Customer Reviews

Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

While researching Carl Sagan's debunker career, I stumbled into Charles Ginenthal's book about five years ago. It has been an interesting experience to glimpse the world of catastrophism. I have corresponded and talked with most of the main players in the Velikovskian debate today, have read thousands of pages of material, traded plenty of mail, and have read thousands of emails regarding the issue. I have heard Ginenthal called an "apologist" for Velikovsky by a prominent Velikovsky follower, yet the harshest critic of Velikovsky's followers admitted to me that Sagan was less than straightforward in his critique of Velikovsky's work, and that the scientific establishment treated Velikovsky shabbily, with Sagan leading the underhanded attack. As Ginenthal makes clear, the issue of his book is not if Velikovsky was right, but how the scientific establishment treated him.

Like it or not, Ginenthal's book is nearly the only book on the Velikovsky controversy in print these days. It is a lucid introduction to the issues. Velikovsky is one in a long line of catastrophic theorists, and catastrophic theory has been gaining scientific respectability these days, as well as movies being made of comets slamming into earth (though Velikovsky theorized planetary catastrophic agents instead of comets).

I have spent long hours trying to assess Velikovsky's thesis. I had to admit that it would take me many years to properly assess his widely interdisciplinary thesis, and I plan to take up the assessment of an aspect of his work in the near future, as a hobby. I will not have anything worthwhile to say on the subject for at least ten years. While I do not subscribe to Velikovsky's planetary billiards scenario, I also cannot call his work worthless. His work is still relevant, fifty years after it was first published. While many works of science and scholarship rapidly fade to oblivion, that Velikovsky's theories are still heatedly debated today is a testament to their worth in being considered. While I have seen Ginenthal take serious heat for his book, on charges of sloppily and/or dishonest science and scholarship, it would be well for the reader to compare Ginenthal's book to Sagan's AAAS undertaker's job on Velikovsky's thesis, reproduced in Scientists Confront Velikovsky. Ginenthal addresses virtually every sentence of Sagan's critique. Sagan betrayed his sense of fair play after dealing Velikovsky's work its public deathblow at the AAAS conference (which the astronomer Tom Van Flandern called a "sneak attack"), as he never engaged in a public discussion of Velikovsky's work again. That is not the practice of honest science, but the work of a hack, using his reputation to outweigh his arguments. In that respect, Ginenthal is to be commended for his work, as he exposes critical aspects of Sagan's execution of his debunker's craft.

Others are more critical of Ginenthal's work than I am, while others laud it. Depending on whom you talk to, he gets one star or five. It is an extremely polarized discussion. I will go for the middle-of-the-road, giving him three stars, and lean towards more stars, not less, at this time. After years of looking into the matter, I have to reserve my judgment, except to agree that Sagan was indeed a poor and even dishonest debunker, not only regarding Velikovsky's thesis, but also in other areas on science's fringes... Whatever one might say about Ginenthal, he ably defends his work (has admitted some of his errors to me) and is generous with his time. You could do much worse than spend your time and money on Ginenthal's book.

The conflicts between Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are summarized clearly and verifiably in Charles Ginenthal's book. Their conflict is as much between philosophies and politics as between their concepts of geological history.

Sagan embraced Uniformitarianism, which seems to ASSUME that no great astronomical events involved the earth during the history of man. This is very convenient in describing times past because his definition of historical dates simply involves drawing a straight line to some suitably remote event-time reference. All human recollections are now seemingly insignificant and may be dismissed because OBSERVATIONS of the past are now "unscientific," and the accompanying documented and logical human fears (of comets) may be discarded as mere superstition.

Velikovsky's reintroduction of catastrophism was almost necessitated because he ACCEPTED the historical accounts from the Veda, Koran, and pre-historic Mexico, as well as the more accessible Biblical accounts. Catastrophism seems to offer a more believable theory since its prime causal elements are obvious and easily definable. V's theory might better have assumed that Venus was an ESCAPED MOON of Jupiter from within the huge gap in orbital radii between Callisto and Leda; but during a near approach (collision) the gravitational effects of Venus, with its mass at 82% that of the Earth's, could surely have caused an enormous tide such as the Great Flood, increased volcanic activity, and disturbance of subterranean insects and vermin in a subsequent approach. It could also have created rifts in the lithosphere which led to the tectonic shifts not yet accepted by science at the time V wrote "Worlds in Collision," and it might have been those tectonic shifts which effected the quick-freezing of the mammoths and mastadons. Sagan's Uniformitarianism, in contrast, postulates only vague undefinable internal forces to cause the SLOW initiation of nearly all global events.

"Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" is an excellent summary of both sides of the controversy. Ginenthal's evidence that Sagan blocked the peer-reviews for V's efforts, of course, is denied by his hero-worshipers. Maybe Velikovsky's theory IS science-fiction, but ANY reconstruction (i.e. guess) of the past, such as Sagan's, is too. Non-hero-worshipers will enjoy this book.

CarlFStaski@AOL.com

In an age of specialization, a book such as this is essential for the layman who can only get information from the mass media and the individual scientist stuck in the small cubicle of his own specialty. Charles Ginenthal really did a lot of research. This book brings much light into a 50 year old debate in the scientific community and demonstrates that we have learned a lot about the world we live on since Velikovsky wrote "Worlds in Collision". The only detraction for me was that Carl Sagan came out so small that his devotees, unable to take off their "uniformatarian" blinders, will write bad reviews of this work even if they have not read it.

This book is a blow-by-blow account of how Carl Sagan systematically misrepresented Velikovsky, and used the full weight of his reputation and position within the establishment to complete the work of suppression begun over two decades earlier by Harlow Shapley and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. The sheer hypocrisy, dishonesty and self-regard of Sagan is brutally exposed for all the world to see. Unfortunately, for Sagan fans and true believers, the book will be so unpalatible that they might not get beyond the first few pages. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that almost none of the critics of this book, who have here given it a one-star rating on Amazon, have actually read it. The very act of reading it would dispel all notions one might have had of Sagan's nobility and intellectual honesty. He was a fraud and, in some respects at least, a bully. He was also a very poor scientist, as Ginenthal demonstrates in literraly dozens of ways.
The detail into which Ginenthal has gone over each and every point raised by Sagan is phenomenal, as is his understanding of the problems and his mastery of the technical terms and concepts involved. Quite simply, as a previous reviewer remarked, Ginenthal has done the research that Sagan couldn't be bothered to do.
Particularly impressive is his deconstruction of Sagan's "explanation" of the unexpectedly high temperature of Venus (unexpected by everyone that is except Velikovsky). Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings. In short, there is absolutely nothing on Venus, or any other planet, to prevent surface heat rising to the upper atmosphere and dissipating into space. Furthermore, the clouds of Venus are so brilliantly white that they deflect virtually all of the sun's heat back into space; and even if they didn't - even if they were dark and absorbed the sun's energy - they still couldn't carry that energy down to the surface of the planet. That, as Ginenthal remarked, breaks the second law of thermodynamics.
Sagan, of course, in order to "disprove" Velikovsky, was quite prepared to break every law in the book - and the establishment was quite happy to let him get away with it.
All in all, a masterful take on the continuing "Velikovsky Affair" and well worth the read.

We all recognise that "science" is not driven by purity of intellectual freedom, but is also subject to the fallibilities of human ego. Nowhere is this truth more clearly displayed than in Ginenthal's book -- even when it is shocking and disconcerting. Here, we are clearly shown, using Sagan's own writing, how he fudges facts to fit his theories; how he disputes Velikovsky's proposals based not on free intellectual inquiry, but instead on unproven dogmatic notions; how he distorts history to aggrandize himself; and how he is apparently remarkably free of conscience in this effort. I suspect that if Sagan done the same type of smear campaign against a "beloved" public figure such as Buckminster Fuller (instead of one as controversial as Velikovsky), his own editors would have quashed his actions. At times, Ginenthal does go a tad overboard in making certain that the reader recognises the irony or falsehood of Sagan's assertions, but that is my only quibble with the book. This is an extremely important volume for those interested in popular culture or in the history of science, and should be widely read.

The arguments are persuasive...but only on one side. Read the book and find out just who has the best arguments. I think that it will become abundently clear just who really knows their stuff and who guards the henhouse of conformity. It is a good book and a easy read. Though some of the arguments are quite insulting. What do they think we are...minds of mush? I believe that anyone who wants to confirm their doubts of one side of the argument or the other should read this book. It serves as great ammo for the argument of technical points, but most importantly offers insight into the minds of the establishment. I just have to shake my head slowly and sadly. A great book overall.

