tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post5871988080834888300..comments2024-03-26T21:27:42.278-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Bad Science, Weird Science, And Strange Mormon ProphecyAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-6035833997039315752013-09-22T17:38:53.925-07:002013-09-22T17:38:53.925-07:00Thanks for sharing such an interesting post. Scien...Thanks for sharing such an interesting post. Science and any types of religion can work their way to coordinating as one and use their influences to earn respect.Australian internet service providerhttp://www.vinternet.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-83448072211345036352013-08-30T13:38:22.433-07:002013-08-30T13:38:22.433-07:00At or after the time of the flood the earth change...At or after the time of the flood the earth changed on its axis, (I don't recall how much it flipped) and the location of the stars in the sky were completely different. (There's scripture regarding the sky folding up like a scroll). <br><br>That does not mean that certain planets would never again orbit close to the earth. Saturn, Venus, and Mars were close to the earth AFTER the flood. Those are the ancient times recorded in the various cultures. I don't think we have much of anything to consult before the flood.<br><br><br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-32341787742816504132013-08-19T00:57:24.015-07:002013-08-19T00:57:24.015-07:00He gave it to you. Did you take the time to inves...He gave it to you. Did you take the time to investigate before responding? thunderbolts.info has a boatload of evidence which makes it evident that Velikovsky wasn't just a bunch of smoke. Electrical scarring of planets for one supports him, which Stephen Smith discusses. Don Scott's work, along with Ralph Juergens, Kristian Birkeland who Birkeland currents are named after, and Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D Life Fellow, IEEE, of Los Alamos National Laboratory all provide hard scientific evidence that Velikovsky was onto something important we continue to hold a blind eye toward. Most, especially the latter do not agree with all of his ideas as some of them either have no basis yet or have been proven wrong. This doesn't make others, the real meat of his proposal wrong. It's a heavy branch of science that is being overturned right now, but I can assure you my friend, it is being overturned.<br><br>-SterlingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64269176222472072192013-08-19T00:08:05.379-07:002013-08-19T00:08:05.379-07:00Two things I read don't add up:1) Peter says ...Two things I read don't add up:<br><br>1) Peter says after the flood, there was a new earth and new sky.<br><br>2) You say the Babylonians built the tower of Babel to get to Zion under the old sky, after the flood.<br><br>Which is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-29773055973028388662013-03-27T09:57:14.687-07:002013-03-27T09:57:14.687-07:00Haha! yeah,I was really tired when I wrote that. T...Haha! yeah,I was really tired when I wrote that. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-12168870402434948872013-03-27T01:05:07.871-07:002013-03-27T01:05:07.871-07:00Try again, maybe you misspelled. After all, you di...Try again, maybe you misspelled. After all, you did misspell "errer" above.<br><br>Rockwaterman@gmail.com<br><br>Or you can message me on Facebook.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-6716071499969613112013-03-26T23:14:14.807-07:002013-03-26T23:14:14.807-07:00Hi Rock, I tried to email you but I got an errer m...Hi Rock, <br>I tried to email you but I got an errer message.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-41043426721873309222013-03-25T15:03:47.084-07:002013-03-25T15:03:47.084-07:00Hi RockJust wanted to call you up on one point, yo...Hi Rock<br><br>Just wanted to call you up on one point, you talked about searching for Mars with your telescope when you were young and being hardly able to make it out let alone tell that it was red.<br><br>This would have to do with where Mars was in its rotation around the sun in respect to the earth at the time you were looking for it. In the last few months Mars has been *clearly* visible to the naked eye as a reasonably bright red star, this is because the Earth has recently been relatively close to Mars. We had a bigger example of this in 2003 where Mars was one of the brightest lights in the night sky for a few months, and very red to the naked eye.<br><br>What I'm trying to get at here is that the fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans were able to identify it without telescopes says nothing to it ever having being closer to earth than its current orbit would allow or once appearing the size of the moon in our sky. <br><br>It was also straightforward to discover that it was a planet rather than a star, not by looking at it closely with optics but by tracing its movement across the sky in relation to the stars.<br><br>I don't know enough to refute or confirm the other musings in this piece but it definitely made for interesting reading.