COSMIC HERETICS: Part 4 :
by Alfred de Grazia
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
The asininity of the attacks by the science media and conventional scientists upon Velikovsky was consistent with book reviewing and editorial practices generally. Sympathizers of V. had an ample data bank from 1963 onwards from which to demonstrate that V. 's critics were brash, dogmatic, imitative, narrow, selective, unprepared, precipitous, vulnerable, incomplete, pretentious, possessed, unversed, unserious, unselfcritical, prejudiced, unsystematic, inexact, unphilosophical, ideologically scatomatized, vague and irrelevant -- to say the least. Yet withal Velikovsky was said to have been "buried" not once but repeatedly, and all of his supporters with him.
In a field so broad, hundreds of major statements and thousands of details offered in over a thousand published pages somehow emerged unscathed. Several scores of statements were indicted for ambiguity or rendered more doubtful. What everyone knew ahead of time could be reasserted: the prevailing theory of celestial mechanics would only make nonsense out of data presented. In addition, planet Venus probably lacks massive clouds of hydrocarbon; if so, either such clouds were never there or they burned off over time, the latter being V.'s second line of defense.
All in all, this was so small a bag that V., when it came time to write his address to the San Francisco AAAS meeting, ended it with the words, "None of my critics can erase the magnetosphere, nobody can stop the noises of Jupiter, nobody can cool off Venus and nobody can change a single sentence in my books." He knew that last expression was bravado, but he felt like sticking it in, so unsuccessful did he consider his opposition to have been. He asked Deg's opinion: should it stay? Deg was happy for the swashbuckling septuagenarian. Besides there was enough truth in it to let it go as the last firecracker of a speech that crackled throughout; why not? Fling it in their teeth. And so it stands. Since effectively it says nothing and says all, who can object to it?
I have given much thought to what kind of review might be tendered V.'s books, such that his supporters could not assail on substantial or moral grounds but would not please them. I consulted Professor Joseph Grace, a historian of science, and he kindly wrote a review for our pages, holding to a 700 word limit, such as is common.
"Velikovsky is a highly skilled and erudite scholar, who works comfortably in several major fields of science and the humanities. He has a style, an attack, that is primarily humanistic. By this I mean to exclude social science, which today has a format often resembling natural science, complete with jargon. He writes more like Ignatius Donnelly, a predecessor of a century ago, whose style is even more pleasurable. There can be only mild objections to such a style, considering the undefined and exotic, even occult nature of some of the areas he must venture into and the non-existence of a scientific language covering so broad an area. Of course, we would lose much in clarity and orderly communication if our students were to adopt it in all manner of writing.
Velikovsky sees prehistory and protohistory as frequented by stupendous natural catastrophes that call into question the stability of the solar system over long time periods, and therefore the gradualism of darwinism in biology. His evidence is limited and fragmentary, much of it anomalies that puzzle historians both human and natural. Most of his evidence must, and does also, serve conventional approaches, our received knowledge, although he insists upon viewing it as catastrophic.
His most radical hypotheses, which he expresses far too confidently, propose drastic erratic movements and changes of planets, particularly the Earth, Mars and Venus, not to mention the lunar satellite and the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn. The mechanics, even the electro-mechanics of such allegedly historical events are, if conceivable, quite unknown and undeveloped.
Here and there in his works one finds nuggets of valuable ore, some in history, some in legend, some natural history. One finds these days a plenitude of studies of meteorites and comets, a few of which he cites. One finds, too, many goods works on historical and stratigraphic chronology, chronometry, and it takes more than innuendo to shake the solid foundations of radiochronometry. One must be impressed, on the other hand, by Velikovsky's ability to discover anomalies and contradictions, especially in Ancient History. He may well be on the right track in discovering continuities between Pharaoh Akhnaton and Oedipus, and concordances between the Biblical Amalekites and the Hyksos conquerors of Egypt, and even is stressing a baffling absence of archeological material to fill in centuries of assigned time in Egypt, Greece, and elsewhere.
The reader will find many entertaining and suggestive pages as well. As for his general ideas, practically none of them can be fitted into contemporary scientific theory. The more heretical a theory, the more hard evidence must be found to support it, and Velikovsky's ideas of an electrically run universe, which he never develops, and his claims of planetary aberrations in early times to which he gives a great deal of attention, are, to put it mildly, bizarre; there exists, that is, no astrophysical theory to support them.
I would not recommend his books to anyone. Their pretensions will enrage the learned and confound the ordinary reader. Every age has books like them. I can mention Donnelly and Mesmer in the nineteenth century, and George M. Price and C. Beaumont in this century, but there were many more, which are best forgotten. The genre is well known to science and historians of the most ancient times, and one can judge the future of the books by what has happened to their predecessors.
The fact that a great many people read such works tells us little about their value as science or literature. No doubt, in time, such scientists as can be spared from other tasks or are involved with his specific hypotheses will build up what would amount to a total assessment. It is certainly too early to assert, as Prof. A. de. Grazia did after only a dozen years, that he is one of the great cosmogonists of the century."
What can be said for this review is that it gives a general impression of what is talked about in the books and how, and it does not challenge their right to be published, nor dismiss them as anti-scientific, nor berate the author. When researching on the Velikovsky Affair, Deg stimulated V. 's interest in the techniques of suppression, putting into a framework the host of items which protruded from V.'s archives. Deg told V. of a favorite old book, Henry Thouless' Straight and Crooked Thinking and explained how it might be applied to V. 's experience. V. was excited by the idea and prepared a handwritten list of "70 ways of suppressing a theory," which the two men discussed. The list that follows is largely in V.'s words and idiom. It was not included in the published work. Each item is based upon one or more concrete instances that can be documented and dated. Later on V. wished to engage Lynn Rose in fleshing out and publishing the list.
Actions of Established Scientists and Cohorts Aimed at I. Velikovsky and his Book Worlds in Collision (1950)
1. Refusal to read or examine the manuscript. 2. Charging it was not presented to specialists before publication.
3. Refusal to help with inexpensive tests through established facilities.
4. Accusation that work was not offered for testing. 5. Assertion that work has been disproved by tests. 6. Efforts to discourage printing. 7. Demands for censorship. 8. Engaging in censorship. 9. Boycott of the book. 10. Boycott of all textbooks of the work's publisher. 11. Threats of reprisal against publisher by not offering manuscripts or withdrawing books.
12. Threat against associated publishers without text books.
13. Appeals to the scientific community. 14. Efforts to influence reviewers in advance. 15. Appeals to mobilize hostile reviewers. 16. Efforts to suppress favorable reviewers. 17. Efforts to supplant regular reviewers with volunteer authoritative writers as reviewers.
18. Checking the allegiance of scientists and officials of scientific organizations.
19. Firing of unaligned scientists and officials. 20. Punishment of book editors and firing. 21. Demand that there be a public recantation by publishers.
22. Refusal to print author's papers about his books in scientific magazines.
23. Return of supplementary papers unceremoniously without reading.
24. Refusal to reprint answers to distortion of facts of reviews.
25. Misquotation from the book, and quotations out of context.
26. Copying of wrong figures into a quotation used in the book.
27. No correction of erroneous statements in reviews by anybody in the scientific community.
28. Use of knowingly false argument. 29. Dogmatic statements and accusations. 30. Setting up and knocking down "strawmen." 31. Dishonest rejoinders. 32. Defamation and discrediting abuse. 33. Promotion of antagonistic critics. 34. Appeal to religious feelings. 35. Guilt by association. 36. Treating work by association with other ridiculed or denounced books.
37. Use of fallacious statistical method to decide whether a genius or crank wrote book.
38. Writing reviews and criticisms without reading the book.
39. Copying from other reviews (even of those who had not read it themselves).
40. Innuendoes that unneeded counterarguments abound.
41. Refusal by scientific periodicals to advertise the work.
42. Warnings against readers' inability to judge work. 43. Assuring the reading (and book-buying) public the book is dull and worthless.
44. Accusing author of using methods not actually used.
45. Denials of acts of suppression, compounding perjury.
46. Omission of credit or of footnoting the work when offering "new" theories elsewhere that are contained in the book.
47. Refusal to give credit for discoveries confirmed ultimately in tests.
48. Refusal of information to author. 49. Refusal to engage in communication with author or allies.
50. Suppression of news of disputes or debates won by author.
51. Deprecating value of crucial tests favoring author's theories.
52. Concocting stories that "1000 wrong predictions" were in book.
53. Defamation in letters and intimidation of potential support.
54. Use of great names (e. g. Nobel Prize winners) for defamation.
55. Whispering campaign; private letters. 56. Intimidation of students, both undergraduates and graduates.
57. Elimination of the name of the heretic from books of reference.
58. Removal of the book from libraries. 59. Demands to place the book on the Register of Forbidden Books.
60. Pressure on scientific supporters by bribing with better jobs to abstain.
61. Grants given to disprove the book (no grants ever given to "prove").
62. Efforts, include fabrication, to show misuse of sources by author.
63. Damaging statements put in the mouth of deceased persons of influence.
64. Heaping of accusations without substantiation in quantities making any response impossible in the same media.
65. Insinuations of profiteering and other ignoble motives for writing the work.
66. Attempts at organizing character assassination and special meetings to dispose of the challenge.
67. Dissemination of selected damaging reviews. 68. Offering the readers arguments from specialized fields that they are unable to verify.
