http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== talk.origins VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 11 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/11 Subject: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars, I'm going to focus on responding to one party at a time. As promised I'll begin with Leroy Ellenberger. If Leroy fails to respond, I'll see if someone else is willing to take over the adversarial position with respect to the Saturn theory. The only exception is this: if Mark Isaak accepts the challenge I recently posted (then re-posted yesterday), I'll make some additional time for that little escapade as well. I thought I might put up a few notes and asides prior to this weekend, then post the first leg of a response to Leroy by Sunday afternoon. Thereafter, if some of you feel that Leroy isn't demonstrating the debating skills or acumen you expected, you can supply him with any additional ideas or materials you choose. Feel free to tutor him on physics, astronomy, geology, logic, common sense, manners, ethics, getting a life, or whatever you want. Just don't try to explain the origins of myth to him (the blind leading the blind). At least in the initial stages I'll post the response to Leroy in segments on talk.origins and alt.catastrophism, so that if Leroy chooses he can draw on various debunker responses in formulating his own riposte. To the extent possible, I'll review various t.o responses myself before formulating the final draft of a position statement to be placed on the Kronia Communications website, but there is no possibility that I will have the time to chase after other debunkers and try to debate them as well. For now, at least-- LEROY IS THE MAN. Dave Forward Leroy Ellenberger View profile More options Jul 12 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Leroy Ellenberger) Date: 1996/07/12 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author BEGIN EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION The following is posted for Ellenberger by Thompson. Text is a faithful copy of Ellenberger's original except that I have re-written his description of how to get the files archived by Lippard so that all you computer nerds out there could understand it. Talbott's original invitation posted under the thread "VELIKOVSKY: The Great Degate" (Talbott's typo, not mine) never arrived on my server, though I did find it in Deja-News. I told Leroy about it, and I have sent him a copy. This post is a response to the fact that Talbott has issued the challenge, but Ellenberger is posting without having seen Talbott's original. Content is Ellenberger's, typos are probably mine; it's late, and I don't feel much like proof-reading. END EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION [POSTED FOR ELLENBERGER BY THOMPSON] The main purpose of this posting is to acknowledge my learning of Dave Talbott's challenge on 7 July to debate me on the "Saturn Myth", or whatever the specific invitation is. I have not seen the posting by Mr. Talbott and will not until I return to St. Louis on July 22 from Rutland, Vermont, where I shall be meeting with Anne Kilmer, Assyriologist at Berkeley who decoded Babylonian musical notation, and Ernest McClain, musicologist who decoded the Sumerian harmonic cosmology. Contrary to the many notices for the meeting in Deerfield Beach, Florida, I shall not be lurking on the hotel parking lot. Considering Mr. Talbott's track record dealing with my arguments in the past, I am not sanguine about the benefits of further engagement. On talk.origins, from June 1994 to October 1994, Mr. Talbott subjected my documented arguments to condescending ridicule and derision before ultimately ignoring them. See "Ellenberger Contra Cochrane: The Second Reply & Talbott, Too" (posted 20 June 1994) and "DAVID N. TALBOTT: Hoist, Clueless & 'Nihilated" (posted 14 July 1994), archived and available by anonymous FTP at ftp.rtd.com, files /pub/lippard/cle-contra-cochrane and /pub/lippard/cle-talbott, for the flavor of our previous interaction. An indicator of Mr. Talbott's trustworthiness is the fact that, in 1994 when he offered a $100 reward to the first person to simulate one circular orbit of Grubaugh's stack of Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth, (sans Sun) which closed on itself, he renigged when solutions were posted by Wayne Throop and myself. Before I can take Mr. Talbott's invitation seriously, it would behoove him to respond substantively to my 2 July 1996 posting via Ben Dehner containing "16 Reasons Refuting the 'Saturn Myth'" (sent to Messrs. Talbott & Cochrane on postcards in case they missed it on talk.origins or alt.catastrophism). Does he have the capacity to engage in authentic intellectual discourse? Can he accept criticism with grace? On general principles, debating the meriits of neo-Velikovskian ideas espoused by Mr. Talbott (and others) is ludicrous because, as I have already argued on talk.origins and in SKEPTIC (3:4, posted on talk.origins), ... (1) they are based on a false premise [the first gods were planets], (2) employ erroneous methodology [correct predictions NEVER prove a theory, (3) are physically impossible, (4) violate the conservation laws of physics, (5) are contradicted both by (a) the seasonal varves in the world's ice caps extending back beyond the Holocene and (b) the plethora of circular, spin-orbit resonances in the satellite systems of Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn that take more time to achieve than has elapsed since the cataclysmic era ended, (6) the data they purport to explain can be explained by other, physically feasible alternatives, notably that by Clube and Napier (which are essentially ignored) while the number names of the major gods in the Sumerian pantheon are not explained by their "Saturn Myth" model that supposedly explains everything, and ... (7) his literal interpretations deny a role for metaphor and synecdoche in myth and he projects modern concepts on archaic perceptions. Investigating the "Saturn Myth" is like looking for the Invisible Man because H.G. Wells happened to write about him. An interdisciplinary synthesis, such as neo-Velikovskians pride themselves on, that discounts the laws of physics [e.g., ignoring the fact that Venus is too massive ever to have had a visible tail] cannot be taken seriously. Clearly, Mr. Talbott inverts normal procedure by giving hypothesis priority over physics and physical evidence. Who properly sets the rules, anyway? The falsity of the "Saturn Myth" as epoused by Mr. Talbott is a no-brainer. Leroy "Huwawa" Ellenbeger, Confidant to Velikovsky 4/78 -- 11/79, who was banned at Portland, Oregon, 11/94, "Vivere est vincere", 10 July 1996 -- Posted for Ellenberger by Thompson. Content is Ellenberger's, not mine. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J.Thomp...