<br><br>Adam from AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-55459954143592757522013-03-08T16:59:51.159-08:002013-03-08T16:59:51.159-08:00So, according to our theology, Satan rebelled beca...So, according to our theology, Satan rebelled because his plan to remove free agency from God's plan was rejected. He was removed from heaven along with those who agreed with him as a result. Our theology also teaches that an opposition in all things is necessary. First of all, why is Satan regarded as being the force behind all evil? Isn't evil just an inherent part of the universe or existence? What if Satan hadn't rebelled? What if no one had rebelled? How would there be opposition now if that weren't the case? If the plan were taught to us before Lucifer's rebellion, how were we taught and what sense would we have been able to make of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70221134192607666662013-03-05T14:40:57.454-08:002013-03-05T14:40:57.454-08:00Hey Rocko! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...Hey Rocko! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZweston krogstadthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06759228799187904000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-42641783478149185642013-03-03T16:51:29.889-08:002013-03-03T16:51:29.889-08:00I believe I need to clarify my last paragraph. I s...I believe I need to clarify my last paragraph. I should have worded it better. What I meant to say was that some of the arguments they made against Velikovsky's theories were based upon 30+ years old understandings and as I noted in my second to last paragraph new experiments appear to be falsifying some of their arguments.<br><br>I did not intend to make it sound like I was disrespecting Carl Sagan in any way. I do have a lot of respect for him even if I disagree with some of what he said. Some of those items are his respect for critical thinking, his anti-war stances and even though he challenged Velikovsky's theories, he criticized those who tried to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.Gary Huntnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-15300376616579866732013-03-02T21:22:12.585-08:002013-03-02T21:22:12.585-08:00Mr. Blake:You wrote, "There's no need to ...Mr. Blake:<br><br>You wrote, "There's no need to engage in ad hominem."<br><br>Definition of AD HOMINEM<br><br>1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect<br>2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the <br> contentions made<br><br>You stated in reference to Rock and his article, "You've put yourself in the company of 911-truthers, UFO enthusiasts, and the folks who believe there are secret orgies in Mormon temples." It appears to me that you are the one initiating the ad hominem attacks.<br><br>It is obvious from your statements that you think that if a theory is not falsifiable that it is not only unscientific but that it is false. Karl Popper was the originator of the concept of "falsifiability." Here are a few statements from the Wikipedia article on falsifiability.<br><br> "Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether propositions <br> that they contain or support are true."<br><br> "On the other hand, he strictly opposed the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or <br> otherwise inherently bad, and noted that falsificationism does not imply it."<br><br> "Popper emphasized that there are meaningful theories that are not scientific,"<br><br>In researching some of the information Rock has provided I have found that real scientists are using legitimate scientific methods to test some of Velikovsky's theories and are finding that they better explain what is actually observed happening in the universe. <br><br>And by the way, I have also been doing research into what Sagan and others have said to refute what Velikovsky says. I am not too impressed with their arguments.<br><br>Gary Huntnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65329911070833418322013-03-02T19:09:07.152-08:002013-03-02T19:09:07.152-08:00Oh, man. As someone with a graduate degree in elec...Oh, man. As someone with a graduate degree in electrical engineering who is currently studying stellar physics for fun, I would love to get into the details of why the electrical universe hypothesis was rejected, but there's only so much time in the day.<br><br>The dilemma I face with these kinds of discussions is how much material I should wade through to show that I have made a good faith effort to hear all of the argument, especially when everything that I've read so far is riddled with problems. However, in this case, my familiarity or lack thereof with the material doesn't affect the main question I was asking.<br><br>I was hoping to hear what evidence would make you reconsider Velikowsky's ideas, but haven't heard any. I share your skepticism about "knowledge". I don't claim to know anything either. All the same, you obviously believe his ideas worth considering. If your views about Velikowsky are not falsifiable, they are beyond the reach of logic and evidence.<br><br>In any case, I can see which way the wind is blowing. No hard feelings. Take 'er easy.<br><br>- JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-31044153583092478912013-03-02T18:25:29.511-08:002013-03-02T18:25:29.511-08:00Alan, I think you might enjoy Kuhn's, _The Str...Alan, I think you might enjoy Kuhn's, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.Andrew Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65315283136648419882013-03-02T11:24:46.371-08:002013-03-02T11:24:46.371-08:00Jonathan,The premise that you present regarding JF...Jonathan,<br>The premise that you present regarding JFK is a flawed one. I was ten years old at the time, and I can assure you that most Americans were quite satisfied with the lone assassin story. That was acceptable to the large majority of us. No one was looking for evidence of a larger conspiracy based on the idea that "it couldn't have been that easy." The easy explanation was the most palatable, and what we all found acceptable.