mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
A CASE OF PROFESSIONAL HYSTERIA

Charles Ginenthal

Even before Worlds in Collision had reached the bookstore it was
enveloped in controversy.

In 1950. after more than a dozen publishing houses had rejected
Velikovsky's manuscript, it was accepted by Macmillan. Having
announced forthcoming release of the book, Macmillan was soon
caught in what appeared to be an organized boycott, initiated by
the well-known astronomer Harlow Shapley, then director of the
Harvard College Observatory. In a personal letter to the
publisher, Shapley sought to block the book's release,
threatening to "cut off" his relations with Macmillan.  Letters
from other authors of Macmillan books followed, along with
threats from professors who could not imagine using the
company's textbooks any longer if the publisher were to
discredit itself in the rumored fashion.

Though the book had already been reviewed by several critics at
Macmillan's request, and though it was now on the presses, the
company hastily submitted the manuscript to three additional
reviewers. These too recommended publication by a two-to-one
vote.

So, in April, 1950, Macmillan decided to go ahead with
publication of the already controversial book.

Despite the immediate furor, one of those who saw merit in
Velikovsky's ideas was Gordon Atwater, chairman and curator of
the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural
History.  In a preface to a 1950 article by Fulton Oursler in
Reader's Digest Atwater contended that, in light of the
Velikovsky thesis, "the underpinnings of modern science can now
be re-examined."  In fact, Atwater himself planned to mount a
star show at the planetarium illustrating the new possibilities
opened up by Worlds in Collision.  And in This Week magazine, a
cover story by Atwater called for an open mind on Velikovsky's
theory.

But the day before the article appeared. and in a move that
seemed to set the tenor of the events to follow, Atwater was,
without explanation, dismissed from the museum.  Under growing
pressure to abandon Worlds in Collision, Macmillan fired the
editor who contracted the book, then, eight weeks after its
publication, transferred its rights to Doubleday -- a move
unparalleled in publishing history: the book had already become
number one on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list.

The many bizarre responses be professional scholars -- before
and after publication of Worlds in Collision -- have been fully
detailed elsewhere.  They include horrendous misrepresentations
of the thesis by well respected astronomers and others who had
never seen the book; repeated refusals by scientific journals to
grant Velikovsky an opportunity to reply to his critics; and
refusals to retract factually erroneous and even farcical
'summaries' of his views.

For two decades following the appearance of Worlds in Collision
Velikovsky was, with rare exceptions persona non grata on
college and university campuses and his work treated as a joke
by established publications.

This was to change somewhat toward the end of the sixties,
however.  By this time the space age was well underway, with
volumes of extraterrestrial data flowing into Earth's computers.
Stunning pictures, rock samples, measurements of every kind.
The profile of the planets were shifting with each subsequent
revelation, and it was clear that many surprises on balance
weighed in Velikovsky's favor. The unexpected, massive clouds of
Venus, the planet's strange retrograde rotation and its
surpassing temperature, the stark figures of the tortured planet
Mars, verification by the Moon landings of radio active hot
spots and remnant magnetism predicted by Velikovsky; the growing
recognition of electromagnetism in celestial mechanics -- these
and other discoveries may not have produced the pristine
verdicts proclaimed by some of Velikovsky's loyalists, but were
enough to encourage a number of scholars to take a new look at
Velikovsky's thesis.

In 1972 a group out of Portland, Oregon began publishing a
ten-issue series "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered", presenting
a wide range of scholarly opinions on Velikovsky, with many
contributors calling for a wholesale reevaluation of his work in
view of new data. The first issue published, produced quite a
stir, both in this country and abroad.  In the following months.
most of the country's general scientific publications addressed
the Velikovsky question -- some calling for more openness and
tolerance of unpopular views, others wondering aloud how to
preserve the integrity of science from intellectual con artists.

This was the beginning of some new and fascinating episodes,
culminating in a widely publicized symposium on Velikovsky in
1974, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science.

LOOKING FOR VELIKOVSKY'S COMET

Since publication of Worlds in Collision in 1950, many aspects
of Velikovsky's thesis have been debated by various scientific
spokesmen who have assured us that certain ironclad principles
of astronomy and the Earth sciences refute all of the book's
primary claims. But can it honestly be said that the sum of the
discussion so far has provided a definitive answer to the issues
first raised by Velikovsky 40 years ago?