@jpl.nasa.gov California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer. Forward Mark Isaak View profile More options Jul 12 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) Date: 1996/07/12 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author Thanks to Alta Vista, I have seen Talbott's messages to me. (If you really want them to get to me, Dave, please email; don't post. Neither copy of your post appeared at our site.) For now, I will only comment on Talbott's methodology. In article , David Talbott writes: >The single most pervasive misunderstanding of myth is the idea that "you >can prove anything by resort to myth." . . . As it turns out, the >assumption is provably incorrect. . . . and >Just so there's no misunderstanding: I have claimed there is a way of >seeing human history and planetary history that will account for all of >the recurring themes of myths. So all Mark will need to do is show a >recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon that is not predicted by the >hypothesis. Now that should be pretty easy, shouldn't it? If it is true that you can prove anything by resort to myth, the task you set for me should be impossible. You appear not to comprehend the very idea of falsifiability. But please prove me wrong; email me an exhaustive list of attributes of the serpent or dragon that your hypothesis predicts, and I will see if there are any recurring attributes that are not on the list. If you can't come up with such a list, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. As to your challenge regarding serpent myths, I am in the process of preparing a detailed analysis of serpent and dragon myths which will not disprove your hypothesis, but which will show that the Once Hollow Earth theory is statistically a much more likely explanation. I had hoped to be able to post it today, but I haven't had the time to finish it yet. It will have to wait until after my vacation. Sorry for the delay. -- Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman Forward Tim Thompson View profile More options Jul 12 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) Date: 1996/07/12 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article , is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes: > Thanks to Alta Vista, I have seen Talbott's messages to me. [ ... ] I have had similar problems, seeing Talbott's posts very much out of time synchronization with each other, but they do eventually arrive. The ones that arrived today were 5 days late, despite that fact that in the interim I have seen Talbott posts get here in a day. This jumbling makes it hard to carry on a consistent discussion without a lot of careful reference to messages that haven't arrived yet. My usual clue is that I often see replies posted by others for several days before the original arrives here. > In article , David Talbott writes: [ ... ] >> Just so there's no misunderstanding: I have claimed there is a way of >> seeing human history and planetary history that will account for all of >> the recurring themes of myths. So all Mark will need to do is show a >> recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon that is not predicted by the >> hypothesis. Now that should be pretty easy, shouldn't it? It does seem like a good idea at this juncture to point out the difference between "predicts" and "is consistent with". It is quite common, even amongst scientists, to say that some hypothesis "predicts" something which is, in fact, already known. It is more correct to say that the hypothesis is consistent with what is already known, and reserve the word "predicts", as much as possible, for use with those things that are in fact not already known. That said, scientists do commonly use the consistency test to strengthen and develop an hypothesis. However, eventually, one must take the risk of actually predicting some new heretofore unknown result or phenomenon, sort of like Einstein predicting that light would follow a curved trajectory around a massive object (the Sun). That was a genuine prediction, nobody had seen that before, nobody had thought to look for it before. However, when Eddington looked a short time later, the observation was as predicted. So, if we are going to hold the Saturn myth to some scientific sense of prediction, as Talbott seems to suggest we should, then our Saturnist friends should be expected to put forth a genuine prediction. For instance, predict that some "recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon" which is now not known will e discovered by later archaeologists or mythologists? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J.Thomp...@jpl.nasa.gov California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer. Forward David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 13 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/13 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author I wouldn't call it an auspicious beginning, but maybe it's a start. Mark Isaak says he'll take up the challenge. So I'm starting a new thread titled "THE COSMIC SERPENT." You are cordially invited to check in periodically. It won't go fast (due to my schedule), but I can guarantee you that it will expose one of the more preposterous hoaxes perpetrated on t.o. And it will be a useful exercise because the misperception about myth, on which Mark's entire argument rests, is repeated in virtually every post by t.o debunkers the moment they address the subject of myth. The debunkers have yet to realize that there is a coherent substratum, and that its existence can be (and has been) demonstrated. Exposure of the substratum does not require selective perception or subjective interpretation, only a rigorous cross-cultural comparison in which nothing other that *recurring* themes is allowed. (The reason for this methodological requirement will be clear to anyone who actually applies it. The substratum, as the residue of a collective memory, expresses itself in a few hundred well-established themes. Localized elaborations, fragments and distortions of the underlying themes express themselves in *hundreds of thousands* of contradictory details. It is an easily demonstrable fact--once the substratum is discerned--that the localizations and elaborations are the *cause* of the contradictions.) Now how are you going to know whether what I am claiming here is true? You will only know either by going through the exercise yourself, or familiarizing yourself with the several volumes of material already published on the Saturn theory. Since the t.o debunkers are willing to do neither, the only purpose of carrying on this discussion is to register, with an explorer or two, a possibility outside all of our prior ideas about the origins of myth. We are here simply to leave a sign post for explorers who may drop by. The serious discussion will go on elsewhere. If you have an interest check in with the Kronia Communications website-- http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/ Then send along a note expressing your interest and background. An electronic forum for explorers will emerge from this process over the next year or so. You can count on it. Dave Forward Andrew MacRae View profile More options Jul 14 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) Date: 1996/07/14 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes: > I wouldn't call it an auspicious beginning, but maybe it's a start. .. > t.o. And it will be a useful exercise because the misperception about > myth, on which Mark's entire argument rests, is repeated in virtually > every post by t.o debunkers the moment they address the subject of myth. I do not really *care* about a debate about the interpretation of myth, by itself. See below. > The debunkers have yet to realize that there is a coherent substratum, > and that its existence can be (and has been) demonstrated. Exposure of Fine. .. > *hundreds of thousands* of contradictory details. It is an easily > demonstrable fact--once the substratum is discerned--that the > localizations and elaborations are the *cause* of the contradictions.) > Now how are you going to know whether what I am claiming here is true? You miss my interest entirely. I am willing to accept -- at face value -- that your mythological interpretations are correct, and discuss the *implications* of your model for the physical evidence observed in the geologic record. It would take me ages to get up to speed on the mythological background, but as I have stated previously, I regard it as potentially useful for formulating hypotheses. So, forumulate away, and then let us look at the predictions from your mythological interpretation and how they compare to the geological evidence, and to alternative explanations. If you can not make specific predictions that are relevant to this field, then you are not proposing a scientifically testable theory. Here are four outstanding issues I am willing to discuss, in approximate order of interest: 1.) geological evidence for the orbital configuration of the Earth and Moon, as indicated by tidal deposits (see the July 5 "Science" for a summary) 2.) The critique by James and I of Ginenthal's claims about Venus geology (from his "Surface of Venus a newborn babe" article). 