<br><br>What caused Americans to begin questioning the official explanation was when more evidence became known that contradicted the official story. When more information came forward, more witnesses, more anomalies, the official story began to unravel.<br><br>It is quite simplistic of you to assume that the public was looking for something more complicated than the lone gunman theory, but that's not the explanation. That is the explanation I have heard before from those who cannot be bothered to evaluate the anomalies of the case.<br><br>The lone gunman theory was the kind of nice, neat package the public always wants. It worked for almost a decade. After that, reality began to intrude. <br><br>You admit to not knowing much about the JFK case, yet in the same sentence stating that you would need to see some solid evidence of conspiracy before accepting that possibility. <br><br>My goodness, man. I know I'm coming off rather hard on you, but for heaven's sake. Open your eyes. For you to admit to not even being aware of the facts in controversy regarding the JFK assassination tells me volumes about why this conversation is going nowhere.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-26139734296864750442013-03-02T10:59:01.933-08:002013-03-02T10:59:01.933-08:00(Continued)You ask me what it would take to not be...(Continued)<br><br>You ask me what it would take to not believe Velikovsky, but your question assumes facts about me not in evidence. I rarely claim to "believe" much of anything. I spent much of my life claiming to "know" this or that beyond a shadow of a doubt, when in reality I did not really KNOW any such thing. <br><br>I would rather be thought of as a truth seeker than a truth knower. There is a saying I like which goes something like this: "Always encourage the man who is searching for the truth, but be wary of any man who claims to have found it."<br><br>I am inclined to accept certain things as having the ring of truth so long as the evidence points in their direction. When the evidence leads elsewhere, I try to follow where it goes. I don't claim very many absolute fixed beliefs, as it is my experience that those who allow themselves to be ruled by fixed beliefs tend not to be able to let ideas that may prove contrary to those fixed beliefs find purchase in their minds.<br><br><br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78515468396979786862013-03-02T10:58:19.679-08:002013-03-02T10:58:19.679-08:00I believe our problem, Jonathan, is that you are o...I believe our problem, Jonathan, is that you are of the opinion that the scientific community has completely rejected Velikovsky. This may have been at least partially true in 1950, but not today. Advancements in scientific discoveries, especially in the areas of astronomy, are causing many in the past 60 years to reassess beliefs that had long been taken for granted.<br><br>Many today are questioning the idea that the universe is gravity based in favor of the evidence that the universe is held together by electromagnetic forces rather than gravitational pull.<br><br>Advancements in knowledge are changing the paradigm. I have suggested to you sources from which you might investigate further, yet you write, "To my knowledge, the only evidence that Velikowsky and his followers have offered in support of his ideas about the formation of Venus is what comes from mythology and ancient documents." That is so simplistic and misinformed that I don't even know how to respond. Again, your use of "to my knowledge" is the giveaway. Why not try expanding your area of knowledge in this matter? The truth, as the saying goes, is out there. But you have to take the trouble to investigate.<br><br>I have found myself engaged in online discussions of this topic with people who feel they have a grasp of the subject yet are blissfully and arrogantly ignorant. It turns out their entire position was gleaned only from a review they read of "The Pseudoscience Wars." As I discussed earlier, that book had a definite bias, and did not begin to inform the reader of the vast amount of scientific evidence that would refute its own thesis. But for someone to attempt a discussion of these issues after only reading a bad review of a flawed book -well, you can understand why we were not able to come to any meeting of the minds. For any discussion on this topic to be fruitful, one must be a bit better informed, and a little less arrogant.<br><br>You also wonder where these mountains of evidence supporting Velikovsky can be found. I already told you. There are sufficient links in the piece I wrote to get you started. One does not have to read everything Velikovsky wrote in order to have a grasp of his thesis, but it does require one to do more than depend only on those who have dismissed him out of hand.<br><br>The website Thunerbolts.info is a good starting place, where credible scientists and researchers with all the degrees you could wish for have gathered to discuss and rethink their previous assumptions. Yet they are humble enough to present evidence without trying to say "Here is ultimate truth. We now have it all figured out."