What is the evidence and how does it relate to Velikovsky's
hypothesis?  The question of the evidence is, of course, related
to Sagan's criticism.  For some, Sagan's criticisms of
Velikovsky are sufficient to put the views he offers out of the
realm of science.  For example, Anthony R. Aveni's article  "A
Marshaling of Arguments" presented in Science, (Jan. 20. 1978),
pages 288-89, states, "Carl Sagan's paper...  is amusing, acrid,
and totally devastating...  his essay alone is sufficient to
reduce the Velikovsky theory to anile fancy...  Velikovsky is
flatly and totally disproven...  As far as Velikovskyanism is
concerned, it is dead and buried.  The final nail has been
driven. It is now hoped that we can move on to more exciting
things."  When letters were sent to Aveni critical of his review
presenting evidence contrary to that presented by Sagan, Aveni
sent a letter in response.  'My review says that I'm tired of
listening.  I've spent too much  time listening, and all of it
isn't worth listening to -- and that is an objective statement."

As pointed out earlier, E.J. Opik stated, "Dogma differs from
hypothesis by the refusal of its adherents even to consider the
aspects of its validity.  Legitimate disagreement or controversy
creates dogma when arguments are no longer listened to."  In
science, evidence dominates all other forms of argument.
Therefore, Aveni's attitude may well a personal standard for
science. Only evidence should determine the natureof a
scientific debate

In the following pages, this author has gathered evidence from
the scientific sources and cited them verbatim on each of
Sagan's criticisms. It is only the evidence that will be of
paramount importance in evaluating Sagan's critique.

WHAT IS SCIENCE ?

In his introductory remarks Sagan offers his views of science,
'Scientists, like other human beings have their hopes and fears,
their passions and despondencies -- and their strong emotions
may sometimes interrupt the course of clear thinking and sound
Practice...  The history of science is full of cases where
previously accepted theories and hypothesis have been entirely
overthrown, to be replaced by new ideas that more adequately
explain the data. While there is an understandable psychological
inertia 'usually lasting about one generation - such revolutions
in scientific thought are widely accepted as a necessary and
desirable element of scientific progress.' (5)

There is, indeed, a clear distinction to be made between the
psychological and sociological behavior of individual
scientists, on the one hand and the requirement of truthfulness
and responsible behavior of scientists in their symposia and
journals on the other. Therefore. in order to determine whether
or not Science and in particular, the AAAS symposium held on
Velikovsky reflects science governed by passion or science
governed by reason, we must investigate the AAAS symposium held
on Velikovsky and the scientific journalistic treatment of
Velikovsky.

Sagan states further that, 'The most fundamental axioms and
conclusions may be challenged.  The prevailing hypothesis must
survive confrontation with observation.  Appeals to authority
are impermissible. The reasoned argument must be set out for all
to see.'  (6)  Not only do these requirements demand that
Velikovsky adhere to the rational scientific position but that
Sagan in his criticisms fulfill these same ideals.  If as Sagan
suggests reason has come to rule passion in the case of
Velikovsky then criteria of fairness and justice will be
observed. If passion rules reason then dishonesty and injustice
will be observed.

Sagan adds, 'Indeed the reasoned criticisms of a prevailing
belief is a service to the proponents of that belief.  If they
are incapable of defending it they are well advised to abandon
it. This self questioning and error correcting aspect of the
scientific method is its most striking property, and sets it off
from many other areas of human endeavor such as politics and
theology'  (7)  "where credulity is the rule."  (8)

In order for anyone to defend his views he must have access to
the journals that raise criticisms of his thesis.  The question
arises:  Was Velikovsky permitted full access to the scientific
journals to defend his hypothesis and also to the AAAS
publication for this debate?  Furthermore, was Velikovsky given
sufficient space to answer all attacks on his evidence?

As a case in point, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for April,
1964 saw fit to publish an "abusive" article by a Howard
Margolis.

'The editor of the Bulletin, Dr. Eugene Rabinowitch, in a letter
to   Professor Alfred de Grazia (who as) editor of the American
Behavioral   Scientist   (had protested the 'abusive' article)
offered Velikovsky an   opportunity to reply with an article
'not more abusive' than that of Margolis or   instead to have
some of his views presented in the Bulletin by some scientist of
repute.  Then Professor Harry H. Hess [Chairman of the
Department of   Geology at Princeton and President of the
American Geological Society]   submitted Velikovsky's article
'Venus - A Youthful Planet" to Dr. Rabinowitch.   The latter
then returned it with the statement that he did not read
Velikovsky's book nor the article.'  (9)

How can science be a self-correcting mechanism if it refuses to
read or permit a reasoned response in the organs of scientific
literature?  Although the deplorable. irrational behavior of the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists took place in 1964 was there a
different attitude -- one more just and rational -- governing
the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky held ten years later? Was the
symposium convened in San Francisco, at which Sagan presented
his paper, a meeting to honestly discuss and debate Velikovsky's
thesis or was it actually organized to ridicule and humiliate
Velikovsky?