3.) Ginenthal's claims about the significance of "whales on land", from his "The Flood" article. 4.) The evidence (or apparent lack of it) for some sort of recent (last few thousand years), global, astronomically-related "catastrophe" and its expression in the Earth's deep sea sediments by some sort of unusual sediment bed. These are relevant. They are short enough and I am already familiar enough with them that I can spend time discussing them. I am particularly interested in #1, because I have the impression (perhaps wrong) that Velikovsky advocates are unfamiliar with that evidence. I do not really care what or if you choose to discuss things with Leroy. It is your perrogative. I agree with Leroy about some things, disagree with him about others, and am not sure about many more. He is no more a representative of my opinion than a person chosen at random from the crowd. If you demonstrate he is wrong or right on some issue, I may or may not agree with you, but I suspect, from the likelihood of your focus on myth rather than testing myth against the physical evidence, that I will consider most of your discussion irrelevant to testing your scientific claims. The latter is where my interest lies, and, although discussion of the interpretation of myth is interesting, I do not find it fruitful when there are copious amounts of other evidence out there which could potentially test a particular mythological interpretation scientifically. It seems more efficient, to me, to adopt a strategy that wittles away at the many possible mythological interpretations until only one remains that is consistent with the scientific evidence. > You will only know either by going through the exercise yourself, or > familiarizing yourself with the several volumes of material already > published on the Saturn theory. Since the t.o debunkers are willing to > do neither, No, I do not consider the details of the mythological basis of an interpretation to be fruitful when I can just assume your expert interpretation is correct and test its validity with the tools I am familiar with. > the only purpose of carrying on this discussion is to > register, with an explorer or two, a possibility outside all of our > prior ideas about the origins of myth. What is the point of just "registering" the idea when you can test it? > We are here simply to leave a sign post for explorers who may drop > by. The serious discussion will go on elsewhere. So, are you saying your committment is superficial? Gee, that would really encourage me to spend my time discussing the issue. > If you have an > interest check in with the Kronia Communications website-- > http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/ > Then send along a note expressing your interest and background. An > electronic forum for explorers will emerge from this process over the > next year or so. You can count on it. I have always wondered: are you guys collecting vote committments for a renewed talk.catastrophism proposal? -- -Andrew mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae Forward Andrew MacRae View profile More options Jul 14 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) Date: 1996/07/14 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes: > Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars, See another post for some non-posturing comments. In the past, I have not found your or Leroy's preferred "debating style" to be particularly conducive to scientific discussion, because it is often rather antagonistic. Perhaps I will be surprised, but the comments in your introductory posting do not look promising (the "the blind leading the blind" and "getting a life" comments and several other jabs). It is not nice to pre-judge, but given this post, I suspect your "debate" is not going to be particularly interesting to me. .. -- -Andrew mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae Forward Wade View profile More options Jul 15 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: Wade Date: 1996/07/15 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author Tim Thompson wrote: > It does seem like a good idea at this juncture to point out the difference > between "predicts" and "is consistent with". It is quite common, even amongst > scientists, to say that some hypothesis "predicts" something which is, in fact, > already known. It is more correct to say that the hypothesis is consistent with > what is already known, and reserve the word "predicts", as much as possible, for > use with those things that are in fact not already known. I strongly differ though I feel your pain. A theory can be said to predict something, in a safe and sane manner, if that something is a logical necessity and that something wasn't part of the formulation of the theory. Although prediction carries a connotation of a revelation of that which is as yet unknown, this is an arbitrary and unscientific constraint. The difficulty lies in fullfilling the "not part of the formulation of the theory" constraint listed above. Fitting a line to a set of data points and removing one point, refitting the line and saying that the theory as represented by the slope and intercept of that line predicts the removed datapoint is rather trivial and not as dramatic and measuring a new datapoint after the line is calculated, and not as dramatic still as measuring a new datapoint outside the range previously measured. If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely. --Wade Forward David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author A few excerpts from Andrew's Macrae's latest-- > I do not really *care* about a debate about the interpretation of >myth, by itself. > I am willing to accept -- at face >value -- that your mythological interpretations are correct, and discuss >the *implications* of your model for the physical evidence observed in the >geologic record. It would take me ages to get up to speed on the >mythological background, but as I have stated previously, I regard it as >potentially useful for formulating hypotheses. So, forumulate away, and >then let us look at the predictions from your mythological interpretation >and how they compare to the geological evidence, and to alternative >explanations. If you can not make specific predictions that are relevant >to this field, then you are not proposing a scientifically testable >theory. > Here are four outstanding issues I am willing to discuss, in >approximate order of interest: >1.) geological evidence for the orbital configuration of the Earth and >Moon, as indicated