<br><br>Einstein's secretary claims that Einstein was putting together a conference to examine the idea of the electric universe just weeks before his death. These discoveries threatened to upend Einstein's own theories, yet he apparently thought they were valid enough to look into.<br><br>I think where you are getting hung up is in thinking that no credible scientist has found anything in the work of Velikovsky that has merit. Not true.<br><br>I've said it before: search deeper. True skepticism requires being skeptical of those who would have you stop looking. <br><br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-68988074320783478972013-03-02T10:20:28.036-08:002013-03-02T10:20:28.036-08:00Ah, the JFK case displays another reason that cons...Ah, the JFK case displays another reason that conspiracy theories can be so attractive. The assassination of the president of the United States is so huge and traumatic. We'd rather not live in a world where one nut with a gun can cause so much trauma. It seems unbalanced and unfair. It can't be so easy.<br><br>So we start to devise reasons why it couldn't have just been one man. It must have been something as big and complex as a conspiracy at the highest levels that took down our beloved president.<br><br>Anyway, I'll confess my ignorance on the JFK case. I haven't looked into it much. I'm just saying that I would need some solid evidence for a conspiracy before I'd accept that as the most probable explanation.<br><br>But back to the matter of whether or not Velikowsky's ideas have scientific merit... :)<br><br>- JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-29043415526453520282013-03-02T10:08:50.636-08:002013-03-02T10:08:50.636-08:00LDSDPer,Please don't apologize for the points ...LDSDPer,<br>Please don't apologize for the points you are making; I agree with you completely. I disdain those who, rather than engaging in rational argument, prefer to toss out the label "conspiracy theorists." It is intended to shut people up and end conversations. That tactic doesn't work anymore.<br><br>Our friend Jonathan is of the opinion that what he calls conspiracy theories are attractive to the uninformed because they somehow explain complicated events very simply and neatly. But that is not how it works. <br><br>The idea that Oswald was a lone nut acting on his own IS the simple answer, and because it was delivered to us tied up in a nice simple package, most of us bought into it at the time. But in time we learned the real evidence was broader and more complicated, so the "easy" answer was clearly not the right one. So called "conspiracy theorists" don't seek to have everything explained in a nice package; they follow the observable evidence in hopes of finding where it leads. Often ultimate truth is evasive, but one thing is usually glaringly obvious: the stuff we were spoon fed by the government and media turns out to be hogwash.<br><br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-84361177283058551932013-03-02T09:42:41.673-08:002013-03-02T09:42:41.673-08:00LDSDPer, falsifiability is only one quality of sol...LDSDPer, falsifiability is only one quality of solid science. Among others, it is also based on repeatable observation and peer reviewed. I only focus on falsifiability here because it is one thing that conspiracy theories often lack.<br><br>I don't imagine a cabal of conspiracy theorists gathering to trick us by spreading conspiracy theories. That would mean I was spreading a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories. I don't think I could handle the irony. :D<br><br>No, we are the conspiracy theorists. We as human beings like conspiracy theories, so we gravitate towards them. They give a simple explanation for complex problems, and we like simplicity. They give us a way to justify our viewpoints that is impervious to refutation. They give us the satisfaction of being in the know. They give us juicy gossip. And so on. None of those reasons are rational.<br><br>Again, there are real conspiracies out there, but not everything is caused by conspiracy. Not all conspiracy theories are false, but it is a huge red flag that should warn us to dig deeper to see if we are fooling ourselves.<br><br>I'm not asking you to become a dogmatic follower of Sagan or Wikipedia or any other authority. I hope you just keep asking tough questions that may overturn a few apple carts, even your own. Becoming familiar with falsifiability will help you ask good questions.<br><br>- JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-57522918494469397052013-03-02T09:38:14.754-08:002013-03-02T09:38:14.754-08:00Oh, and by the way. I meant only that the quality ...Oh, and by the way. I meant only that the quality of reasoning behind this post didn't seem to match the others, not that this post was somehow off topic. -JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-59535988855102271832013-03-02T09:36:39.829-08:002013-03-02T09:36:39.829-08:00[Not my computer, so I'm posting anonymously, ...[Not my computer, so I'm posting anonymously, but this is Jonathan.]<br><br>Alan, thanks for the detailed reply though I'm still left wondering what it would take for you to reject Velikowsky's ideas. Is there no evidence that you would find convincing?