Professor of Philosophy, Lynn E. Rose of SUNY Buffalo published
the following letter sent to Velikovsky, in which he states,

'...I urge you (Velikovsky) not to waste any more time with AAAS
people or with their volume that was supposed to be a report of
the AAAS sessions on your work held in San Francisco in 1974.
'The behavior of the   AAAS people has been deplorable from the
start.  Their intention never was to examine or to debate your
work;  all along their intention was to find a way to   ridicule
and to belittle your work before the public.

'The AAAS people sat up the program so that four panelists would
speak against your theories and you alone would be allowed to
speak in your   defense...  Not a single scientist working with
you was allowed to participate in the panel discussion.  This
violated the AAAS promise that there would be as many panelists
speaking for your theories as there were panelists speaking
against your theories.

'All the panelists, including yourself, were to be given 'equal
time'.   Each of the four negative panelists then proceeded to
enumerate alleged errors on your part and alleged evidence
against your theories.  Clearly the intention was that these
'equal time' arrangements would permit them to introduce so many
points that you would not have enough time to answer them all.

'This same strategy is being used by the AAAS people, in the
arrangement for their proposed volume on the San Francisco
sessions.  They   wish to retain the four-to-one odds. and have
still not allowed anyone in addition to yourself to argue in
support of your theories.  They wish to keep all the
arrangements for the volume in their own hands. and to prevent
any balanced and serious examination of your work.  They wish to
provide far more space for negative comments from your opponents
than for positive comments from you.  And they wish to allow the
four negative participants to include additional remarks that
you will not have the opportunity to answer.  It is   possible
that they will not even show you those additional remarks until
the volume has already gone to press.  It is also possible that,
after you have spent so much time preparing material for their
volume, they may suddenly decide not to publish it at all, thus
leaving you with little to show for your time and effort...'

'When a forum really is devoted to serious examination and
criticism   of a man's work, the format and atmosphere are light
years away from what   the AAAS people are doing.  I have in
mind for example, the Library of Living Philosophers series
edited by Paul A. Schilpp. That series includes publications of
Einstein on Russell, and of many others.  Each such volume
includes a long   bibliography of the man's writings and a long
preliminary assay by him in the form of an intellectual
autobiography.  There are a number of critical articles
included in such a volume, but the man whose work is at issue is
given as much   time and space as he needs to reply to each
criticism. The entire approach is serious and fair;  there is
debate and argument, but not abuse and slander.  And the volume
is presented to the reading public as if it were an honor and a
form of recognition for the man who is its subject.  What a far
cry from the way the  AAAS people are treating you...'  (10)

There is a difference between the behavior of the editors of the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the AAAS scientists. However,
the difference is of degree. While the Bulletin acted crassly
and openly to suppress Velikovsky's work, the AAAS scientists
acted subtly and cunningly to give the appearance to the public
of holding an open forum which was all the while a public
relations gimmick to accomplish the same ends. We shall return
to this irrational aspect of the AAAS scientist further on.

Sagan proceeds, "The idea of science as a method rather than as
a body of knowledge is not duly appreciated outside of science,
or indeed in some corridors inside of science.  For this reason
and some of my colleagues in the American Association for the
Advancement of Science have advocated a regular set of
discussions at the annual AAAS meeting of hypotheses that are on
the borderline of science and that have attracted substantial
public interest. The idea is not to attempt to settle such
issues definitively, but rather to  illustrate the process of
reasoned disputation to show how scientists approach a problem
that does not lend itself to crisp examination, or is unorthodox
in its interdisciplinary nature or otherwise evokes strong
emotions.'  (11)  Commendably Sagan asks for 'reasoned
disputation' as the proper approach to Velikovsky's 'unorthodox'
and 'interdisciplinary' material especially materials 'that have
attracted substantial public interest.'

