A-1 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:16 am Paolo, do you consider us here MASTERdebaters?
A-1 is complimented, he thinks... ...dammit, moi, see what you have done to me, now I am talking in the 3rd person...AGAIN!
...anyway, ON WITH THE SHOW...
An obscure Russian Psychiatrist, Immanuel Velikovsky, in the work "Worlds In Collision" published in 1950 proposed the collision formation theory by proposing a 'near miss' of Earth by Venus. (http://www.skepdic.com/velikov.html)
Velikovsky
was NOT a psychiatrist; to be a psychiatrist you need an MD degree and then years additional training, none of which he had. To be a psychologist, you need a bachelor's degree in any subject and a post-graduate degree in psychology (there is no record of Velikovsky's ever having done any post-graduate work at any recognized institution); to be a psychoanalyst, you have to be nuts, or more precisely to have been analyzed by another psychoanalyst and accepted into the fraternity. Velikovsky (or his publishers) make no claim for his having studied with any recognized psychoanalyst. The back of the book actually says that "he studied the human mind in Vienna" That could mean that he was cab-driver or night clerk in an hotel; if he had any genuine academic credentials, they would have said he "graduated from Harvard"; "he studied with Sigmund Fraud" Velikovsky's academic qualifications are remarkably similar to the "buttery flavor" you get with popcorn. They imply that the slop they put there is butter, but it's not; Velikovsky's publishers imply some academic training, but they stop far short of actually making the false claim. Far too many gullible people have not read the package label closely enough and it has created a myth of an educated Velikovsky, but it is entirely fictitious.
A-1 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:16 am Velikovsky cites astronomical curiosities of Venus, along with old writings from various world cultures, including the Bible to support his theories. Science of the day was not accepting of these ideas and scientists were not very complementary in their dismissal of these ideas.
However, these ideas persisted as "conspiracy theories" seem to today and eventually as Geology matured and escaped from the grasp of the Creationist dogmas eventually Velikovsky's ideas emerged again. This time, however, they were not as he had justified them originally. In a completely different time frame the "Worlds in Collision" theory was re-visited as an explanation for first the Earth (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111310.htm) and then the moon (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... ation.html).
Immanuel Velikovsky wrote several books (http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/earth.htm)on the subject, living to be an old man, and finally passing on in 1979 before science could pay him his due for these ideas.
They paid him his dues, pointing out that among other things, he couldn't distinguish hydrocarbons (genuinely found in some meteors and in comets) from carbohydrates (found in plant life and according to Velikovsky's bizarre misunderstanding, the source of the manna in the Bible). Velikovsky was certainly not the first person to imagine meteor collisions. This was one of the chief explanations for the Winslow Crater in Arizona, and rather than raking through pathetic renaissance writings with their confused understanding of comets and space (meteors are so named because Aristotle deemed them a weather (meteoric) phenomenon because they exhibit change which can only occur in the atmosphere but not in space where change is impossible. The Great Nova of Tycho Brahe sorta made an ass out of Aristotle and his methodology), real scientists hiked down into the crater and started digging, coming up with meteor fragments. Finding the smoking gun as it were rather than smoking whatever it was that stimulated Velikovsky's delusions.