69. Generalization and complete disapproval on grounds of a single alleged error. 70. Accusation of lack of sources by misrepresenting the term "collective amnesia."
A service to the history and science of science would occur in the expansion and testing of the list. Deg wished that he might complete the list concerning V., then move to other cases in science, and then to all occupations to display the universal prevalence of misdemeanor, not so much to scandalize, nor to stop it all (an impossibility), as to expose to light the epidemic predicament.
When asked to place them into categories (for Deg was distressed by their stringing out aimlessly) V. divided them into: suppression of publication; punishment and rewards; examination of the theories refused; ostracism of a nonconformist; rewriting of history and scientific finds; control of criticism; unfair criticism; and unfair criticism continued by unfair rejoinders. Deg in his turn divided them into logical errors, moral offenses (cheating and dishonesty); factual errors; illegitimate demands; hyperbole; personal abuse; material sanctions; etc. V. was especially pleased with what Deg called "the absent footnote technique" which with disastrous effectiveness eliminates an undesired line of ancestors, such as V.
Stecchini in the 1970's pointed out that Schiaparelli was a leading astronomer but could not get acceptance of his idea that Venus was scarcely rotating in relation to the Sun, showing an "Earth-Lock" as it comes closest to the Earth. The "Earth-Lock" was proven a century later, but although it supported V.'s position was not even mentioned, when, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica (XIX, 78) connected the phenomenon with "unsolved but very significant celestial mechanical problems connected with the origins and early histories of the planets." Here is a case of partial incorporation of quantavolution with the help of the "absent footnote technique."
The tricks used against V. were all commonplace in the scientific world. Since his work was so widely publicized and since he collected evidence so carefully, the tricks were simply more completely displayed. The more basic causes of resistance and opposition, which spawn tricks, have been discussed by Bernard Barber, with a wealth of example. V. was not a sociologist. Allegations of meanness and nonrational thought exhausted his repertoire of analysis, except for his handy notion of collective amnesia of ancient catastrophe, which, he began to think, was the essential cause of the opposition to his theories; people, including scientists, could not bear to admit to open discussion their own suppressed terror of the original events.
But, of course, resistance to new ideas occurs whether the new ideas are catastrophist or uniformitarian, and with ideas that are false as well as with true ideas, which Barber has shown in the cases of Helmholtz, Planck, and Lister, among others. As Deg has argued, the great fear of the poly-ego in the normal schizoid human determines memory at the same time as it demands forgetting (or resisting memory), and ancient catastrophes were materially grafted onto this human mechanism; but the resistance to V.'s theories can be only slightly assigned to the peculiarities of his catastrophism.
Deg prepared another list in 1978. He was making up this one out of disgust with politics: he was gloomy over the practical impossibility of finding persons in the world who were capable of organizing, agitating and contributing to beneficial and benevolent movements. But he saw that the list applied also to getting support for scientific ideas and movements.
"Why Doesn't Somebody Do Something?"
Noone wants to follow
Helplessness
Hopelessness
Incompetence
Hardheadedness
General Disbelief
Indifference
Too busy, no time
Can't afford to, financially
Hurts somebody
Meets opposition
Arrogant to tell someone what to do
Timidity
Fear
Fickleness
Inattention and distractedness
Leave it to the experts
The crazies you have to deal with
Hard work
Resentment against being ordered about
Ignorance of particulars
Disbelief in use of force or any form of manipulation
Hatred of those to be helped
Lack of foresight
Interested only in the moment
Can't believe a few voices might prevail
Things will work themselves out (laissez-faire)
Fear of being corrupted
Distaste for manners of other activists
Have to work with inferiors
Suspicious of potential collaborators
Fear of physical harm
Fear of failure
Fear of being responsible for effects
No wonder nothing ever gets done!
Report of January 10, 1979:
To: University of Kentucky Press, Attn. Mr. Crouch From: Professor Alfred de Grazia Subject: Reader's report to Henry H. Bauer. Beyond Velikovsky In my opinion, Dean Bauer's manuscript should be published. It is the first generally adverse criticism of the work of Immanuel Velikovsky by a single author. The author has researched practically all available public sources. He is aware of and also adversely critical of the failings of many of the critics of Velikovsky. The book, strangely, is a likable book, which probably reflects the author's character more than the contents, which must prove annoying to a hundred people.
The book will be controversial. There is no avoiding this. Feelings run high on the scientific and sociological aspects of Velikovsky's work. The most incisive criticism is bound to come from the supporters of Velikovsky, for they are much better informed on all aspects of the controversy than the opponents of Velikovsky. These latter are usually cut down quickly. Dean Bauer realizes, though, that it is not easy to address the issues, and has the advantage of four hundred pages to explain himself and balance his analysis.
Because of the scope of the book, not only Velikovsky but also a number of his supporters will be motivated to respond. And one cannot doubt that they will have good grounds to enter the fray Let me take myself as an example of what may very well happen with others. On p. 236 the author mentions my "utter conviction that Velikovsky is right." Right about what? I am favorable to his general theories, his genius, and his defense against the almost invariably misplaced attacks upon him. Bauer might well stress his distinction between the "True Believers" and the scholarly supporters. Among the latter, there are many differences, the atmosphere is highly critical and, if they seem overprotective of Velikovsky, it is because the enemy outside is so massive and aggressive. It will add greatly to the clarity of the analysis if the author distinguishes the scholarly supporters and the lay supporters. (The word "public" is better but unfortunately has several meanings.) The scientific opponents of Velikovsky have also their scholarly and lay supporters. As for disputes among the scholarly supporters and Velikovsky, contrary to Bauer's statements, there are dozens, beginning with Juergens, Hess, and Stecchini and ending with the young writers in the current (Nov. 1978) issue of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review.
At the bottom of p. 237, Bauer shoots from the hip at both Juergens as an absurdity and myself as a political scientist, while favoring physicist Kruskal's scornful attack upon Juergens. This does not accord with Bauer's many comments upon dogmatic remarks and against extolling specialized authority. Apart from whether he understands Juergen's theory, which he does not bother to demonstrate, and whether I understand Juergen's theory as well or better than Kruskal, he takes up a vulnerable position: what qualification, one might ask, does Bauer have for writing a book of sociology, history, ethnology, and political analysis, not to mention meteorology, geology, astronomy, etc.? Does he regard himself as a greater polymath than any of us?
Then again, he contradicts my analysis of Margolis and a group of Yale reviewers, claiming that his own count in the first instance is at odds with my own. Perhaps he should reproduce, in a couple of pages, the Margolis article with my comments, adding his own. Such would be the better way to damage my conclusions. The readers might then judge.
And so on. To say only of the distinguished group of scholars who passed on the ABS special issue on the Velikovsky Affair that none was a scientist gives a completely misleading idea to the reader. Lasswell was one of the founders of quantitative method in behavioral science. Cantril was a distinguished psychologist and expert on systematic opinion analysis; etc. Nor does he stress that Harry Hess, who is sometimes regarded as having been the leading geologist of the past generation, was a thoroughly sympathetic friend of Velikovsky. Hess and I talked on two or three occasions of Velikovsky, and Hess was as eager as I to see Velikovsky's scientific ability respected. Hess recommended that his students at Princeton read Earth in Upheaval, for example. These are but a few of the hundreds of points of contention in the manuscript and yet I feel it should be published with only modest changes, because it might otherwise take years to redo it and I am not at all sure that the public functions of the book would be greatly assisted. Perhaps I am saying that the book as it stands invites a full rocket display and, in the process, the public, science, and students will become better educated. I doubt that any amount of revision will make it a definitive and conclusive answer to the rapidly developing body of work sympathetically or willy-willy aligned to Velikovsky's books. I have four books in process myself that are more controversial and upsetting to the established doctrines of contemporary science than those of Dr. Velikovsky. But I have the impression that I shall not encounter the same type of opposition as Velikovsky if only because the intellectual atmosphere has changed so much and in part because of the Velikovsky Affair. Readers perhaps will little note the criticism directed at myself and some others in the book, but they will be alert to a number of points respecting Velikovsky, and I would suggest that Dean Bauer reconsider them. He is attacking Velikovsky in 1979 partly on the basis of a pamphlet that Velikovsky published in 1946 (" Cosmos and Gravitation") and which Bauer even appreciates is not pushed by Velikovsky himself or scarcely anyone else. True, Velikovsky hates to recant, but the pamphlet is not a necessary prologomena to the later books. Indeed, Bauer's often insightful views about Velikovsky's character and motives should make him wonder whether the pamphlet was not merely a brash preliminary exercise, which vanity demanded be published as advance claims. Further it has become fashionable now to predict the doom of the concept of gravitation, and Velikovsky's musings were in a way the fashions worn in 1946 for anti-gravitational thought. This might be said also regarding the model of the atom as resembling the solar system. Only lately has that idea become discredited. Are we to dump all scholars who early in their careers exhibited what was currently believed? Then everyone will have to walk the plank.