by tidal deposits (see the July 5 "Science" for a >summary) >2.) The critique by James and I of Ginenthal's claims about Venus geology >(from his "Surface of Venus a newborn babe" article). >3.) Ginenthal's claims about the significance of "whales on land", from >his "The Flood" article. >4.) The evidence (or apparent lack of it) for some sort of recent (last >few thousand years), global, astronomically-related "catastrophe" and its >expression in the Earth's deep sea sediments by some sort of unusual >sediment bed. > These are relevant. They are short enough and I am already >familiar enough with them that I can spend time discussing them. I am >particularly interested in #1, because I have the impression (perhaps >wrong) that Velikovsky advocates are unfamiliar with that evidence. > I do not really care what or if you choose to discuss things with >Leroy. It is your perrogative. I agree with Leroy about some things, >disagree with him about others, and am not sure about many more. He is no >more a representative of my opinion than a person chosen at random from >the crowd. If you demonstrate he is wrong or right on some issue, I may >or may not agree with you, but I suspect, from the likelihood of your >focus on myth rather than testing myth against the physical evidence, that >I will consider most of your discussion irrelevant to testing your >scientific claims. The latter is where my interest lies, and, although >discussion of the interpretation of myth is interesting, I do not find it >fruitful when there are copious amounts of other evidence out there which >could potentially test a particular mythological interpretation >scientifically. It seems more efficient, to me, to adopt a strategy that >wittles away at the many possible mythological interpretations until only >one remains that is consistent with the scientific evidence. I think these excerpts are sufficient to make clear Andrew's position, which is perfectly reasonable so long as the situation is understood. When I say that we are looking for explorers, not debunkers, I am responding to the history of discussion on t.o. We are trying to forge a bridge between the historical argument on the one hand and physical theory and physical evidence on the other hand. Though there have been some promising exceptions, t.o has, on the whole, only obstructed or slowed down the process, by turning everything into an argument or refutation or sweeping pronouncement of "impossibility" even before the contexts of various issues are understood. And in every insance I can think of, if I took the time to examine the claimed basis of the "refutation" it turned out to be fraudulently overstated or oversimplified or just plain ridiculous. (Some examples of this are included in a post I plan to put up in response to Tim Thompson on Wednesday evening. The few explorers who have come into the process have offered precisely the reverse: instead of asking *me* to answer all of the physical issues, and to bring to them a fully-defined physical model (which would be idiotic), they have come forward to help us visualize ways to reconcile the physical data and the historical argument, and they have been perfectly willing to look at planetary geology from *both* sides of the ledger. I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts exist! And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed occur. Wherever there is genuine interest in exploring issues, rather than relentless debunking, I will do my best to carry on an electronic correspondence by email. And I'll see if I can set up an efficient way of communicating with explorers as a group to save time. Dave Forward N. Talbott David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author An interesting observation from <31EA6B46.1...@shore.net> Wade in response to Tim Thompson: >If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as >not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the >retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of >this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical >basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me >to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely. >--Wade To answer questions of this sort, the thing that is needed most is an approach as free of advanced suppositions as possible. In a sense, this freedom is imperative when assessing the Saturn theory because what is being proposed, if true, *requires* an entirely new vantage point on the entire field of evidence. A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be willing to ask--What if? *If*, as claimed by the Saturn theory, immense and terrifying planetary forms dominated the sky of ancient stargazers, then there is no question about it--ancient memories *do* have something to tell us about things modern science has not even speculated upon. Hence, to deny even the possibility that ancient memories could tell us something we don't know is not only arrogant, but self-defeating. All that is needed is the slightly opened door that Wade has allowed. With that, investigation and discussion can go forward to determine just how coherent the collective memory really is, and whether it *consistently* points to something science has overlooked. If it can be shown that a thousand symbols--all seemingly irrational and contradicting every experience of nature today--actually point to the *same* cosmic forms and event sequences then only a fool would ignore the message. No one is asked to *believe* that myth is anything more than wholesale superstition and irrationality, only to consider another possibility and to apply to this possibility the same tests of coherence and explanatory power that one applies to other fields of evidence. Dave Forward J. Gans Paul J. Gans View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author The following posting is repeated in its entirety: David N. Talbott (dtalb...@teleport.com) wrote: : : Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars, : I'm going to focus on responding to one party at a time. As : promised I'll begin with Leroy Ellenberger. If Leroy fails to : respond, I'll see if someone else is willing to take over the : adversarial position with respect to the Saturn theory. The only : exception is this: if Mark Isaak accepts the challenge I recently : posted (then re-posted yesterday), I'll make some additional time : for that little escapade as well. : : I thought I might put up a few notes and asides prior to this : weekend, then post the first leg of a response to Leroy by Sunday : afternoon. Thereafter, if some of you feel that Leroy isn't : demonstrating the debating skills or acumen you expected, you can : supply him with any additional ideas or materials you choose. Feel : free to tutor him on physics, astronomy, geology, logic, common sense, : manners, ethics, getting a life, or whatever you want. Just don't try : to explain the origins of myth to him (the blind leading the blind). : : At least in the initial stages I'll post the response to Leroy in : segments on talk.origins and alt.catastrophism, so that if Leroy : chooses he can draw on various debunker responses in formulating : his own riposte. To the extent possible, I'll review various t.o : responses myself before formulating the final draft of a position : statement to be placed on the Kronia Communications website, but : there is no possibility that I will have the time to chase after other : debunkers and try to debate them as well. For now, at least-- : : LEROY IS THE MAN. : : Dave For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an "honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not have net access. Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? Neat huh? ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] Forward Seymour Burch Seymour View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: bseym...@encore.com (Burch Seymour) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes: >A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if >an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific >understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. >But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger >of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient >memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be >willing to ask--What if? This is where one must step back three steps and be objective. What the T.O critics are insisting, is that the catastrophists presenting their ideas in this forum have not done that. Indeed it would seem they are more devoted to proving their radical notions are being unfairly criticised than they are to providing any tangible proof that their ideas warrent further consideration. The example of contenental drift has been given many times here. An idea which was roundly rejected when first offered, is now uncontested fact. Why? When originally presented the model was wrong. It was easily demonstrated to be wrong. Later work found the proper answers and now no-one doubts the idea. Myths provide an interesting point to start looking for things, but those "things" must be explainable without disregarding physics. As the saying goes, "I keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.". It is incumbant on the presenter of radical new ideas to show how those ideas fit in with established physical laws and basic observations. One cannot simply hand wave away the physical evidence that shows no such radical planetary pinball games ever occurred. After reading this group for years, I've seen certain individuals present the same tired arguments, refuted soundly dozens of times, over and over and over with not a whit of modification or acknowledgement that there might be any problems with their pet theories. After all these years it's become very clear to me who exhibits the arrogance of assumption. Here's a hint, it's *NOT* the "establishment" scientists. They have bent over backwards to examine all arguments and respond with fact based criticism. Good luck in your quest. -Burch- Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan" by David N. Talbott David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author The latest offering from the class clown: In <4sepnl$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes: >For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an >"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people >on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not >have net access. >Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? >Neat huh? > ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge to debate *you*. And as I said, just as soon the t.o howlers want to replace my nominee they are welcome to. Or they can go on talking to themselves on any issues they please, late into the night. You seem to have also forgotten that one of the reasons for choosing Leroy is that several t.o howlers are impressed enough with his contribution to spend a good deal of time entering posts for him. I fail to see where the slightest disadvantage comes in, since lack of net access has not kept Leroy from typing up postcards faster than he can think. Dave Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY predictions really" by Matt Silberstein Matt Silberstein View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote: [snip] >A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if >an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific >understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. >But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger >of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient >memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be >willing to ask--What if? You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground. >*If*, as claimed by the Saturn theory, immense and terrifying planetary >forms dominated the sky of ancient stargazers, then there is no question >about it--ancient memories *do* have something to tell us about things >modern science has not even speculated upon. Hence, to deny even the >possibility that ancient memories could tell us something we don't know >is not only arrogant, but self-defeating. That is a big IF. Yes, if it were true, it would be true. Even if the Saturn theory were wrong, "ancient memories" might have something to tell us. Denial here is only self-defeating if we would learn something from the myths. It is up to you to show that knowledge, not assert it. Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12" by Robert Grumbine Robert Grumbine View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: r...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article , David N. Talbott wrote: [deletia of Talbott quoting MacRae] >When I say that we are looking for explorers, not debunkers, I am >responding to the history of discussion on t.o. We are trying to forge a >bridge between the historical argument on the one hand and physical theory >and physical evidence on the other hand. Though there have been some >promising exceptions, t.o has, on the whole, only obstructed or slowed >down the process, by turning everything into an argument or refutation or >sweeping pronouncement of "impossibility" even before the contexts of >various issues are understood. I just requested information on a context -- namely the properties of the cloud you now say existed about the planets during the Saturn configuration -- and you refused to provide it. You (now) say this is part of the Saturn theory, and that it has important effects on the orbital mechanics, yet when the discussion went on for months around the Grubaugh model you never mentioned its existence. You certainly had the opportunity in the innumerable posts you made to have mentioned this feature of the Saturn model. >The few explorers who have come into the >process have offered precisely the reverse: instead of asking *me* to >answer all of the physical issues, and to bring to them a fully-defined >physical model (which would be idiotic), they have come forward to help us >visualize ways to reconcile the physical data and the historical argument, ? Not only does one have to invent the physical properties of the solar system (unaided by the historical argument since, per above regarding the cloud, you're not providing it) to be an 'explorer', but one must reach the 'right' (support for Saturn theory) conclusion? >I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one >reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand >pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone >discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory >but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the >Saturn theory. Again that 'explorers' must support a particular conclusion. Speaking of exploration, though, do you or do you not want me to do that exploration of tides w.r.t. Velikovsky and Ginenthal's constructions? The post in which I gave the details has been out for some time, with no response from you, and no response when I mentioned it again in a post you did respond to parts of. -- Bob Grumbine r...