<br><br>That's OK if there isn't any such evidence. It just indicates that for you this isn't a scientific question but rather a religious one. You seem interested in his ideas because they help to support things that Joseph Smith said rather than any inherent scientific merit of their own.<br><br>If that is the case, then my objection is that this post holds Velikowsky's ideas up against the current scientific consensus and says that the reason they are different is solely because of a conspiracy among the scientific community to suppress his ideas. It says that scientists didn't falsify his ideas through science. If the scientific community accepted his ideas, it would add another witness to Joseph Smith's prophetic call, but they don't, so you explain this through a conspiracy to avoid testing his claims.<br><br>The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case Velikowsky. I could tell you that there is a purple unicorn in my pocket, and you would rightly demand proof. I can't simply say "Prove me wrong." I made the claim, so the burden of proof is mine.<br><br>So from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), Velikowsky found accounts in ancient documents and myths that he interpreted to mean that Venus was formed by ejection from Jupiter within the last few thousand years, that it had close encounters with the Earth causing local catastrophes, that afterwards it settled into its current stable orbit around the Sun, and that humanity has collectively repressed the memory of these events. Velikowsky is making a claim about physics, geology, and astronomy based on historical records and psychoanalysis.<br><br>That's not really science, is it?<br><br>But you say that Velikowsky wasn't doing science, so I'm assuming that we agree on this point. Velikowsky was making a hypothesis that needed to be tested by scientists more prepared to do so.<br><br>So we come back to the question of how to test his hypothesis. Velikowsky's ideas would seem to require us to overturn entire well settled branches of science. Kepler's laws of planetary motion, for example, would need to be thrown out despite how precisely they predict the motion of the planets (especially when refined by General Relativity). It would be OK to overturn current theories if the evidence warranted it. Science should not be driven by dogma but follow all available evidence. <br><br>To my knowledge, the only evidence that Velikowsky and his followers have offered in support of his ideas about the formation of Venus is what comes from mythology and ancient documents. Despite the unsupported assertion that there are "mountains of evidence" vindicating his ideas, this simply doesn't compare with the volumes of evidence for the current scientific theories. The scientific evidence for Velikowsky's hypothesis is insufficient to overturn science as settled as Kepler's laws.<br><br>But despite this, you accept his hypothesis which brings us back to the idea that for you maybe this idea isn't falsifiable. It's not a question of scientific evidence for you. It's about religious faith. I'd be OK with that if it was labelled correctly. You said that Velikowsky wasn't a laboratory scientist, that he wasn't trying to do science, so let's agree to stop calling his hypothesis science and stop denigrating the scientific community for rejecting an unscientific claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-38859914714358087072013-03-02T08:17:10.313-08:002013-03-02T08:17:10.313-08:00Rock, I apologize in advance for taking this comme...Rock, I apologize in advance for taking this comment section into a place somewhat away from Velikovsky.<br><br>I just saw the 9/11 truth comment by JB, and I've been fomenting--(i.e., I am stirring up trouble inside myself)<br><br>LOL!<br><br>So, JB, because you 'threw out' the ubiquitous (I've been hearing it all over the internet, especially on political blogs) and very vague couple of words: "conspiracy theorists"--<br><br>am I a conspiracy theorist, because I am willing to read a blog I run into on the internet like this?:<br><br>http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/30/is-the-government-holding-back-crucial-documents/<br><br>Or would *you* laugh at such a blog and discount it, because it is commenting on something that is happening within the government that is questionable?<br><br>I suspect that you might be younger--<br><br>I vividly remember the assassination of JFK--<br><br>and I realize that some of *us* who did not accept the official story (I didn't even as youth/young adult, and my parents didn't implant that in me; they were completely disconnected with JFK in every possible way and never even showed any remorse)--<br><br>and are still looking for answers (though we don't pretend to have found them)--<br><br>do *you* discount *us*?<br><br><br>http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/30/is-the-government-holding-back-crucial-documents/<br><br>Sorry, Rock. I really need to stop now. This has been bothering me for a long time--<br><br>this calling anyone a 'conspiracy theorist' with whom *one* does not agree--<br><br>And I realize that I, like Weston, am not really furthering the discussion--<br><br>:)<br><br>My attempt will be never to say anything on this particular discussion again--<br><br>although . . . perhaps you should know that a close ward friend of ours (who came to visit, a couple) who is an engineer--<br><br>just took home one of my husband's Velikovsky books to read--<br><br>he had a hard time keeping the book closed as we finished our 'visit'--<br><br>:)<br><br>He had only vaguely heard of Velikovsky--<br><br>and he had often wondered about Joseph Smith's prophecies, though he wasn't skeptical of them--<br><br>you've started some kind of movement here--<br><br>!