Bauer sometimes abuses Velikovsky, contrary to his professional aim, generally observed, of avoiding inflammatory and ad hominem statements. It should be easy to revise such expressions as "astonishing ignorance" (p. 159), "supreme ignorance" (p. 154), p. 161 etc. I think that he would reap rewards if he, or an editor, were to erase fifty to a hundred non-functional adjectives or phrases.
And, in respect to Velikovsky as a knowledgeable scientist, aside from "who is a scientist besides the self-elect," Bauer underestimates Velikovsky totally. Let him ask Burgstahler (chemist), Motz (astrophysicist), someone like myself who knew Hess (geology), Hadas (linguistics), Lasswell (psychiatric psychologist), Cyrus Gordon (Near East Studies), Einstein (physics), Juergens (electricity), et al. Every last one will or would say that Velikovsky is not only a good scientist, but an imaginative one, and at home in a number of fields. I wonder why Bauer did not take the step to include himself in this group by interviewing the subject of his book. Velikovsky may be in error, but he is a scientist.
Also, I would recommend dropping the discussion of whether Velikovsky is a crank. Bauer admits that he himself is a crank, about the Loch Ness monsters. It's unworthy of this book to waste itself on this unscientific concept. I would, as Dean Bauer appears to believe, devote only several necessary paragraphs to exposing the term "crank" and kicking it out of bounds.
On p. 248, I note a striking contrast between a group of pro-Velikovsky publicists and a group of anti-Velikovsky scholars of distinction. This is a "foul blow." Either let both be publicists or both be scholars.
So, I should conclude that off-hand abusive terms ought to be excised since they take away from a book some of its good air of casual and pleasant inquiry. Cut back the section on cranks. Perhaps dispense with the sections on "Cosmos and Gravitation" save for a simple statement of its inappropriateness and its inelegant foreboding of things to come. The admirably clear piece on gases should win Bauer an excellent contract for an elementary textbook in general science, but may not belong here. Perhaps other paragraphs can be removed here and there at the instigation of a generally well-educated lay reader.
The style is clear at the college level. Many, many things are said that need to be said about both sides: about how scholars are just (simply) people; about how the general public reacts to controversies in science as to political struggles, baseball games, etc.; and about the foibles of Velikovsky (though perhaps not enough, regrettably, about how these foibles have had something to do with driving him on relentlessly and with good effect). And I think that Dean Bauer might even, in the end, bite the bullet and state that on the whole it were well that Velikovsky's books were published, then bad that they were mishandled by the press, scientists, and disciples, yet good that a million people began to read into history and science. Finally take the word of the author himself (p. 366) that an astronomer's statement that "Velikovsky's scenario was impossible on grounds of celestial mechanics was just not so." That is worth something and will win the author a medal for courage, after all is said and done.
To avoid rumor-mongering or a delayed denunciation Deg told V.'s retainers of the existence of the work and of his recommendation that it be published. "Why?" he was asked, meaning why didn't he stomp it. It's not bad, he answered, you'll see, and it will keep the dialogue going, even improving it.
Meanwhile, those who were termed by the anti-heretics "devotees," "followers," "disciples," "supporters," "sympathizers," and were consigned to the limbo of science as "benighted," "anti-scientific," "occultists," "astrologers," "fanatics," and so on, unendingly -- from these who were seriously considering his work as well as doing work of their own, came the discovery and reporting of his errors, qualification of his statements, essays at quantification, adduction of contrary materials, tempering, amending, and explaining. We need not go into the question, "Whose mass of supporters is better -- yours or ours ?" We are saying precisely that the effective scientific criticism of Velikovsky came from those who were sympathetic to his work.
It was the heretic scholars who designed alternative scenarios, in geology and astronomy, who upset V.'s chronology beyond the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, who pointed out correctly evidence of pro-Biblical bias, who disputed his identification of the astronomical bodies implicated in certain legends, who pinned down the sources of numerous uncertainties, who reduced vagueness, who found and accommodated predecessors in the esoteric and difficult literature of catastrophism, far beyond the sporadic dark hints that "nothing new" was being proposed.
To be blunt, if you want to know what's wrong with Velikovsky, ask his friends, as much as his enemies; ask his admirers, as well as his detractors. You must know the literature of quantavolution and catastrophe. It is contained by now in many books and hundreds of correctly postured articles, many old, many new, many forthcoming. One can think no longer, if ever, that by "not believing in Velikovsky" science will proceed on its customary paths; a growing parade of many different kinds of quantavolutionaries is finding its own paths. The parade cannot be dismissed by uttering an imprecation against Velikovsky.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had been established in the triumphant days of nuclear physics following the blast at Hiroshima and was dedicated to voicing the responsibilities felt by scientists. Like the playboy college students who excused his poor grades on grounds that his college was anti-semitic and who persuaded his father that his nose, his curly hair, and his name ought to be changed, whereupon, his grades remaining poor, he had to confess that 'us Gentiles ain't very smart, ' the Bulletin did change its name for awhile and had the same old problem so it changed it back again, but at this time, around 1964, was trying to boost its popularity by exposing what Editor Rabinowitch regarded as scientific impostors, and his chosen weapon, a science publicist named Margolis, settled upon Velikovsky, whence was published a cavalier article entitled "Velikovsky Rides Again."
Deg's larger and more detailed refutation of the offensive article is reproduced in The Burning of Troy. So here I may introduce a letter in the same vein from Eric Larrabee, a publicist and early supporter of V., later head of the New York State Arts Council.
April 21, 1964
The "Report from Washington" by Howard Margolis in your April number is a mixture of intemperate accusations and misstatements of fact. Margolis dismisses as "hokum" the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, which he has demonstrably read without care and judges without experience. He claims there is "no scientific way to examine" books which abound in references to physical fact. Their author had furnished specific scientific tests of his theory and on all of them to date, according to Professor H. H. Hess of Princeton, he had been vindicated. Margolis brushes off Velikovsky's successful predictions as "science fiction" and offers instead the results of his "few hours" reading in philology and history.
He can apparently read neither French nor Hebrew. If he could read. French he would not speak of the "actual" inscription at el-Arish in words from the outdated English translation of 1890 instead of the modern French translation of 1936, which is plainly cited in Velikovsky's footnote. The French translation gives the name Pi-Khirote. Margolis is flatly wrong in stating the Velikovsky "alters" the text, either here or in the case of the biblical pi-ha-hiroth (so spelled by Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos, p. 44). If Margolis had read even the English translation attentively he would have found "King Tum" (The French gives "le roi Toum"). This is the text: "Voici que Geb vit sa mere qui l'aimait beaucoup. Son coeur (de Geb) était négligent après elle. La terre -- pour elle en grand affliction." It goes on to describe "upheaval in the residence" and "such a tempest that neither the men nor the gods could see the faces of their next." The inscription is shown to be historical by the fact that the King's name is written with the royal cartouche.
Velikovsky's reasons for suggesting that bkhor (firstborn) in the Hebrew text might be a misreading for bchor (chosen) are given at length (Ages in Chaos, p. 32-34) and are not essential to his argument that Exodus and the Egyptian sources refer to the same natural catastrophe. He uses the word "obvious" in proposing that the phrase "to smite the houses" refers to an earthquake in view of the fact that Eusebius, St. Jerome, and the Midrashim all confirm this interpretation. Margolis' sarcastic repetition of the word "obvious" is wholly without justification.
Margolis accuses Velikovsky of saying that St. Augustine puts the birth of Minerva at the time of Moses whereas Augustine "says the opposite." This would be a serious charge if true but it is doubly untrue, both as to Augustine and Velikovsky. The relevant passage in The City of God (Book XVIII, Chapter 8) reads that Minerva was born in the time of Ogyges and Velikovsky quotes it (Worlds in Collision, p. 171) in those precise words. In support of the damaging assertion that Velikovsky alters evidence Margolis alters the evidence from both sources.
Margolis cannot even read Velikovsky correctly. He says that Velikovsky "can cite no description" of Venus growing larger in the sky despite the fact that on pages 82-83 and 164-65 of Worlds in Collision it is so described from Western (" an immense globe"), Middle Eastern (" a stupendous prodigy in the sky") and Chinese (" rivalled the sun in brightness") sources.
The sociological interest of the Velikovsky case lies in the willingness of scientists to dismiss the work of a serious scholar as "hokum" on the basis of slipshod, inaccurate, and abusive criticism. Margolis had proved once again that the interest is justified.
Eric Larrabee
Deg was in an ornery mood and had threatened the Bulletin with a suit for slander. V. was all for the idea consulted his friend, the libel expert, Philip Wittenberg. Deg also consulted Herbert Simon and adopted Simon's view, as expressed in the letter below:
Dear Al, I have read the materials you sent me about the Velikovsky matter. (Incidentally, I lunched with Velikovsky last week, and we are going to have him back to the campus next autumn for a lecture.) I have a few comments to offer on the matter of strategy.
As I am sure you know, there is a doctrine in the law of libel known as "invitation to comment." Anyone who performs publicly -- and that includes publishing a book -- invites critical comment, and has no recourse if he gets it unless he can show actual malice. The critic does not, in general, have to sustain the burden of proving truth. (I may have forgotten details, but your lawyer will tell you that that is the general idea.) Two consequences follow from this: (1) one should not publish books -- or issues of the American Behavioral Scientist devoted to the Velikovsky Affair -- unless one has a thick skin; (2) when one is flayed by a critic, one should almost never threaten legal action, however righteous one's feeling.
