seem to forget that. That was my point.
Decrying him and lambasting myself will not change that.
> Please read some 'real' science and see the rigorous nature of the
> methods used, and note the critisims by co-workers and opposition
> theorists. This is the 'safety switch' that can be applied to any 'dodgy'
> ideas.
I know what rigorous testing is and the reasons for it. We do not all live
in caves surrounded by forest. Some make it their business to go outside.
Such a statement is patronising.
You have no idea of what I have read. Empirical testing and research is
not alien to me. I had need of it and was trained in it's use. Keep to the
subject.
I am well aware that "ideas" do not become "fact" without a great deal of
research and amongst other things, reproducable evidence. Some things are
difficult if not impossible to prove "scientifically" as well you know.
That does not mean that they do not exist or are not valid theories.
Proving it later gives no less importance to those who mooted the idea
with less proof earlier and certainly does not negate their input. I have
no remit to stand up for IV I merely, as you did, make a point. Galileo,
(and later Gioudano Bruno, who paid dearly for his input) and others had
just as many problems with their "ideas". Some paid with their lives.
Later they were vindicated by "science". However, science is NOT always
correct. Man is faulty and man can make mistakes. Carl Sagan was also a
Sci-Fi writer who had some interesting ideas although I have not studied
his work closely. He too was decried and applauded by both sides. I am not
interested in who supports who, I prefer facts, but ideas are not to be
dismissed lightly as they are often the progenitor of good things later.
Immanuel Velikovsky seems to have been given a raw deal by his own peers
that is all. I do not like injustice. Neither do I warrant being
patronised. Regards.
73 - Jeff, G4XNH @ GB7YKS
Message timed: 19:41 on 2004-Feb-08
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.80
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
