I know I said that this post would be about the Revolution according to Daemon Nice, but due to a conflagration of events, I find myself needing to discuss some failings within the scientific community. By coincidence (and what exactly is a coincidence?) I just happened to finish reading, 'Stargazers and Gravediggers, A Memoir of Worlds in Collision' by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky and within a day of finishing reading it, I perchance upon episode four of Carl Sagan's show Cosmos called Heaven and Hell. I was curious about this episode because of its title, and wondered if Sagan was going to go on an atheist rant, as he has done on other episodes. No, instead he went on about something else altogether.
At 29:30 into the episode, he begins to talk about some radical new theories and I am thinking that he is going to go on about Dr. Velikovsky and sure enough he does. Yet, when this episode was filmed Dr. V's theories were at least 30 years old, to which, in the public consciousness, this was not new as most of the public I imagine were not aware of Dr. V's radical theories as the public memory always seems so short, especially when it comes to politicians.
Sagan begins discussing Dr. V's theories by drawling out two words, "He.....suggests..", the tone of his voice leaving an impression of dismissiveness. It gets worse after this, for he then misrepresents what Dr. V says by suggesting that V suggested that Venus was spat out of Jupiter. Dr. V did not say that, but he did report that ancient observers around the world had made such statements based on their naked eye observations. After mockingly describing Dr. V's theory, he then states emphatically that many of Dr V's theories were flat out wrong. Which would be fine except that many of his predictions were also right.
After dismissing Dr. V's theories he then insists that the real wrong that was done was the attempt by some scientists to suppress Dr. V's "uncomfortable ideas". He goes on and suggests that the suppression of "uncomfortable ideas" may go on in politics and religion but not in science. Unfortunately Mr Sagan, history proves you wrong, Copernicus was so concerned about his new ideas and the scorn he would receive from his peers that he waited till his deathbed to release the data. In fact it is quite common for scientists to get quite dogmatic about certain pet theories. And the worst part about the attempt to suppress 'World's in Collision' was that those who were attempting to suppress it, never even read it.
Later in the show at approx. 39:30 Sagan starts to talk about Venus after explaining how spectroscopy works. One thing he mentioned was that in 1956, radio signals were picked up coming from Venus. This was one of Dr. V's predictions to which Sagan did not give acknowledgement of. Then later Sagan talks about the Russians landing a unmanned probe Venera on Venus and recording temperatures at 900 degrees F. Dr V had predicted that Venus would have a temperature of at least 600 degrees F. So, while he wasn't perfectly accurate, clearly he was in the right direction with his prediction. I would even say he was more right than wrong.
On one hand he stated that Dr. V was wrong, and then on the other he totally ignores when Dr. V had been right, and then with audacity, he makes a noble stance against the suppression of "uncomfortable ideas", yet, I am left with the impression of seeming hypocrisy dripping off his words for he seems guilty to me of doing exactly that which he spoke out against. I can't help but believe that there was some agenda in bringing up Dr V's theories in such a dishonest way thirty years after he published his ideas. Dishonest in that by the time Cosmos was recorded there had been much evidence brought forward by other researchers that gave much credence to Dr. V. Yet Carl Sagan chose to ignore it.
By misrepresenting the facts around Dr. Velikovsky, did not Carl Sagan attempt to suppress a radical theory? Quite frankly, I lost a lot of respect for Carl Sagan in this episode, and I find this whole series to be presented in a somewhat condescending attitude as if the general public were children to be talked down to. There may be a basis for such a belief about the general public, but whether there is or not, to talk down to people in such a manner is to give off an air of authority that is quite unjustified. One thing I found quite annoying is how he presents theories as "maybe...." and then proceeds in a manner that elevates that maybe to a fact. This is in my opinion a most dishonest approach to science and clearly reveals a certain dogmatism.
Meanwhile there are others that have taken what Dr. Velikovsky started and have built upon his theories. They go by the name, The Thunderbolt Project and have produced some interesting videos.
So... what say you?
No comments:
Post a Comment