The opponents of Velikovsky are not malicious, they are indignant. Nothing about the Margolis article seems to me libelous, however much I disagree with it. We certainly do not want to imply that we wish to suppress his right to hold, or even publish, these opinions, however much anguish they cause us. Hence, if I were editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, I would politely but firmly reject your request that I "withdraw my support" from the article. He might even point out that to an anti-Velikovskyite, some of the language in the September American Behavioral Scientist might seem quite as offensive as Margolis' language did to you. C'est la vie.
When you receive the refusal from the editor -- as I am sure you will -- I would advise that you then request an opportunity to have three pages in BAS to reply to Margolis (perhaps offering the same number of pages in ABS for a rebuttal to the September articles). There is nothing to be lost by a public discussion of the issues, especially the issue of freedom to publish, and nothing to be gained by defending that through threats to suppress it.
With best regards, Cordially Yours, Herbert A. Simon Professor of Administration
and Psychology
After much deliberation and testing of the winds, Rabinowitch wrote to Deg:
25 June 1964
In answer to your letter of May 12, I do not see why, and in what form, the Bulletin should "withdraw its support from the article of Mr. Margolis." I do not understand what you mean by "your contributors and advisors urging you to take action to remedy the wrong done us." The responsibility for the contents of the articles published in the Bulletin rest (sic) with authors of the articles. It must be obvious, of course, that the magazine cannot disclaim legal responsibility for any defamatory statements, but I do not see in the article by Mr. Margolis any statements of such nature with respect to yourself or to the contributors of your journal. If all polemics over matters of scientific competence would end in court, this would be bad indeed for the climate of free discussion in this country. In our society, the enemies of evolution can call scientists, espousing this theory, ignoramuses, or heretics; the enemies of fluoridation can call the medical authorities supporting it whatever like names they might choose -- short of character assassination -- and the proponents of fluoridation can do the same to their critics. This is as political processes should be in a democratic society.
In his article Mr. Margolis, after dealing briefly with the astrophysical difficulties of Velikovsky's theory, expanded on the interpretation of ancient texts. From the point of view of the Bulletin the physical and astronomical evidence is crucial, and the considerations of what Velikovsky calls "experience of humanity," can only be subsidiary. Physical evidence is simpler and more unambiguous; while interpretations of old texts and hieroglyphic inscriptions is an tentative and often controversial matter.
Since Mr. Margolis brought up the paleographic evidence in his article, we must in all justice, permit Dr. Velikovsky (or a spokesman for him) to point out the errors, if any, in his argument. This should be done by someone with first-hand experience in the field -- either Dr. Velikovsky himself, or even better, some independent recognized authority in Biblical history and ancient languages. We are willing to publish such a letter in one of the forthcoming issues (giving Mr. Margolis the opportunity of answering it, if he desires); but, we will then terminate the discussion, since Egyptology or Old Testament studies do not represent a field of the Bulletin's major interest.
As far as physical possibility of the events suggested by Velikovsky is concerned, I mention the names of Menzel and Shapley because I remembered that they did analyze Velikovsky's theories at the time of their publication. I would be glad to have any other recognized astrophysicist or geophysicist (including the Princeton and Columbia astronomers who have pointed out in Science the correctness of some of Dr. Velikovsky's specific predictions), to present in the Bulletin briefly what they think of Velikovsky's theory as a whole.
I believe it is a mistake to accuse modern science of intolerance to the theories which destroy its accustomed frame of reference and force it to revise its foundations. Einstein proposed a revision of Newton's conceptions of time and space; for a few years, there was some resistance of the type suggested by you, but it was silenced by Einstein's explanation of the precession of the perigee of Mercury, and his prediction of the bending of stellar light in the neighborhood of the sun. If the correct predications by Velikovsky, pointed out by Hess and others, do not change the general rejection of Velikovsky's theories by scientists, it is because changes in the laws of celestial mechanics and revisions of well-established facts of earth history, required by Velikovsky, are quite different from the subtle, but logically significant and convincing changes in the scientific world picture suggested by Einstein (as well as by Mac[ sic] Planck, when he postulated the atomic structure of energy, or more recently by Lee and Yang when they postulated a physical difference between a right and left screw, object and mirror image). Modern science has learned to be open-minded to revolutionary suggestion, if they are brought up with strong scientific or logical evidence. Reluctance to go along with Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision is, in my eyes, evidence not of stubborn dogmatism of "official" science but of the physical and logical implausibility of his theories.
Your letter and its request misinterprets the position of the Bulletin. To conclude, since Mr. Margolis brought up paleographic evidence, fairness requires the Bulletin to give space to a letter disputing this evidence (provided this letter is not more abusive that Mr. Margolis' criticisms). If Dr. Velikovsky can suggest a recognized authority in astrophysics or geophysics willing to discuss his theory as a whole in the light of recent verification of some of his predictions, I would consider giving space in the Bulletin for a brief discussion of this kind.
It is in this spirit of scientific argumentation that the whole problem should be resolved.
Sincerely yours. Eugene Rabinowitch Editor
During the next few weeks Deg drafted a brutal reply to Margolis's article and prepared a letter to accompany the critique. However and meanwhile, V., ever hopeful of access to and acceptance by the authorities of physics, prevailed upon Harry Hess to submit on his behalf to Rabinowitch an article he had prepared on his Venus theory in the light of new findings. It would serve as a counter weight to the Margolis article, without reference to the libertarian and legal issues involving the Bulletin.
In September Rabinowitch wrote to Hess, returning V. 's manuscript without having read it and saying, "the Bulletin is not a magazine for scientific controversies -- except on rare occasions (e. g. in the field of genetic radiation damage) when they are directly related to political or other public issues... Neither is it the function of the Bulletin to provide an outlet for scientific theories not recognized by professional authorities in the field." He explained the Margolis article as an attempt to undo the work of "behavioral scientists" in aid of V. whom, he said, they "championed in the most violent way."
In October, the ABS published Deg's critique of Margolis, and Deg sent it to Rabinowitch along with the letter that he had drafted three months earlier.
November 12, 1964
Please permit me to answer frankly your letter of June 25, which asks why and in what form your should "withdraw your support from Mr. Margolis's article about us."
The why should be apparent in the attached analysis of Mr. Margolis' writing, entitled "Notes on 'Scientific' Reporting." This explains in detail the errors, the malice, and the legal offenses of Mr. Margolis. Unless your can by the use of evidence and reason erase those 54 notes, your are bound scientifically, morally, and legally to "withdraw your support."
In what form should your "withdraw your support"? You should "withdraw your support" by expressing in seven columns of space in your magazine (1) your acknowledgment of the excessively large number of factual errors contained in Mr. Margolis' article, and (2) your regret for the incorrect unjustified slurs upon the character and motives of Dr. Velikovsky and the contributors and editors of THE AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, together with your hope that your reader should join you in repairing in the course of time such damages as was caused by this article. My present letter could now end, as might have your own at the same point. However, you go on to make further comments that require answer.
You say that it would be "bad indeed for the climate of free discussion in this country" if "all polemics over matters of scientific competence would end in court." I answer that "all polemics" are not at issue, but only one polemical action. (You are of course, at liberty to universalize its meaning.) Moreover, "the climate of free discussion" that you mention has been clouded and cannot be logically cited as a reason for staying our of court. It is precisely to get people out from under this cloud that the law and courts are built. The courts enable an objective determination to be made of a matter in certain cases where free discussion is impossible. They permit and require the calling and interrogating of witnesses under just conditions. They prevent and remedy the abuses that you have presumably endorsed. The law of evidence and the rule of law, Mr. Rabinowitch, are the grandparents of the scientific method. They are not its antithesis.
You say that in our society, disbelievers in evolution can call scientists espousing evolution ignoramuses or heretics. You say enemies of fluoridation can call medical authorities supporting it like names and vice versa. You are defending your magazine evidently for assuming the privilege of such name-calling as opponents of fluoridation and evolution employ. Very well. Your reader must judge you for that.
"Character assassination", you say, is not permissible, however. The issue here is of course just that. I call to your attention the numerous instances, well-noted in the aforesaid memorandum on "54 ways", in which your magazine is guilty of character assassination, slander, and libel.
Your next paragraph is logically queer, for your say that the Bulletin is largely concerned with the astrophysics of Velikovsky and not with the humanistic evidence.( I will not tarry with your incredible distinction between physical and humanistic evidence.) But then you go on to admit that the Bulletin reversed itself and abandoned its chosen field in this case. (Apparently, any and every policy can be reversed to get at Velikovsky. How true we were!) And you say you want to get the historical evidence argued. Argued -- but not too much you state, for you have to get back to your major interest! Like UN affairs? Like scientific freedom? You may go back to your affairs, Mr. Rabinowitch, but not before we are done with the matter.
Now you would graciously permit Dr. Velikovsky or an "independent authority" of the classics to answer Mr. Margolis by a letter, to be followed by a reply from Mr. Margolis, and then stop! Two-to-one is bad enough. But how does Mr. Margolis deserve this reply? By his own expertness as a biblical scholar, specialist in ancient languages, and classical historian? I submit that this exchange might be equal and appropriate if I might delegate my daughter who is majoring in archaeology at Bryn Mawr to take up your invitation to reply.