The reviews of Ginenthal's work are as different as Velikovsky is from Sagan. I welcomed that the work was inundated with full quotes and references. Having read Velikovsky's work, Sagan's criticisms have always appeared misdirected, to say the least. This becomes quite clear, based on the statements of the two men themselves. Sagan is quilty of the emotional, vindictive, self serving type of thinking that he falsely accuses Velikovsky of. Sagan's descriptions of Velikovsky's motives appear as ghosts of Sagan's own psyche rather than any objective reading of Velikovsky's work. I greatly appreciate the significant amount of work Ginenthal has undertaken in producing this heavily documented book. While I don't think it will change the people's minds who have already 'chosen' their views (on both sides), it will be quite a valuable contrast for those who are searching.

Ginenthal has done an excellent job bringing to light the brilliant and controversial work of Velikovsky as measured against the full force of criticism aimed at Velikovsky since "Worlds in Collision" was published in 1950. G's decision to quote extensively from Velikovsky & his critics highlights why V MUST be READ first-hand (accept no seconds if possible!). His ideas are easy to ridicule in popular & (most unfortunately), scientific, supposedly objective publications by scientists & others who take issue with his entire body of work. Sagan in particular has diminished himself as a scientific authority in his treatment of V's ideas (many of which, by the way, time & science have proven to be correct). V's work has been been widely panned & criticized since its publication (It also has numerous supporters, I might add; some other reviews may lead you to believe V is worshipped by some sort of cult). No surprise there. But for an almost routine disregard for the notions of objectivity, empirical analysis, and, dare I say, open-mindedness, one expects from a peer and frequent reviewer of books & articles in every available media, Sagan wins gold (and silver). V's extensive examination & inclusion of contemporaneous sources across different cultures spanning the globe is awesome; more importantly, in doing so, he must confront the many other interpretations & conclusions already drawn by other great historians & scientists which differ so greatly from those that at which he ultimately arrives. Confront them he does. He doesn't evade facts or accounts that differ from his (a good % of the numerous footnotes as well as the body of the work itself, refer to arguments contrary to his opinions and conclusions. In many cases he extensively quotes from such sources & leaves it to the reader to determine for his or her self which account most satisfactorily accounts for the observations recorded by our ancestors as they lived through the events which are the subject of V's inquiry. Read Ginenthal's book for an outstanding introduction to the ongoing debate about V's work but don't stop there: read V's work yourself. Although heavy on biblical and mythological references, try "Worlds in Collision" or "Age of Chaos". Altho' Worlds was the 2nd one written it was the 1st of V's published works. It is highly accessible to the non-scientist: no graphs or charts or formulas. For many who have not read V, his ideas may seem odd or even extreme. Just try reading him with the assumption in the back of YOUR mind that he just might have something here. Or not. But decide for yourself. One way or another, you'll be astonished at this man's mind and his achievements.

Having followed the Velikovsky affair for four decades, I was struck and appalled by the vicious slander and abuse heaped upon him from the pens of Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan. The Batman and Robin of establishment academia, they questioned nothing, challenged nothing and contributed nothing beyond popularizing establishment science. They were great at it, to be sure, but let an original thinker think outside the box and they were the first to behead him. Velikovsky put forth a comprehensive interdisciplinary work that covered a vast number of academic sciences and caused vast revisions in our views of our historical past. He made astounding predictions that were dismissed as insane (even by his good friend Albert Einstein) but which turned out to be correct. His cosmic theory may have been wrong, although his historical reconstruction is more than likely largely correct, or at least worth considering; but all Carl Sagan contributed was the Venus Greenhouse Effect (borrowed from Rupert Wilt and found to be wrong) and a fraudulent theory of nuclear winter in the early 1980s that had no scientific foundation and was, in fact, a political rather than a scientific project (to oppose President Reagan's Star Wars); yet he could only treat Velikovsky as the dirt beneath his feet and slander him with ridicule and arrogant scorn. This book is a testimony to the rivalry between Sagan and Velikovsky, of Sagan's foul treatment of Velikovsky, and of Velikovsky's repeated vindication in the Space Age.

Ginenthal here presents an excellent rebuttal of Sagan's critique of Velikovsky, succesfully countering 95% of his criticsms, and more importantly shows the (often) wholly unscientific approach of the so called scientific mainstream to the subject of recent Catastrophism. No doubt he will be criticized for daring to oppose this giant of 20th century astronomy, but I would urge readers to keep an open mind, do what Ginenthal suggests, and go back to the original texts, rather than basing an attack on preconceived prejudices. If scientific study is to advance fruitfully into the next millenia (man), we could certainly do with a few more researchers who are not blinded by establishment dogma...