Customer Reviews

Stargazers & Gravediggers: Memoirs to Worlds in Collision

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book outlines what will probably, in future times, be regarded as about the worst example of scientific suppression ever to take place. After being vetted and passed by a number of scientists, Velikovsky's first book (Worlds in Collision) became a bestseller overnight. No sooner had it been released however than a group of scientists, led by Professor Harlow Shapley of Harvard, threatened the publishers (Macmillan) with a boycott of their books if they did not get rid of the offending title. Since Macmillan made about 80% of their profits from textbook sales, they were forced to ask Velikovsky to take his book elsewhere. (Shapley and co had earlier attempted to prevent the book being published at all). Having threatened his publisher, they then embarked on a sustained campaign of misrepresentation, designed to destroy Velikovsky's reputation. Since Shapley and co controlled the media organs of academia, this campaign succeeded. Velikovsky was never allowed to reply to the grotesque caracatures of his theories which appeared regularly in such journals as Nature and Scientific American. It soon then became part of "accepted wisdom" that Velikovsky had been diproved - which he had not. In contrast to the petty-mindedness of Shapley and co (many of whom boasted of never having read the book they criticised), Albert Einstein remained a close friend of Velikovsky, agreed with him that he had proved beyond question that world-wide catastrophes had affected the early development of civilisation, and died with a heavily-annotated copy of "Worlds in Collision" on his desk.

Worlds in Collision was a book that made some people cross. Apparently Jupiter ejected a comet, Earth twice passed through this comet's tail, the comet collided with Mars in 787BC, as a result of which it lost its tail and became Venus. Then Mars, its orbit altered, nearly collided with Earth on March 23rd 687BC.

Now, if historical records back this up, what's the problem?

This book documents all the comments and criticisms made by various scholarly sounding academic folk from the period from when the book was in preparation, through the period of the early 1950s, with a few footnotes documenting reaction in the 1970s. The book also contains Velikovsky's replies to his critics when certain arguments about specifics in Worlds in Collision were made.

I haven't read Worlds in Collision because it sounded a bit dour. OK, so fire rained from the sky, the Earth stopped rotating, civilizations were decimated. But life goes on. This book satisfied my desire to read about the salient bits of Worlds in Collision, without having to spend time on the perhaps less interesting parts.

The reaction of the academic supposed scholars was abominable. Someone called Harlow Shapley from Harvard's astronomy dept. kicks things off with a letter to Macmillan's editorial department in which he accuses them of "venturing into the Black Arts". Other Harvard supposed scholars join in, then a few Princton profs join in the attack. None of them produce any arguments against the book, just engage in meaningless abuse, e.g. "pure rubbish, of the level of the astrological hocus pocus", "the most flagrant intellectual fraud ever foisted upon the public, mere rubbish", "a crackpot publication". In 1951 the president of Harvard university, James Conant declared it to be "pseudo-science of a kind that is befuddling the public".

In 1951 John Stewart, a Princeton university astronomer confided to Velikovsky what the problem was: "We do not need magnetic forces. Our calculations are perfect without them." The astronomers didn't like the notion of there being electromagnetic forces in the solar system.

It seems that it took until Nov 1951 before a proper attempt was made by an academic scholar to counter Velikovsky's claims in a scientific way. A Dr. Lafleur, associate prof. of philosophy at Florida State university, writing in the pages of Scientific Monthly declared that Velikovsky did not understand Newton's law and that "Darwin fails to receive more than a few passing mentions in his book". Heresy!

Dennis Flanagan, editor of Scientific American: "I think your books have done incalculable harm to the public understanding of what science is and what scientists do." Scientific American would go on to refuse any advertising for Velikovsky's later book Earth in Upheaval. Velikovsky mentions that in 1906 Scientific American printed an article declaring the Wright Brothers to be frauds, despite their first successful flight having occurred in 1903. It would seem then that establishment science is all about dogma and that what scientists do is engage in mob harassment of anyone who challenges their precious dogmas, and to relentlessly intimidate and blackmail any academic publisher who dare publish material that challenges establishment dogma.

Can't really improve upon the review above, but I can whole-heartedly agree with it! This book will help you understand the human side of the scientific/peer-review process. The book is inspiring, humorous, sad, and thrilling all at the same time. Worth the read if you enjoy the secret life of scientists and the academic community - as well as the science involved.

Back in 1950, the scientific establishment unscientifically attacked, ridiculed, and then ignored Immanuel Velikovsky's magnum opus, 'Worlds in Collision'. In that book, Velikovsky proposed, among other things, that the main force underlying and driving celestial mechanics is electromagnetic, not gravitational as we are taught.

This episode marks one of the darkest era's of modern scientific thought, and has contributed to the current sorry state of affairs that is modern cosmology, and astrophysics. Have you ever wondered why, NASA, with it's millions of dollars, and latest technology is continually 'baffled' by their own findings?

Many of the answer's can be found in this book- 'Stargazers and Gravediggers' for, as you will see, those in positions of scholarship and academic merit, will put in overtime to discredit information that contradicts a lifetime of study. Apparently, it is preferable in modern science, to sweep evidence 'under the rug' rather than honestly, and rationally assessing the data presented.

To his credit, Velikovsky never attacked any of his critics, even though he surely felt the pain associated with such a dishonest and arrogant assault on his work and person.

This is a fantastic book, and it highlights the 'games people will play' in order to keep from admitting error.