A general appraisal of Dr. Velikovsky's theories in your paper would be a good idea, as your suggest, and I think you should find a set of scientists to make such an appraisal. I would not go to Drs. Menzel or Shapley, whose participation in the Velikovsky case, as documented in Harper's and The American Behavioral Scientist, has been most unbecoming Your hazy remembrance of their posture is scarcely a firm basis for risking the reputation of your magazine and colleagues. Besides the balance of evidence has continued to shift between 1950 and 1964. Do read that document; your must take the time : you and your writer cannot decently continue to ignore all the factual record of the case.
Still, all of this is not the central point, which is the behavior of scientists, and you do well to return to it in your last two paragraphs. There you first say that modern science is not intolerant of unorthodox theories. This is not so; even the case you cite, Einstein, was in your own words victim of "some resistance" of the type the ABS described. But even if it were so generally, why would you unscientifically and dogmatically refuse to recognize an "unusual" case of resistance when it loomed before you?
How can you say that the actions taken concerning Velikovsky and his theories was tolerant? Please state one procedure, whose value your would defend, for that reception and consideration of new scientific material, which was followed by the leadership of science in the Velikovsky case. Show us that he was given one key to the kingdom. I believe, as you seek to do so, you will gradually eliminate from consideration all the decent and rational procedures that are supposed to govern the behavior of scientists. In the end you will either be indignant or a cynic. You will not be the Rabinowitch whose letter I am replying to.
I must end in laughter, which I hope you will forgive. For you conclude by permitting Dr. Velikovsky to answer by letter "provided this letter is not more abusive than Mr. Margolis' criticisms!" I am not clear whether you are here defining the outer limits of abuse, or whether you suggest pursuing scientific truth by balancing two sets of slander.
Go back to my beginning, sir; you will find our two requests to be generous offers made in the veritable "spirit of scientific argumentation" that you appeal to.
Sincerely yours,Thank you for your letter of November 12th. I can only add my appreciation that you published the full Margolis article in The American Behavioral Scientist. Your readers may judge.
Sincerely, Eugene Rabinowitch Editor
December 3, 1964
We acknowledge your appreciation of our fairness. Does your
appreciation mean that you, too, will be fair to us and present
our rebuttal before your readers?
Sincerely yours,
Alfred de Grazia
The rebuttal was not carried by the Bulletin. A great many scientists had their prejudices reinforced at the expense of V., Deg, and the ABS. In the final analysis and many year later, Deg's indignation seems overdone, and it is doubtful that he ever had the intention of suing, but he was up to his typical game of driving home contradictions and pounding away at the basic homology between legal and scientific procedure. Furthermore, while discounting his rhetoric, I should also call attention to specific instances of the damage caused by irresponsible behavior in scientific circles tied directly to the Bulletin article: one on the matter of fluoridation, on an exchange between Urey and Deg, and two to be treated in chapter 15 on "The Knowledge of Industry" involving the Sloan Foundation, Moses Hadas, and a project of Deg in economics.
July 17, 1996
Since writing you earlier in connection with my review of "A Struggle With Titans, " I have been reading the various documents cited in "The Velikovsky Affair."
One that particularly "struck" me was the article by Howard Margolis in the April 1964 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that your ably dissected in the October 1964 issue of the American Behavioral Scientist.
What came as an even greater surprise, however was the article written by Margolis about fluoridation in the June 1964 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. By failing to take note of published reports of toxic effects from fluoridated drinking water, he constructs a very favorable case for fluoridation and makes his opponents appear to have no scientific grounds on which to oppose it! Since you were able to show that Margolis is not a good philologist, I thought it might be worth pointing out that he also has not read the fluoridation literature very thoroughly. The major documents he cited to support his view are guilty of omission just as he is. The one that was prepared in 1955-1956 is hardly relevant to "current" findings, while the "Select" bibliography is no more that a compilation of proponent research, with virtually no mention of contrary results reported by others, especially in relation to clinical findings.
I realize your interests lie primarily in the area of the "sociological" aspects of a subject like fluoridation, but the strong scientific evidence against fluoridation has been kept so heavily suppressed that there is a close parallel to "The Velikovsky Affair." Our own local public library, I might add, has refused to accept or acquire a copy of "A Struggle with Titans" on the grounds that the standard reviewing media have ignored it -- just as they are ignoring "The Velikovsky Affair"!
Sincerely yours, Albert W. Burgstahler Professor, of Chemistry The University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas
June 2, 1964
Dear Dr. de Grazia: I am sorry to see that you have gotten mixed up in the Velikovsky case. Velikovsky was a charlatan. There is just no doubt about it at all. It is not true that outstanding astronomers would not welcome a truly original man with constructive ideas. We would put him on the staff of the University of California San Diego. I do think that you should try to withdraw from this controversy as gracefully as possible and not continue it. I assure you that every physical scientist of my acquaintance will rise to defend the Bulletin against anything you do.
I am terribly concerned at present about the lack of control in scientific publication. Science had always been aristocratic. Not everyone could get his ideas published in effective journals. Articles to the scientific magazines have been carefully edited, and unless they conformed to reasonable scientific standards they were refused. Today anyone can publish anything. In the first place, very second-rate scientists can get jobs somewhere -- with industrial companies, government agencies, the space program, etc. They all have their private printing press in the back room, namely a reproduction device, As a result, papers of all sorts are sent out. Also there are new journals springing up with no decent editorial control whatever. The result is an enormous amount of confusion. In fact, as I have stated and I now repeat, there is often so much noise that one cannot hear the signals.
With best regards,
Very sincerely,
Harold C. Urey
Deg's Journal, June 29, 1964
... Velikovsky had palpitations last week. For several days his pulse was irregular. He has gone into a three day period of rest and is taking a little tranquilization by drugs. He has been traveling too much and spending too much time trying to direct strategy in his scientific defense. A letter I received from Harold Urey depressed him greatly. Identifying as he does with authority, V. is hurt when a Noble Prize winner for chemistry refers to him as a charlatan. What can he be expecting? I have not been able to educate him to the sociology and political science of science. He believes in rationalism and that other experts only by odd mistake "because they haven't read his works," treat him so contemptuously and with hostility. V. wrote what he thought should be my reply. (Sometimes his presumption becomes arrogant.) It was a strange letter, full of pathos and humble remonstrance. I could not and would not use it. It is an interesting document about V. himself. It would do him no good even if I were to use it. Yet he was deeply perturbed when I informed him I was sending my own letter of reply. He claimed that his was a perfect letter, which he was proud of, and felt must be sent. It was then I learned of his palpitations. The thought occurred: the strangeness of this letter goes with a nervous disturbance. He desperately wanted me to send his letter; he mailed it by special delivery to New York where I was and phoned to press me about it. In a week or two, when his illness is passed, he may be secretly pleased that I went by own way. I spoke later to his wife. She seemed displeased with me too. She, too, will come around. She confirmed how "hurt" he was by the Urey letter. Urey is a --------! What better could come from him. His letter to me is a disgrace and I mean to call it that.
July 8, 1964
Thank you for your letter of June 2. I appreciate your concern that I may "have gotten mixed up in the Velikovsky case." Since everyone whose attention is called to the case has gotten mixed up in it, in one way or another, I guess that I am in good company.
Your second sentence is that "Velikovsky was a charlatan." He neither "was" nor is a charlatan. Resort to your nearest dictionary will satisfy you on that score. If you insist that you have not made a linguistic error, then you must give me one, just one, bit of evidence to support your allegation. Indeed, your next sentence is "There is just no doubt about it at all." Since you are a scientist and know the nature of proof, you must have a great many pieces of evidence, adding up to certainty. If you cannot cite such evidence, then you must apologize to Velikovsky, or you become yourself a charlatan and slanderer.
Your may refuse this challenge. Very well. We do not usually carry substantive discussions of factual theory in the American Behavioral Scientist, but if you will honor us with one significant error of fact or logical contradiction in Velikovsky's
works we will print it and let it go at that, for we are not concerned to solve the problems of physics and astronomy, or politics and economics in our pages. I know that you will have no trouble with this small matter; I could probably manage it myself; that Mr. Margolis could not succeed, nor some others who tried, does not prove that the works are flawless. Then you say, "It is not true that outstanding astronomers would not welcome a truly original man with constructive ideas." I am afraid, Dr. Urey, that you will be hard put, in the light of the history of science, to maintain this statement also, unless you would again resort to evasive semantics, defining the words "truly original" and "constructive" to suit your ends. Your saying that "we would put him on the staff of the University of California, San Diego" could be regarded as an idle threat if it were not for the well-known anxiety of certain California colleges to discover warm bodies wherever they may be.
You thereupon urge me to withdraw from the controversy. Actually, I had done so; but the stupid brazenness of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' article brought to me a sharp realization that many of your kind simply will not learn. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny:" every error of the scientific mind and spirit in the history of the Velikovsky case was by almost preternatural skill recomposed into a few columns of the Bulletin. This you ask me to swallow!