@access.digex.net Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY predictions really" by Tim Thompson Tim Thompson View profile More options Jul 16 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) Date: 1996/07/16 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author This time Talbott's post arrived on my server the day after he posted it, a much improved transit time. In article , dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes: > An interesting observation from <31EA6B46.1...@shore.net> Wade > in response to Tim Thompson: >> If in mythological terms, one can remove an observation, truely count it as >> not part of the other observations (this myth not influenced by the >> retelling of the other myths, other myths not influenced by the telling of >> this myth) it might be possible to use such a myth as evidence for historical >> basis for a myth. My primative understanding of myth and myth making leads me >> to believe that this is rather unlikely this an unlikely. >> --Wade [Talbott ... ] > To answer questions of this sort, the thing that is needed most is an > approach as free of advanced suppositions as possible. In a sense, > this freedom is imperative when assessing the Saturn theory because what > is being proposed, if true, *requires* an entirely new vantage point on > the entire field of evidence. Counterpoint: if we are indeed going to *require* "an entirely new vantage point on the entire field of evidence", then the interpretations that are responsible for this requirement must derive from the entire field of evidence. So, what is "the entire field of evidence"? It is the sum of whatever in involved with the open question. In the case of the Saturn Myth this certainly includes mythology, but it also includes physics (primarily celestial mechanics of the polar configuration) and geology (the interpretation of geologic features as evidence for or against the hypothesis) at the very least, and maybe more. Furthermore, not all "evidence" from all sources is equal. There is always an hierarchy of confidence, an inevitable result of the fact that we know some things better, and with more confidence, than we know (or think we know) other things. > A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if > an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific > understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. And I am one of them; I am not prepared to soften my position in the least. The precedence of physics over myth is an absolute requirement. The reason for this comes from my second paragraph above. We know a lot about the relevant physics, a lot more than you think we do. Specifically, we know a great deal about orbiting systems of planets and how they behave. This is not guesswork and supposition, and it is not loosely considered hypotheses; it is very complete knowledge, and strongly supported by wide ranging experience. In short, its confidence level is very high. But what do we really know about myths? Not much, and I dare say a lot less than you think we do. It seems to me that you are mistaking your own arbitrary interpretation of myth for knowledge about where the myths came from, but it is not. It is one thing to assert that there are common themes throughout the myths of the world, and I doubt there is a lot of surprise in the wider community that there should be. However, the interpretation that we can reconstruct the visible sky in any part, from this family of common themes, is entirely arbitrary, and the details of the interpretation (i.e., the polar configuration) is even more arbitrary. In my opinion this does not constitute evidence in any sense of the word, but even if it did, it would be "evidence" with a very low level of confidence due to its arbitrary nature. To argue that this kind of evidence should be equal to, or take precedence over pnysical evidence is unreasonable. > But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger > of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient > memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be > willing to ask--What if? This is a non-sequitor, there is no "assumption that we have nothing to learn from ancient memories"; I certainly make no such assumption. All I am insisting on is that we cannot learn from these memories the things you say we can learn. Of course we can learn from ancient memories, as they are embodied in literary myth, because they represent the imagination of our ancestors. How could we not learn something from this? However, this does not mean we can learn anything useful about celestial mechanics from myth, and I am quite convinced that we cannot. [Remainder of original deleted ... ] -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J.Thomp...@jpl.nasa.gov California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer. Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan" by Jamie Schrumpf Jamie Schrumpf View profile More options Jul 17 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net (Jamie Schrumpf) Date: 1996/07/17 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article , dtalb...@teleport.com says... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >The latest offering from the class clown: >In <4sepnl$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes: >>For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an >>"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people >>on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not >>have net access. >>Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? >>Neat huh? >> ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] >Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely >ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In >fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge >to debate *you*. >And as I said, just as soon the t.o howlers want to replace my nominee >they are welcome to. Or they can go on talking to themselves on >any issues they please, late into the night. >You seem to have also forgotten that one of the reasons for choosing Leroy >is that several t.o howlers are impressed enough with his contribution to >spend a good deal of time entering posts for him. I fail to see where the >slightest disadvantage comes in, since lack of net access has not kept >Leroy from typing up postcards faster than he can think. >Dave I don't understand why a debate is necessary at this juncture. At last sighting, no Saturnist had yet proposed initial conditions for the Saturn configuration that were stable for more than one or two orbits. Have new data been derived for this problem, and if so, have they yet been posted? Until the configuration can be proven stable for any reasonable length of time (and must this must be long enough for Ted's "reduced-felt-gravity megafauna to have evolved, or are his hypotheses not accepted by the majority of Saturnists?), I see no point of debate. Either the configuration is stable or not, and if not, the question is moot. So, what's the latest data? Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. James G. Acker View profile More options Jul 17 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: jgac...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) Date: 1996/07/17 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author David N. Talbott (dtalb...