<br><br>*chuckling aloud*<br><br><br>LDSDPernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-26142870525087607822013-03-02T07:26:30.159-08:002013-03-02T07:26:30.159-08:00I don't necessarily accept everything Wikipedi...I don't necessarily accept everything Wikipedia says either--<br><br>I feel (I got a B.A., not a B.S., but my father was a scientist)--<br><br>that you (JB) are trying to stick everything into a box.<br><br>I am not as interested in Velikovsky's works as my husband and one of my children are. I have listened to them talk about it, so I came on here and read Rock's blog on the topic.<br><br>What I am concerned about is the 'one-test' rule that you keep talking about: falsifiability.<br><br>And I am concerned about how you keep talking about 'conspiracy theorists'.<br><br>I have not met any of these people, so I wonder why you consider *them* such a danger.<br><br>This is why I keep responding to you. What sorts of things are you reading or studying that has made you believe that there is a group of people 'out there' who are a threat to truth--<br><br>who, somehow, assert 'conspiracy theories' as truth?<br><br>Because I have really tried to probe of the truth of political and social history now for several decades (almost 4)--<br><br>and I have never met anyone like this.<br><br>Do you read tabloids? I don't, so perhaps this is where you are seeing such people.<br><br>I have read essays from various people who document various occurrences. Whether or not anyone has the 'whole' truth is very debatable. I don't believe anyone can or does.<br><br>But the fact is that in the process of asking questions, sometimes a researcher finds out something that others don't want to think about or don't want to believe or don't want others to think about or believe--<br><br>and then an ideological battle ensues. Sometimes people write about their opinions.<br><br>The bottom line is, I believe--whether or not the person asking the questions and making an attempt to get answers--<br><br>is really being honest or not.<br><br>And, as I said in another post, there is an entire movement towards confusion.<br><br>I continue to seek the truth, and I refuse to worry about whether or not I am going to please Carl Sagan or anyone else--<br><br>in making things falsifiable.<br><br>I think I should stop now.<br><br>My husband has read several of Velikovsky's books, and he is a careful reader who does have a B.S.--(and beyond)<br><br>He read and enjoyed Rock's essay on Velikovsky and was really pleased with it.<br><br>But I know people who will not look into possible errors in the reporting of 'current events', who are discouraged, because they fear being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'.<br><br>That is just wrong.<br><br>LDSDPernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-4634190761465927182013-03-02T03:22:44.501-08:002013-03-02T03:22:44.501-08:00(Continued)As to your concerns over this piece bei...(Continued)<br><br>As to your concerns over this piece being a departure for me, this blog is about Mormonism, more specifically, the pure and organic teachings as revealed through Joseph Smith.<br><br>Many heretofore puzzling statements of the prophet make better sense in light of the findings of Velikovsky, and for that reason I find all this intriguing, especially in light of the fact that, contrary to your uninformed biases, Velikovsky is looking more and more like a visionary every day. To me, this tends to confirm that Joseph Smith was a visionary too.<br><br>As Larson points out, many LDS scholars tended to avoid some of these more bizarre statements of Joseph Smith, such his statement that about the polar alignment of the planets in ancient times. As Velikovsky receives the serious attention he deserves, Joseph Smith's statements don't seem bizarre at all, but in fact assist in our understanding.<br><br>You seem interested only in sources that would confirm your biases. I prefer to search a little deeper. Example: Last year two books were published on Velikovsky. "The Psuedoscience Wars", which I am currently reading, does not strike me as an attempt to get at the facts, but is dismissive of any attempts at even-handed evaluation, not only of Velikovsky, but of anything the author considers "fringe."<br><br>The book does not attempt to refute or falsify Velikovsky's findings, but only to ridicule anyone who might be curious about them. The role of this book is to stop anyone who might have heard of Velikovsky from looking any further. It says, in effect, "Velikovsky is unquestionably crazy, so there's no need to investigate him further. Just read this book, and we'll tell you all you need to know."<br><br> "The Velikovsky Heresies," on the other hand, is an honest attempt at evaluating how much we have learned since 1950 in the areas of astronomy, ancient cuneiform tablets and scrolls, and geology. One book hopes the reader will assume that anyone who questions the status quo is a kook, the other provides actual information. Guess which book I believe takes a more "scientific" approach?Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.com