The controversy will continue. You say the "every physical scientist of my acquaintance will rise to defend the Bulletin against anything you do." Perhaps you will not have as many acquaintances as you claim and they will not be willing to act as your troop if they, or at least several of them, were to read the pages of the American Behavioral Scientist and compare them with the article of the science correspondent of the Bulletin. (Isn't it interesting that the scientists' Bulletin should have to hire a non-scientist to write about science for them?)
You have, it is clear, a rather horrifying vision of science. You gently threaten me, you promise to bring in your gang, and then you begin to reveal the utopia that occupies your mined. "I am terribly concerned at present about the lack of control in scientific publication," you write; "Science has always been aristocratic. Not everyone could get his ideas published in effective journals. Articles in the scientific magazines have been carefully edited, and unless they conformed to reasonable scientific standards they were refused. Today anyone can publish anything."
I, too, Dr. Urey, am concerned about scientific publication. I am not, however, concerned about the lack of control by the scientific oligarchy, as you are, but by the lack of communications, the haphazard and chaotic situation that is caused as much as anything by a defective leadership in the sciences. Your kind of scientific aristocracy is precisely the reason why your subsequent claims are laughable: if there is any villainous theme in the history of science, it is the continuing attempt to deny a voice in the organs of science to iconoclasts, outsiders, and just plain kleine Menschen.
You will be responsible for retarding the progress of science if you succeed in reestablishing the old system of information controls. You should turn your attention to organizing scientific information rather than to suppressing it.
Similarly you should be pleased that more of our working population today are scientists, rather than coalminers or ditchdiggers. Indeed you seem to be angry with them for pretending to perform the same operations as are practiced by you happy few. "... Very second-rate scientists can get somewhere -- with industrial companies, government agencies, the space program, etc. They all have their private printing press in the back room..." Einstein with his patent-office job, Da Vinci doing his civil engineering, Freud setting up his own printing press, Darwin idling on his patrimony -- there certainly are a great number of these second-raters, without university chairs, not content to eat common fodder and let their intellectual ambitions expire peacefully!
I am beginning to see your point. You would wish only first-rate scientists such as Howard Margolis, formerly a science writer for The Washington Star and now correspondent for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, to have freedom of scientific expression. Your idea would be to have a kind of Empire such as Alice discovered in Wonderland where the knighthood of science is conferred by your power elite and the Sir Margolises can be sent out to harry any peasants who may have the temerity to poach upon the truth.
Your conditions for peace are not acceptable, Dr. Urey. Our condition is that science be open and public, and remain so. If you wish to alter your conditions substantially we would be pleased to hear from you again. Meanwhile, with regards to your work on tektites, I remain
Respectfully yours,
Alfred de Grazia
In the first place, both the establishment (for it can be called such also on these occasions when it puts on a face) and the heretics chose a deceptive yet revealing title: "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science." V. would never allow himself to be called a non-scientist; yet, to have his name in the limelight, he allowed himself to be juxtaposed to science. Simultaneously, the establishment (that is, the government ad rem in charge of the state of science), in order to isolate the heretic, allowed the personalization of the panel, in itself an abuse of the scientific method which addresses itself to ideas, not men. Might not a better title have been "The Validity and Prospects of Neo-catastrophism"? Then with eight papers, four on each side, the topics of the mechanics, the electromagnetics, the historical record, and the reception of neo-catastrophism in science could be taken up.
Did V. want to appear without support on the stage, keeping the spotlight, whether for the hero or the martyr, upon himself, and therefore did he not fight hard enough to ensure himself that support? He ended up with two neutral parties, the opposition of a biased chairman, and three convinced antagonists eager for the fray. Surely there must have been some masochistic force at work in him, coupled with an extremely clever Machiavellism: a pro-Velikovsky paper would do nothing for V.'s image as a great scientific loner and martyr.
If the one man who knew the Venus historical record best, Lynn Rose, had been present, he could have devastated, on the spot and forever after, the presentation made by Huber. It would have been ineradicable from the book that followed, entitled Scientists Confront Velikovsky. If Juergens had been forced into the panel by V. then Mulholland would have been finished off. If Deg had been invited, he would probably not have gone, but if he had, he might have effectively harried Sagan and Storer, considering what these two ended up by saying. Then V. would have been off and running.
Instead, it was a gruesome exercise at V.'s cost, then and thereafter. He behaved magnificently, like Samson dragging down the temple of the Philistines upon himself. He won the crowd. The press, ignoring the crowd, and incapable of reading the papers, pronounced him dead. V. did not really go to San Francisco to have the crowd be with him. He went there to gain scientific recognition. Or did he get mixed up and rely upon the crowd, and hope for a victory against impossible odds while cultivating the fantasy of martyrdom ?
The establishment -- and Professors King and Goldsmith, the official sponsors, found themselves irresistibly playing the roles of the establishment -- was quite pleased to let the panel develop into an over-kill of V. It could not even conceal its hope when explaining the public presentation of the symposium. King, who was the Chairman of the panel, explained privately that he was so anxious over the responsibility of presenting V. at a scientific forum that he had to persist in saying that the purpose of the symposium was to refute a set of ideas that science had proven absurd. Actually he said so publicly beforehand:
What disturbs the scientists is the persistence of these 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 us in the scientific establishment believes that a debate about Velikovsky's views of the Star system would be remotely justified at a serious scientific meeting.
Now I would like to quote the economist Shane Mage's booklet, Velikovsky and His Critics, because of its elegant conciseness. Besides, he was present at the occasion, and neither Deg nor I was there.
What took place in San Francisco was... the beginning of a real debate, even if it often seemed to those of us in attendance like a donnybrook. Of the six invited panelists, one, Norman Storer (Prof. of Sociology, Baruch College of CUNY) disavowed competence in any aspect of the subject but nevertheless managed to conclude that the mistreatment of Velikovsky, though abstractly deplorable, was also an "understandable" response of the "scientific community" to a perceived "attack by right-wing forces in American society. Velikovsky himself presented a short paper outlining the basis of, and some of the evidence for, his Challenge to Conventional Views in Science, and often took the floor vehemently to rebut specific criticisms. His views on the importance of electrical forces in celestial mechanics also received strong support from Professor Irving Michelson (Mechanics, Illinois Institute of Technology), who described his paper Mechanics Bears Witness as "an act of objective scholarship," intended to be neither pro or anti-Velikovsky.
The polemic against Velikovsky was conducted by two Professors of Astronomy (Carl Sagan, Cornell University, and J. Derral Mulholland, University of Texas) and one Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Peter Huber, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). Almost all the media coverage of the panel consisted of favorable citations of these three contributions, especially Sagan's very long essay entitled An Analysis of Worlds in Collision. In the absence of Sagan, who left before all papers had been read in order to attend a taping of "the Johnny Carson Show," a vigorous discussion, involving audience as well as the remaining panelists, continued for almost two hours after conclusion of the formal presentations. Both sides claimed victory.
The logical next step was publication of the symposium proceedings, but of the panelists only Velikovsky was willing to permit publication of an integral transcript of the speeches and the floor discussion. Lengthy negotiations failed to arrive at a mutually agreeable format, and ultimately the two parties decided to publish separately.
The anti-Velikovsky case was presented by Cornell University Press under the title Scientists Confront Velikovsky (hereafter referred to as S c. V). In addition to revised versions of the AAAS papers by Sagan, Mulholland, Huber, and Storer, this volume also includes a paper by Prof. David Morrison (Astronomy, University of Hawaii), prepared, in its original form, for a 1974 conference sponsored by the editors of Pensée . There is also an introduction by Dr. Donald Goldsmith, editor of S c. V and organizer of the AAAS panel, and a foreword by the novelist and authority on heresiology Isaac Asimov. From the proclaimed standpoint of "scientific orthodoxy" Asimov begins by raising the question "What does one do with a heretic?", with specific reference to Velikovsky; goes on, with unimpeachable orthodoxy, to write that Velikovsky's proposed physical explanation for catastrophic events recorded in the Bible is a "far less satisfactory hypothesis" than is "the hypothesis that divine intervention caused the miracles", and concludes that "Velikovskians" are totally impervious to any amount of "mere logic." (S c. V, pp. 8-15) He does not, however, recommend that they be turned over to the secular arm...
The AAAS volume is presented by its sponsors as "a full scale critique" (Goldsmith, S c. V, p. 27) which, according to the review commissioned by the AAAS Journal Science, accomplishes a definitive refutation of Velikovsky's "downright preposterous" heresy. The essays in this book "utterly lay waste his theories." Sagan's paper "is amusing, acrid, and totally devastating... his essay alone is sufficient to reduce the Velikovsky theory to anile fancy," and "Velikovsky is flatly and totally disproven... As far as Velikovskianism is concerned it is dead and buried. The final nail has been driven." (Science, v. l99, Jan. 20, 1978, pp. 288-9)
Was this appraisal accurate? Referring to the trial by press, yes. V. was further damaged in the eyes of scientists everywhere. Speaking of substance, whether of the symposium or of the papers, it was not true. The arguments of Sagan, Mulholland, and Morrison were mostly well-known and those of Huber (the surprise amateur of ancient Babylonian tablets) had been long ago considered by Stecchini and Rose. Additions and revisions allowed to the writers did little to bolster their defenses when it came time to publish the book Scientists Confront Velikovsky. An early analysis of the enemy dispositions appeared in Pensée ; then, in two issues of Kronos (III2 and IV3), and in pieces appearing elsewhere, supporters of V., forced to waylay the establishment speakers in the alleyways, stripped them of their arguments. The Cornell University Press, a willing captive of circumstances, which might have published a fascinating, meaty volume on the issues, published one poor lopsided volume, and sold paperback rights to W. W. Norton Company. The heretics remained in the alleyways. Scarcely any reviews (except those of the heretics) put the opposing volumes side by side and compared them judiciously, or even savagely.