RELIGION, ASTROLOGY, SUPERSTITION

Sagan continues. "Vigorous criticism of new ideas is a
commonplace in science. While the style Of the criticism may
vary with the character of the critic, overly polite criticism
benefits neither the proponents of new ideas nor the scientific
enterprise.  Any substantive objection is permissible and
encouraged, the only exception being ad hominem attacks on the
personality or motives of the author are excluded.' (12)  This
statement though laudable is, however, belied by Sagan impugning
the motives of Velikovsky wherein he states  '...how is it that
Worlds in Collision has been so popular?  Here I can only guess.
For one thing, it is an attempted validation of religion. The
old Biblical stories are literally true, Velikovsky tells us, if
only we interpret them in the right way... Velikovsky attempts
to rescue not only religion but also astrology ; the outcomes of
wars, the fates of whole peoples, are determined by the position
of the planets.' (13) (emphasis added)

This undisguised slur on Velikovsky's motives by Sagan was
strongly responded to by Velikovsky when he stated,

'Sagan next presents 'Velikovsky's  Principal Hypothesis' and he
purports faithfully to tell what it is...  Sagan states, 'at
the moment Moses strikes his staff upon the rock, the Red Sea
parts...  'Later, 'after the death of Moses...  the same comet
comes screeching back for another grazing collision   with the
Earth.  At the moment when Joshua says. 'Sun, stand thou still
upon Gibeon and thou Moon, in the Valley of Agalon'...  the
Earth obligingly ceases its rotation.'  He (Sagan) later says
that I, 'attempt to rescue old time religion.'   To tell of
Velikovsky's principal hypothesis in this vein is nothing but
purposely   misleading.'  (14)

Velikovsky was justifiably incensed because, in Worlds in
Collision,  just the opposite information was presented, 'The
sea was torn apart. The people attributed this act to the
intervention of their leader; he lifted his staff over the
waters and they divided. Of course there is no person who can do
this and no staff with which it can be done. Likewise in the
case of Joshua who commanded the sun and the Moon to halt their
movements."  (15) To attribute to Velikovsky information which
he never presented in his book is essentially an ad hominem
attack on Velikovsky's personality and motives. The earlier
laudable statements of Sagan are contradicted by his own words.

What is Velikovsky's view of religion, astrology and
superstition?  In Earth in Upheaval, Velikovsky presented his
opinion regarding Darwin and The Church on evolution.

'Darwin's theory represented progress as compared with the
teaching of the Church. The Church assumed a world without
change since the beginning.   Darwin introduced the principle of
slow but steady change in one direction from  one age to
another, from one eon to another. In comparison with the
Church's teaching of immutability, Darwin's theory of slow
evolution through natural   selection or the survival of the
fittest was an advance.'  (16)

Sagan's view that Velikovsky's hypothesis is 'an attempted
validation of religion' does not correspond with this statement.
If Velikovsky wished to validate religion. his position should
have been lust the opposite.  Sagan also claims that
"Velikovsky attempts to rescue... astrology."  Astrology is a
pseudoscience which holds that our destiny is determined by
where the planets and the sun and Moon are in the twelve signs
of the zodiac. Velikovsky does say that when a planet on a
cometary orbit nearly collided with the Earth whole nations were
destroyed. This is not astrology. Astrology holds that certain
days are unlucky while others are lucky. In particular, the
thirteenth day of the month is astrologically unlucky.  Here is
what Velikovsky has to say regarding the thirteenth day of the
month,

'In the calendar of the Western Hemisphere on the thirteenth day
of the   month. called olin, 'motion' or 'Earthquake'. a new sun
is said to have initiated   another world age...' (The Earth
experienced a global catastrophe.)

'Here we have en passant the answer to the open question
concerning   the origin of the superstition which regards the
number 13, and especially the   thirteenth day, as unlucky and
inauspicious.  It is still the belief of many   superstitious
persons, unchanged through thousands of years and even
expressed in the same terms: the thirteenth day is a very bad
day. You shall   not do anything on this day.' (17)

Again Sagan's claim is not supported by Velikovsky's statements.
It is difficult to conclude that Velikovsky, who calls people
'superstitious', that believe the thirteenth day of the month
unlucky is in any way a validation of astrology.