@teleport.com) wrote: : : : The latest offering from the class clown: : : In <4sepnl$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes: : : : >For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an : >"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people : >on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not : >have net access. : : >Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? : : >Neat huh? : : > ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] : : Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely : ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In : fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge : to debate *you*. So I guess I'm out of the race, huh? Ah well, I have other projects. =============================================== | James G. Acker | | REPLY TO: jgac...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov | =============================================== All comments are the personal opinion of the writer and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government or corporate entities. Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12" by Paul J. Gans Paul J. Gans View profile More options Jul 17 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) Date: 1996/07/17 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author David N. Talbott (dtalb...@teleport.com) wrote: [deletions] : I do not recall a single instance of this from t.o regulars, which is one : reason I keep asking, what is the friggin purpose here? Ten thousand : pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone : discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory : but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the : Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts : exist! : : And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general : profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would : immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed : occur. Do I understand correctly? You are here stating that there exits "physical fact[s] difficult to account for in conventional theory but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the Saturn theory."? I would be very anxious to see several of these physical facts *and* how they are inconsistent with conventional theory but consistent with Saturn theory. ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan" by David N. Talbott David N. Talbott View profile More options Jul 18 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) Date: 1996/07/18 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author From <4sj0q8$...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgac...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker): - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >David N. Talbott (dtalb...@teleport.com) wrote: >: >: >: The latest offering from the class clown: >: >: In <4sepnl$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes: >: >: >: >For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an >: >"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people >: >on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not >: >have net access. >: >: >Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? >: >: >Neat huh? >: >: > ------ Paul J. Gans [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu] >: >: Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely >: ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. In >: fact, I happen to know that Craig Standish forwarded to you my challenge >: to debate *you*. > So I guess I'm out of the race, huh? Ah well, I have >other projects. Not so fast there, partner. I'm counting on the opportunity to communicate with you directly, just as soon as you've had a chance to view the documentary. (It's in the mail. Honest.) Dave Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12" by Richard A. Schumacher Richard A. Schumacher View profile More options Jul 19 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: schum...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) Date: 1996/07/19 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12 Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author >: pages of pronouncements, and not a single instance in which anyone >: discerned a physical fact difficult to account for in conventional theory >: but strangely consistent with the hypothesized planetary history of the >: Saturn theory. One would have to believe that no such physical facts >: exist! Bingo. >: And yet a high school student would have no difficulty taking the general >: profile of the planets and finding highly interesting anomalies that would >: immediatley disappear if the hypothesized planetary history did indeed >: occur. Describe some such anomalies, please. Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan" by Scott H. Mullins Scott H. Mullins View profile More options Jul 21 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: smul...@Primenet.Com (Scott H. Mullins) Date: 1996/07/21 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article , David N. Talbott wrote: >Since I don't have the time others have for the t.o Posturing Wars, Oh, David, give yourself more credit. You do very well at posturing, to wit: [del] >if Mark Isaak accepts the challenge I recently >posted (then re-posted yesterday), I'll make some additional time >for that little escapade as well. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Feel >free to tutor him on physics, astronomy, geology, logic, common sense, >manners, ethics, getting a life, or whatever you want. Just don't try ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to explain the origins of myth to him (the blind leading the blind). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [del] See? Your posturing is just fine! No need to see that chiropracter. >LEROY IS THE MAN. By your nomination? I don't think so. Go set up your strawman someplace else. You're getting dirt on my rugs. Scott Mullins smul...@primenet.com Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Scott H. Mullins View profile More options Jul 21 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins From: smul...@Primenet.Com (Scott H. Mullins) Date: 1996/07/21 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY: Debate Game Plan Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author In article , David N. Talbott wrote: >The latest offering from the class clown: Glad to see your posturing is still fine... >In <4sepnl$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes: >>For those of you who still might think that Talbott is an >>"honest" debator, I ask you to note that of all of the people >>on talk.origins who disagree with Talbott only ONE does not >>have net access. >>Guess which one Talbott wants to debate? >>Neat huh? I did want to say that Paul's charge wasn't completely fair. I'll say more in a moment. >Shame, shame, Paul. You forgot to mention that in the past I completely >ignored Leroy Ellenberger and offered to debate numerous t.o regulars. I and several others in t.o took up a very serious and polite discussion with you and Everett on the Saturnian "simulation" you guys came up with. It went nowhere largely, IMHO, because everyone on the V'ist side avoided every substantial point or issue raised, choosing to focus on the modeler's and the critic's "credentials", their debating styles, the age and infirmity of the V'ist modeler (whose name I have forgotten), etc., ad infinitum. I took a very serious and time-consuming look at the information I was given on the "model" and it ended up that I entirely wasted my time. I blame you and Ev for that. Why would I want to give it another try? >And as I said, just as soon the t.o howlers want to replace my nominee >they are