I shall not go into the several dozen points of contention here, and will take Deg's word for it that the substance of the full arguments did more good than harm for a considerable range of quantavolutionary hypotheses, including some precisely attributable to V.
Shane Mage, in appraising the speeches against V., uncovered in them several important concessions that had been apparently achieved over the years. First, the book Scientists Confront Velikovsky "disavows and repudiated the entire 'Scientific polemic' of the 1950's and 60's both implicitly and explicitly." Next, both the sponsor, Goldsmith, and Mulholland assert that V. 's ideas and arguments are not "un" nor "anti"-scientific, whatever the press and then the scientific community presumed to draw from the event. Furthermore, the legitimacy of cosmic catastrophic hypotheses in science was acknowledged both by Sagan and Mulholland, but the specific hypotheses of V. were attacked (and obviously the scientists are in confusion as to how they can work historically and empirically with the hypotheses that they admit.)
In line with my earlier suggestion, a different and more proper title would have brought these most important areas of agreement to the fore. If these would have been the subjects of the panel, and if Velikovsky had been only one out of eight panel members and authors, four of whom would have adopted positive positions and four adversary positions, then the world of science would have been much impressed and enlightened, and the heretics might have surrendered their weapons with honor. V. himself would have acquired many scientific allies and be better received from then on in discussions among scientists; hundreds of hours of anxious and resentful negotiations and dispute would have been avoided; and many fresh minds might have been inspired to enter the newly opened field of quantavolution. The AAAS affair was a great opportunity lost to quantavolution by V. and the establishment agents.
Deg disliked the word "heretic." I mentioned so earlier. Perhaps I should have renamed this book. To him the word was un-American. It was one more useless nuisance for indulging V. 's self-image. True, the dictionaries include it with its modern meaning, "one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine of any kind," but in a modern democracy, he said, the occasions for heresy are innumerable, while, without severe sanctions, the hysterical historical pitch of the word is absent.
Whereas V. called himself a heretic both in respect to religion and to science, he chose to stress science as the offending authority. In his day, in Western Europe and America, the idea of heresy hardly held meaning for the larger society, although it could be effective in the ambiance of, say, Catholicism or Presbyterianism; even here one had to lay claim to authority heretically within the group itself.
V. was determined to be a heretic from within science but to do so one had to be a scientist in the first place, and one of the childish games played between the scientists and V. had to do with whether he was indeed a scientist and therefore properly within science's jurisdiction to be adjudged heretical. Logically, we are back with Alice in Wonderland and not the least of the skits form never-never land was the massive attack upon V. launched in the name of science and culminating in the book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky.
Here, from the beginning, the scientists promoting the event at the AAAS meeting in San Francisco, were befuddled. Yes, they felt, they had to defrock V., but to do so they had to frock him and admit him to their canonical court.
But to admit him they had to claim jurisdiction over him; that is, they had to legitimize him by allowing him to debate his ideas with them. One can perceive this strain and stress clearly from beginning to end of the touted confrontation over a period of years. The promoters, King et al., would say, we are not meeting to discuss V. but only to make it clear that he is not speaking as a scientist. And then, of course, they proceed by the only modern way science knows, to refute him as a scientist in public argument.
When the time came to publish Scientists Confront Velikovsky the establishment, operating by queer contradiction, obtained the good services of author, Isaac Asimov, the most famous popularizer of science and science fiction to introduce the work, admitting ipso facto that its contents alone would not fulfill the contract put out on V.
Then what does Asimov do but fall into the pit of scholasticism by spending his precious few pages as an instant expert on heresy. He accepts the fractured word and further mangles it. He concocts and improperly applies a distinction between two kinds of heretics, those who commit heresies from inside the system and those who do so from the outside. The first type can be sometimes correct, the second never. V. was the never-correct type. Says Asimov, "Public support or no, the exoheretic virtually never proves to be right. (How can he be right when he, quite literally, doesn't know what he is talking about?)"
Lest he be pilloried for such bold statements, Asimov has insured himself by the most vulgar kind of verbal trickery: he makes insiders out of outsiders if they have "reached the peak of professional excellence" whatever that is. So naturally -- once again he says it -- "the exoheretic... is virtually never right, and the history of science contains no great advance, to my knowledge, initiated by an exoheretic." There is no arguing with such foolishness. The foolishness, I must add, is compounded by self-contradiction, for is not Asimov's gun hired to introduce this book because he has a large public that buys books? So here is Asimov, the outsider, depending upon the public which, he says, is always wrong, to follow him in his denunciation of heresy.
But matters become worse for Isaac Asimov. He says that the scientific establishment (calling it the "scientific orthodoxy") is "completely helpless if the heretic is not a professional scientist -- if he does not depend on grants or appointments, and if he places his views before the world through some medium other than the learned journal." That is, the establishment can withhold grants, appointments, and publication from its own heretical members, but cannot from "exoheretics" or outsiders. That leaves the public as the only outlet for the exoheretic's views, but Asimov says that the public is never right: "the appeal to the public is, of course, valueless form the scientific standpoint." He does not seem to realize that he is condemning himself and science, for he seems to approve this situation while granting that in rare instances an inside heretic is incorrectly punished. I cannot easily believe that the two publishers (Cornell University and W. W. Norton) and the several authors, especially not the clever Carl Sagan -- but how can one watch out for everyone's business? -- did not read carefully the few passages that prefaced their great act.
In the years of which we speak, Deg had a part to play in the establishment and it was not a bad life. He turned up in Washington form time to time. He lunched with his friend "Kirk" Kirkpatrick, Executive Director of the Political Science Association, where he was for a time a Council Member, or at the Senate or the Cosmos Club with friends; Bill Baroody was funding some of his writings from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Earl Voss and Tom Johnson there were pleasant companions; it was a smallish show, then, close to the Republican Presidents and Conservative after his direct relations with it ceased. Deg knew a number of Congressmen. He had access to the U. S. Office of Education when Frank Keppel of the Harvard Graduate School of Education had gone to run it, for he had worked with Keppel at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and had been offered appointment there. He consulted with the Department of Defense when "winning the hearts and minds" of Vietnamese was top priority, and went to Vietnam on a panel requested by General Westmoreland, then Commander-in-chief. He had acquaintances who were in the top echelons of half a dozen great companies, and half a dozen of the large foundations, others who were millionaires, UN ambassadors and bureaucrats, New York politicians, and so on. He helped leaders like Nelson Rockefeller on occasion (without compensation). He went as a delegate to UNESCO. He helped the Publisher of Life magazine to help the American Jewish Committee to establish better relations with the Vatican, and was shoved by a wily Spanish Priest for a moment into the ample arms of dear old wobbly-eared reformer, Pope John XXIII.
The New York University President, James Hester, also from Princeton, was as friendly as he could be to a faculty troublemaker. The departmental faculty itself was to Deg's ways of thinking too petty, unintellectual and anarchic to launch upon large schemes, and moreover his giant University was always in a state of imminent financial collapse. After his first year there, he had to bring in practically all of the funding for his projects from foundations and gifts, which is no so difficult when one is in the swim of things. His middle-level university income from his tenured appointment was supplemented by consulting fees, honoraria, and grants. He spent all the money that he could spare on his American Behavioral Scientist, which was felt to have a good influence on social science research, and gave him editorial influence, whether critical, or to help friends, or to assist students and up-and-coming scholars to get ahead.
Publishers were easy to come by. Advances were generous for textbooks, subsidies for the others. Complimentary books flooded his library. He could stop at practically any university in the world and be invited to lecture, dine, discuss. He traveled abroad often, always with jobs to do, always funded at least in part by some agency (never The Agency) or foundation.
To hear him tell the story, he could have gone on and on this way with la dolce vita, spreading his wings of influence over more and more people, things and activities. He could have dawdled more with attractive women, driven a new car, worn new suits, written books with ex-Presidents, etc. Why this was actually his way, his route, his fate, could have been foretold in childhood. I doubt that he fully realized it. But perhaps enough of the reasons become evident in the pages of this book to preserve us from going back to the "Roaring Twenties" of Chicago, Ill., U. S. A. There seems little reason to doubt Deg, however, when he cites his friend Ithiel de Sola Pool's analysis of networks. By a calculus of probability, given an unstructured society, the chances of any person knowing a person who knows another person who knows any other particular singled-out person in the society are very high. Theoretically, given the relatively sharply structured society everywhere, he could be introduced to anyone, even in the worldwide society. Deg, in his old notes on Pool's manuscript, figures that he practically needs know only his own widely differentiated acquaintances to know anybody in the top elite, and needs but jump one more acquaintanceship to meet just about anybody else. He even made a parlor game out of his directory, and proceeding to say who whom he knew would know this person. This occurs because a person who knows 2000 people is in a position to know the, say, 500 acquaintances each, of these, and this million, with its 500 acquaintances each, exceeds that population by far, but since the population is stratified, the number falls short of total success until the chain is extended.