Lastly, Sagan's remarks regarding Moses and Joshua suggest that
Velikovsky accepts supernatural causes for events. In Age of
Chaos. Velikovsky  tells us,

'The biblical story of the last plague [of Exodus] has a
distinctly supernatural quality in that all the firstborn and
only the firstborn were killed on the night of the plagues.  An
Earthquake that destroys only the firstborn in inconceivable
because events can never attain that degree of coincidence.  No
credit should be given to such a record.

'Either the story of the last plague, in its canonized form. is
a fiction,  or it conceals a corruption of the text.'  (18)

In this case it is also rather clear that Velikovsky rejected
the idea that there is a supernatural cause of events.

In the first three major works of Velikovsky: Worlds in
Collision, Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos, are concise
statements that indicate Sagan's impugning Velikovsky's motives
and evidence are thoroughly misinformed. When Velikovsky called
Darwin's theory an advance over the teachings of the Church, he
was not rescuing religion; when he called people who believe the
thirteenth day of the month unlucky,  "superstitious", he was
not defending astrology; and when he held that the biblical
story of the last plague of the Exodus, in which only the
firstborn are killed, was "supernatural", "inconceivable" and
"no credit should be given to such a record', he was attacking
supernatural interpretation of events.

Eric Larrabee remarks that Velikovsky's thesis, "in no way
involved the supernatural, even by implication.   Either
Velikovsky's thesis could be proven scientifically or it would
fall to pieces.  Far from seeking to confirm fundamentalist
beliefs (as he was accused of doing) he offered them the most
fundamental challenge of all, which was to provide a natural
interpretation of 'miraculous' events rather than merely to
dismiss them as legendary.' (19)  In fact, at the symposium at
which Sagan presented his paper, one of his colleagues,  Dr.
Derral Mulholland argued that  'Velikovsky's challenge is not
one to be decided on the basis of belief or unbelief.  He does
not say 'trust me', he says 'this conclusion is suggested by the
observations' that involve testable ideas. He is not a mystic.'
(20) Thus, Sagan's smear of Velikovsky's motives is even denied
by Mulholland.

Sagan states in Broca's Brain, page 84 that "Catastophism began
largely in the minds of geologists who accepted a literal
interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and in particular, the
account of the Noahic flood."  How accurate is this statement?

What Velikovsky had done was employ the Bible and folklore and
legends of ancient people to show that ancient man witnessed
global catastrophes. His approach is similar to that of Georges
Cuvier, the founder and father of the science of paleontology --
the study of fossils.  Stephen Jay Gould, the well-known Harvard
biologist and historian of science says this about Cuvier's
method of employing the Bible and folklore and legends of
ancient people to prove that there was a universal flood in
ancient times.

'Cuvier's methodology may have been naive, but one can only
admire his trust in nature and his zeal for building a world by
direct and patient   observation, rather than by fiat, or
unconstrained feats of patient imagination.   His rejection of
received doctrine as a source of necessary truth is perhaps
most apparent in the section of the Discours preliminaire that
might seem superficially, to tout the Bible as infallible -- his
defense of Noah's flood.  He   does argue for a world-wide flood
some five thousand years ago, and he does   cite the Bible as
support.   But his thirty-page discussion is a literary and
ethnographic compendium of all traditions from Chaldean to
Chinese.  And we soon realize that Cuvier has subtly reversed
the usual apologetic tradition.  He does not invoke geology and
non-Christian thought as window dressing for 'how do I know, the
Bible tells me so.'  Rather, he uses the Bible as a single
source among many of equal merit as he searches for clues to
unravel the Earth's   history.  Noah's tale is but one local and
highly imperfect rendering of the last major paroxysm.'   (21)
Gould has remarked '...it seems unjust that catastrophists,
(like Cuvier) who almost followed a caricature of objectivity
and fidelity to nature, should be saddled with a charge that
they abandoned the   real world for their Bibles.'  (22)

The same year as Gould's statement regarding Cuvier was
published, Velikovsky wrote in Stargazers and Gravediggers,
(N.Y. 1983) p. 284,

'In the astronomer's view, there can be no greater effrontery
than the   questioning of their truths and nothing enrages them
more than to challenge   such a perfect science by recourse,
horrible dictu, to the Scriptures as a   historical document.
That Worlds in Collision contains much folklore, or 'old  wives'
tales', was not so ludicrous as the fact that it brought the Old
Testament back into the debate. The citation of passages from
the Vedas, the Koran, and Mexican holy books was not so
insulting as quotations from the   Hebrew Bible.  It is
irrelevant that this book is among the most ancient of   written
literary documents in existence.  As the theologian believes
with blind faith that the Scriptures contain only truth, that
their authorship is from God,   and therefore, that every verse
in them can be quoted as an irresistible argument. so the
astronomer believes that where a passage is reproduced from the
Scriptures, there must be a blunder, a softening of the brain
tissue, or an attempt to hoax the credulous, as if the
Scriptures were written by the devil.