welcome to. Or they can go on talking to themselves on >any issues they please, late into the night. The correct phrase would be "amongst themselves." Hope this helps. >You seem to have also forgotten that one of the reasons for choosing Leroy >is that several t.o howlers are impressed enough with his contribution to >spend a good deal of time entering posts for him. I fail to see where the >slightest disadvantage comes in, since lack of net access has not kept >Leroy from typing up postcards faster than he can think. You're acting like an ass again, David. Hope this helps. Scott Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Discussion subject changed to "VELIKOVSKY predictions really" by Wade Hines Wade Hines View profile More options Jul 23 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) Date: 1996/07/23 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes: >I had written: >>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if >>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific >>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. >>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger >>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient >>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be >>>willing to ask--What if? >To which Matt responded-- >>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but >>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground. >Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach >that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider Needed is an interesting term. The connonations do Talbott great disservice. As in "needed to give me any chance of making an arguement" ... >compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not >believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before >you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility". Surely suprizes continue to occur. Recent reports of liquid oceans under ice caps on a moon of jupiter and even the spinning of the earth's core help us know that we don't know it all. But these fascinating new observations don't suggest that he basics of planetary orbital mechanics are unfounded or suspect. No great dogmas of science fall in the discovery of an ocean under the ice on a moon. Likewise, the recent note about a faster spinning core go well with the recent data on the faster rotation of the earth some 10's to 100s of million years ago. Nothing really new here, just clearer pictures. So you have to do better to argue for discounting scientific observation and theory for mythological "evidence". >The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own >illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many >people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or >insist that these things deserve to be explored. I've never given a rat's ass to anyones accreditation. Ask my boss or my old professors. But your appeals are rather comical to any but the most superficial reading. Try again. I'm sure you can do better. --Wade - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system, >appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will >self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more >compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will >have to give way. None of this has anything to do with proposing >impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and >demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for >the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical >evidence offering an explanation called make-believe? >Dave Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Matt Silberstein View profile More options Jul 23 1996, 3:00 am Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.catastrophism From: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) Date: 1996/07/23 Subject: Re: VELIKOVSKY predictions really Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >A brief response to an earlier post from Matt Silberstein-- >I had written: >>>A number of t.o critics, for example, have insisted that if >>>an idea arising from the study of myth runs counter to our scientific >>>understanding of things, then the mythically-based idea must give ground. >>>But on examination I think any fair-minded observer will see the danger >>>of *assuming* in advance that we have nothing to learn from ancient >>>memories. To see the arrogance of the assumption, you only have to be >>>willing to ask--What if? >To which Matt responded-- >>You propose a dichotomy where none exists. We can learn from myth, but >>where myth contradicts physical science, myth must give ground. >Yes, we've already heard that line and it has nothing to with the approach >that is needed here. Explorers will be perfectly willing to consider >compelling historical evidence for things that science today does not >believe ever happened. How many surprises from space are necessary before >you will realize "science" is the farthest thing from "infallibility". I am a historian by training. The concept of "compelling historical evidence" is almost laughable. We have problems determining events in the recent past. Just determining order can cause controversy. If I have the freedom to ignor scientific knowledge along the way I could claim just about everything. "Well, Hanibal folded the elephants into little boxes and they carried them over the Alps.", "Gengis Kahn used radio (or telepathy) to keep his troops on schedule", or "Grant and his troops flapped their wings and flew around Vicksburg". I know these are rediculous. But the point is that while examining historical evidence I constantly come up with mental models for what happened. I have to reject the ones that violate physical laws, and suspect the ones that violate other, less "firm" laws. So people can't walk 200 miles a day, they don't grow to 10' tall, the can't be in two places at once. For you to claim that physical models should give way you need a much stronger case to even start. >The t.o debunkers, on the other hand, will prefer to hide behind their own >illusion of science, declaring things to be impossible no matter how many >people of higher accreditation insist these things are not impossible, or >insist that these things deserve to be explored. If you have these people of "higher accreditation" available then what do you need with t.o? This is not a major research establishment, it is a discussion group. What would you get if you convinced these "less" people? >The fact is that, if planets ever did congregate in a unique system, >appearing huge in the terrestrial sky, historical evidence will >self-evidently be the key to reconstructing the events. The more >compelling the evidence, the more the prior suppositions of science will >have to give way. And you have nothing that comes close to compelling evidence. Have you read "The Golden Bough", the full version? He has 1,000's of similar stories and legends that he collected. Are your myths closer and better than those? Can you do a better job explaining the mythic similarity than did Fraiser or Cambell? If so, then start by convincing the anthropologists. Work towards you evidence, not away from it. >None of this has anything to do with proposing >impossible events. It has to do with elementary rules of logic and >demonstration. Why is someone's far-fetched guess at an explanation for >the catastrophic resurfacing of Venus called "science" and the historical >evidence offering an explanation called make-believe? I think it has something to do with physical evidence.