There are applications of network theory to the workings of science. Conventional science, we know, is not a juggernaut, a palpable monster, a solid phalanx, a disciplined corps of bureaucrats, a theocracy, or even an organized political party. It is -- it must be, in order to avoid its own contradiction -- a subtle, diffuse, often impenetrable, often disguised, often unconsciously composed network of relationships.
Marxist scholars would readily comprehend this fact and would tie the whole network to the economic production mechanisms of the capitalist system. The Chicago School of political science would see in it promptly the manifestations of Mosca's "political formula and ruling class" and Deg's "ideological imperative."
Discriminated against indifferently in American Society, evangelical Christians such as many Baptists, represented in a growing movement of "Creation Science," but usually acting individually for their nooks and crannies in the system, would also be characteristically alert to the operation of the scientific reception system. So would the large number of individual American and British heretics who compose a disinherited, not formally qualified, keen and occupationally and characterologically diverse "watch and ward" network, ready to suspect the worst of the establishment. Resembling these latter would be many a disenchanted student, not yet amalgamated into the conventional system. All of these together, plus the simply curious, might readily muster the kind of crowd that assembled to witness the Velikovsky panel convoked by the program committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco. The audience, well over one thousand persons, was by far the largest of the Convention.
Let me now explain how it happens that the scientific network, or establishment, might in this case, as it has often done in the history of science, be acting against its own presumed interests and hence to repress new correct theories. How does the ruling formula of science triumph over challenging ideas, making them heretical, and chastising their proponents?
Every field of knowledge is nowadays organized. It has therefore leaders. Some of these leaders are parochial. Others have connections with relevant social networks and organizations of the other fields and other segments of society. These leaders acquire fame (which already represents the same circular system of the generation past, advancing for instance a Menzel, who inherits for a Harlow Shapley, or a de Grazia, who inherits from a Charles Merriam.)
The mass media, though it hardly reports science, seeks out or gives access to fame. Reporters, woefully unprepared, interview the leaders. Educational media, including widespread fund-seeking alumni magazines, turn to their exemplaries of the famous. The occasional television, radio, and magazine concerns about the knowledge industry result in reports that are favorable to the same group. Foundations appoint from the same leaders to their boards of trustees and consulting committees. So do scientific and political government agencies, although other interests can intrude more here. The leaders, and now we are speaking of some five thousand persons, give awards disproportionately to each other, as do generals and admirals. Government foundations, such as the National Science Foundation, are even more susceptible to network influence than private foundations.
In the area of book publishing, the ideas of the leaders largely determine what manuscripts shall be published as textbooks, and on what kinds of books the university presses should spend their small resources. Trade book publishers for the general public have almost no viable interest in serious scientific or humanistic work. Usually what they publish in these areas is meant to blossom quickly and die, to challenge no strong interest, and certainly not to offer alternatives to major scientific paradigms unless they would join the ranks of somewhat disreputable and financially insecure publishers. Thus, if Velikovsky had published with Lyle Stuart's firm instead of the Macmillan company originally, the opposition would never have gathered. They had to have as their target a press that would seek to avoid censure for "conduct unbecoming a gentleman."
The scientific and professional magazines that report new knowledge are governed by boards and editors, who are acceptable to the leaders and are watched rather carefully by them. Fading away from the specialized periodicals are magazines of popular science, few of which are financially secure and all of which are dependent upon the good will of the leaders. The Scientific American, for example, would never wittingly go beyond the activities of the core elements of a science. When a troublesome or controversial theory surfaces on its pages, evidencing a conflict between two leader-led theories, it seeks to appease both sides by a second article or letters of comment. Its need to seem "original" is fed by lavish illustrations, a feature it shares with the National Geographic Magazine, the Smithsonian, Discovery and other periodicals. By editorial tricks, all such magazines lend their materials a glamour and adventurism that they usually do not in reality possess.
The network of leaders extends down through the public secondary and elementary schools from the colleges by way of lesser sheikhs, supervising boards, and hoi polloi of the fields. Not even the threat of teaching "creation science" in some state will excite overly the nabobs. The legal and journalistic techniques of handling anti-Darwinism have long been known, and a legion of educators moves efficiently into battle on this front with little direct participation of the national leadership. Private secular schools -- the Lawrenceville Academies and Grotons -- would never wish their pupils to utter the wrong titles or theories in anticipation of entering the halls of learning hallowed by the leadership. The Catholic schools are deintellectualized; nor has the Catholic Church yet retracted its judgment against Galileo.
A word, finally, about the corporate world, where so much applied and some pure research is done, from which, too, funds must flow increasingly into the coffers of the universities. Their corporate images, hence their profits, depend upon the skills people come to believe (via advertising and public relations) that they command and engross. Like university presidents, leaders of science dip into corporate treasuries on occasion as consultants, board members, and officers. Just as retired generals are common in the aerospace and engineering industries, highly placed scientists, even without the need to retire, are frequently positioned in corporate research structures. Immersed in this and in all that has gone before, a leader of the establishment network has almost no incentive to take up a new controversial theory, much less to originate one himself. He is himself subject to disciplinary actions, often quite subtle, should he stray from the fold.
The network can be most simply presented as a list of institutions through which the leaders of science operate or upon which they exert influence. The influence is continuous, is intensified on crucial issues and, in my opinion, is generally beneficial and should be enhanced throughout the system. Meanwhile, however, the influence needs consciousness-raising and built-in mechanisms of reform.
LEADERS OF SCIENCE
extend their influence into:
1. Audio-Visual Media
(fame; reportage)
a. TV and radio Networks
b. Public Broadcasting
c. Documentary films
2. Popular Press
a. Scientoid Magazines
b. Science Fiction
c. Publicity (columnists)
d. Newspaper and newsmagazines, prizes, etc.
3. Book Publishing
a. Trade
b. Textbooks
c. University Press
4. Scientific Journals
5. Universities
a. Secular Schools
b. Religious Schools
6. Scientific Associations
7. Foundations (private)
8. Governments
a. Executive offices, commissions
b. Legislatures
c. Government Foundations, Prizes, etc.
9. Corporations
a. Research and consultation
b. Board of Directors
The leaders of science in the English-speaking world can be numbered from 50 to 10,000, depending upon where you wish to draw the line of influence. They are fairly concentrated geographically in the Northeast Megalopolis, Chicago, Washington, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with a small English contingent, fairly closely in touch.
An extraordinary fact is that immense scattered network ultimately engaging the whole world is composed of what in business or government would be regarded as absurdly small units. They are like the oldtime Piggly-Wiggly small grocery store, owner-operated network, not fully centralized, bureaucratic establishment. Furthermore, it is largely subconscious or scarcely perceived. Nevertheless, in the end -- and merely to picture the network -- the librarian in Juneau, Alaska, the student at the University of Tampa (Florida), the editors of the Times Literary Supplement, CBS, PBS, NOF, the Ford Foundation, Harvard University Press, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the engineers of Western Electric, the science section of the New York Times, the editors of Science Magazine and its popular offshoot Science 84, the National Academy of Sciences, the curators of the Museum of Natural History in New York, and many thousands of other "nerve endings" of the science system of communications and influence respond to cues and jiggles of power from the elite group.
Surely, it is one of the most benign elites of the world. It probably rules easier and can rule less than almost all other elites. Its punishments are relatively light. It stupefies people but all forms of rule stupefy their clients or subjects; here, indeed, the science elite is more enlightening, in its double function of stupefying and enlightening, in its S/ E ratio, than most elite or influence networks. But its exists, and it is effective. To evade or avoid or attack the Scientific Establishment, to invade its inner sanctum and transform its Holy of Holes, its ideological center, its paradigms, Weltanschauung, ruling formulas, or whatever one might wish to call its heart, is the work of decades and, at least before, of centuries, and, in the words of Lasswell, almost always involves the process of "partial incorporation," by which is meant that before the revolution is won, the elite changes its behavior to concede the victory and keep out the revolutionary personnel.
Thus the monarchical regimes of Europe incorporated in most cases the key ideas of the French Revolution before the republican revolutionaries conquered them, and the capitalist regimes went "welfare state" before the socialists could take power; so that, if the quantavolutionary movement were to seriously threaten the ruling elite of Newtonian stabilitarian and Darwinian gradualist uniformitarians, these would be reacting, as in fact they are acting now, to incorporate the quantavolutionary formulas and outlook.
Meanwhile the quantavolutionary movement would be formed out of mistakes of the existing regime, out of apostates and disaffected scientists and engineers, occult publishers, little presses, small personal foundations, religious creations, maverick legislators, fugitive publications sliding out of Xerox machines, and a motley public crowd of dissenting readers and talkers. Sooner or later, according to Roberto Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy." the Scientific Establishment would be modified in attitude, beliefs, practices and personnel but would still be the oligarchy, or, let us say, "a better and more enlightened class of leaders."