'To my way of thinking, these books of the Old Testament are of
human origin; though inspired, they are not infallible and must
be handled in a   scientific manner as other literary documents
of great antiquity.  Yet I must admit that I had a share of
satisfaction upon discovering that the so-called miracles of the
Hebrew Bible were physical phenomena, and like the disturbance
[seen by] other peoples of great antiquity in different parts of
the world, they   are also found preserved in the ancient
literature of other nations.'

Like Cuvier, Velikovsky 'uses the Bible as a single source among
many of equal merit as he searches for clues to unravel the
Earth's history." The charge brought by Sagan against
Velikovsky's aims and motives is precisely the same as that he
used to describe the early catastrophists and is described by
Gould of the attack upon Cuvier.

Velikovsky had become reacquainted with Professor Albert
Einstein while both lived at Princeton, and Einstein did read
Worlds in Collision,  which he often discussed with Velikovsky.
What was Einstein's opinion? He stated, 'not once and not twice
but also in the presence of his secretary:  'The scientists make
a grave mistake in not studying your book [Worlds in Collision]
because of the exceedingly important material it contains.'
(23)  Was Albert Einstein so naive as to believe that Velikovsky
was presenting his book, Worlds in Collision, to validate
religion, astrology and the supernatural?  The week of
Einstein's death he was rereading Worlds in Collision because
evidence from Jupiter had confirmed one of Velikovsky's
predictions.

R.F. Shaw writes in Nature (June 13, 1985, page 536) "Critics
have made much of Velikovsky's alleged appeal to the ignorant
and also to his supposed religious motivation, something never
documented and which I do not find in his books." (emphasis
added)

Thus, Sagan's accusation that Velikovsky eschewed scientific
evidence to support his theory is without substance.  Stephen J.
Gould's comment in Times Arrow Times Cycle, (Cambridge, MA 1987,
page 113), applies to Sagan's accusation of Velikovsky: "What a
vulgar misrepresentation!  Cuvier, perhaps the finest
intellectual in the nineteenth century was a child of the French
Enlightenment who viewed dogmatic theology as anathema in
science. He was a great empiricist who believed in the literal
interpretation of geological phenomena...  His Earth, though
subject to intermittent paroxysm was as ancient as Lyel's.' The
reader shall see that in the fourth problem there is much
geological evidence that supports Velikovsky's view for a recent
catastrophe to the Earth.

HOW SCIENCE OPERATES

When Sagan upholds the objective scientific model of debate it
seems strangely at odds with his statements. Why then did Sagan
resort to such tactics? Here, Velikovsky's words may indicate
causes.

'As my opponent for the fourth tournament, the astronomical
establishment selected Sagan.  To answer his nearly 90 pages and
nearly 30,000 words (1976 version), I am left with barely
one-tenth of that amount,   though an answer usually requires
more space than an accusation, especially those that are bland
and unsupported:  I must first state what the charge was,   then
state what the truth is, what I really wrote, etc., and then
present the evidence for what I said...  therefore, I am in the
position of standing against the   entire establishment, though
greatly limited as to space and time, and blindfolded as to any
additional counter arguments my opponents may bring before I see
the printed book.  I am not abandoning the project and will do
my   best under the circumstances, to the limits of what decency
can tolerate.'   (24)

Therefore when Sagan remarks, 'The objective of such criticism
[namely his own or that of the AAAS scientists] is not to
suppress but rather to encourage the advance of new ideas.'   it
is cynically amusing since it has been shown that the AAAS
scientists used none of Sagan's criteria in dealing with
Velikovsky.  Sagan continues. 'those [papers] that survive a
firm skeptical scrutiny have a fighting chance of being right or
at least useful.'  (25)  How can a response which is censored by
being limited in presenting a full answer have a chance of being
fairly evaluated? Such a tactic is devised strictly to suppress
rather than to encourage the advance of new ideas.

Sagan states. "My own view is that no matter how unorthodox the
reasoning process or how unpalatable the conclusions, there is
no excuse for any attempt to suppress new ideas -- least of all
by scientists." (26) If this is so, why didn't Sagan or any of
the AAAS scientists demand that Velikovsky be given sufficient
time and space in the publication to answer all attacks ? Why
did he and they take part in a blatantly one sided debate where
the scholar under attack was so unfairly treated?

Frederic B. Jueneman, Director of Research for Innovative
Concepts Associates of San Jose, chemist, and columnist
discussed the AAAS symposium.

'Jueneman called (Ivan) King [one of the symposium's organizers]
to   inquire about the symposium and the events which led to it.
According to   Jueneman. King stated that the intent was to
take another look at Velikovsky's   work since there was renewed
interest in it.  He also said that the participants would be
from the hard sciences, which do not include sociology.

'Jueneman asked if it might be a move to stem criticism of the
AAAS for the actions of its members in the Velikovsky affair.
King replied that to   some extent it was, but that only
individual members of the AAAS were   involved in the excesses
against Velikovsky, not the AAAS itself...

'Soon it became apparent that the organizers of the symposium
had no   intention of pursuing a scientific discussion.  King
later said, 'None of us in the   scientific establishment
believes that a debate about Velikovsky's views of the Solar
System would be remotely justified at a serious scientific
meeting.'  It is clear therefore, that the meeting was arranged,
as Jueneman said, to be a   contemporary court of inquisition,
and that the discussion was designed to   convince the public
that they should ignore the increasing number of scientists
who were taking the time to analyze Velikovsky's work.  Since
the organizers   admitted that they did not consider the meeting
a scientific one,  perhaps that is   how they justified to
themselves, the misleading and sometimes false statements used
to support their position.'  (27)

Actually the full statement by Ivan King is as follows:

'What disturbs the scientists is the persistence of these
[Velikovsky's]   views, in spite of all the efforts that
scientists have spent on educating the public.   It is in this
context that the AAAS undertakes the Velikovsky   symposium.
Although the symposium necessarily includes a presentation Of
opposing views, we do not consider this to be the primary
purpose of the   symposium.  None of us in the scientific
establishment believes that a debate   about Velikovsky's
views...  would be remotely justified at a serious scientific
meeting. '

Mark Washburn in his book, Mars at Last, (N.Y. 1977), page 95,
states,

"There is something to be said for Velikovsky's side of it,
however. To  continue the structure-of-science metaphor a little
longer, Velikovsky argued  that the scientific establishment had
constructed its own castle, complete with  moat, drawbridge and
battlements.  If you didn't belong to the club, you weren't
welcome. There was no room for the radical theorist who had new
ideas about  how the structure should be built.

"There was enough truth in Velikovsky's charges to make the
scientific establishment uncomfortable.  It was a difficult
situation.  If they debated VeIikovsky's theories in the same
manner as they would the theories of a reputable scientist, they
would be lending legitimacy to a man who had perverted the
principles of science...  But if they refused to debate
Velikovsky,it would seam that they were afraid of him.'

Based on Ivan King's remarks and those of Washburn. the
scientific establishment set up the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky
not to debate Velikovsky's theories in the same honest and
respectful manner as they would the theories of members of the
their club. To do so would imply that Velikovsky's work was
scientific. Therefore. Washburn and King are telling us that
Velikovsky's work was not discussed in the same way as that of
other scientists, that is, the rules of the debate were no
longer to be carried out in an honest and respectful manner.  In
fact, the concept of objectivity had been thrown out the window.
The aim of the meeting was to discredit and not evaluate
Velikovsky's work. What appears to be obvious, at the outset, is
that the ugly clannish passions of the scientific establishment
had come to rule reasoned debate.  George Orwell in his book
1984 called this 'double speak', which for Orwell meant 'double
talk'. The debate was not a debate.  The outsider was to be
destroyed.  And as Sagan said. 'overly polite criticism' was not
to be employed.

Therefore, the meaning of Sagan's statement. "I am very pleased
that the AAAS held a discussion on Worlds in Collision, in which
Velikovsky took part'  (28)  seems clear.  Sagan took part in a
meeting that the organizer said, 'None of us in the scientific
establishment (including. of course, Carl Sagan) believes that a
serious debate about Velikovsky's views...   would be remotely
justified at a serious scientific meeting.'

PEER REVIEW

Sagan discusses how scientific papers are properly dealt with in
science journals.  He tells us that 'Most scientists are
accustomed to receiving... referees' criticisms every time they
submit a paper to a scientific journal.  Almost always the
criticisms are helpful.  Often a paper revised to take these
critiques into account is subsequently accepted for
publications.' (29)   In total, Sagan suggests that a scientific
hypothesis offered to the scientific community be subject to
review by peers -- other scientists -- that it be published in
recognized science journals and that the submitter comply with
valid criticisms.

The question arises does Sagan himself always follow
'procedure'?  In recent years Carl Sagan has become the leading
exponent of a very controversial theory termed "Nuclear Winter."
This hypothesis offers an explanation for the death of the
dinosaurs.   If a meteor about six kilometers in diameter struck
the Earth 65 million years ago, Sagan claims that the dust
thrown into the atmosphere and the smoke from forest fires would
be so great as to have blocked sufficient sunlight from reaching
the Earth and thus caused a global freeze which he calls
"nuclear winter". Sagan further claims an atomic war would
produce the same effect.  However, in the 'News and Comment'
section of Science, an organ of the AAAS,  Sagan's use of
scientific procedure is subjected to criticism:

'A study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research
suggests   most of the world would experience a mild nuclear
winter, not a deep   freeze...  (however) the best known
presenter of the original theory, Carl Sagan of Cornell, claims
there is 'nothing new' to make him alter his description of
nuclear winter or the conclusions drawn from  it...  Sagan's
refusal to   acknowledge merit in the NCAR's (Nat. Cent. for
Atmos. Res.) analysis '-   known as 'nuclear autumn -- sends
some people up the wall.  One wall climber  is George Rathjens,
professor of political science at M.I.T... 'Is this another
case of Lysenkoism?' he asks, referring to an erroneous genetic
theory forced on Soviet scientists in the late 1940's...
Rathjens answers himself:  'I am afraid   there's a certain
amount of truth in that.  The claim that 'the original nuclear
winter model is unimpeached', he adds, is 'the greatest fraud
we've seen in a long time'...  [this has led to other criticisms
of Sagan's theory].  One such   attack by Russell Seitz, a
fellow et Harvard's Center for International Affairs, appeared
recently in The National Interest, a Washington D.C. quarterly,
and the Wall Street Journal.  Seitz. who is not a
diploma-holding scientist gibes at  TTAPS's [Sagan and his
co-authors] for mixing of physics and advertising.   Seitz notes
that Sagan published the nuclear winter thesis in Parade
magazine a month before it appeared In Science.  He writes: 'The
peer review process at Parade  presumably consists in the
contributing editor conversing with the   writer,  perhaps while
shaving -- Sagan is both.'  Anyone who wants to verify the data
on which the conclusions were based, according to Seitz, has to
set off on a paper chase'  [Sagan's conclusions] rested on an
unpublished...  Science article, 'details may be found in (15).'
Reference 15 states ln full:  'R.P.   Turco. O.B. Toon, T.P.
Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, C. Sagan in preparation.'  It  refers to
a paper that has never been published in a peer-reviewed (or any
other) journal.  Rathjens also grumbles about the hard to get
data. The entire thesis, he says. is 'a house of cards built on
reference 15.'  (30).'

Nor did Sagan's first Nuclear Winter article in Science benefit
from the standard review process.

Did Velikovsky play by the rules of peer review that Sagan
suggests?  Before publication of Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky
reported in Stargazers and Gravediggers. (N.Y. 1983). p. 87.
'The book was given to the [peer review] censors...
[Velikovsky] was not informed of what was going on...  As [he]
heard...  at a much later date. in 1952, two of the three
censors were for the publication of the book, and one was
against.'

Thus, it is quite clear that Velikovsky's book Worlds in
Collision was evaluated by the peer review process that Sagan
requires.  On this matter of peer review, it appears that
Velikovsky's book passed the review while Carl Sagan's paper on
nuclear winter essentially bypassed the review process. The only
suggestion that seems to offer itself is that Sagan should
follow his own advice.

When Sagan states. '...the reasoned criticism of a prevailing
belief is a service to the proponents of that belief;  if they
are incapable of defending it, they are well advised to abandon
it. This self-questioning and error correcting aspect of the
scientific method is its most striking property.' (31) What is
observed is that Sagan neither subscribes to nor follows the
ideals he so readily professes. Hence it is suggested that Sagan
follow his own advice. It is further suggested that the AAAS
scientists ignored not only the high ideals to which Sagan
alludes. but that they ignored the simple cannons of ordinary
decency.