Scientists Confront Velikovsky - A Group of eminent Scholars Reply to Velikovsky's Theory of Worlds in Collision

by Donald Goldsmith

In this book, Velikovsky s ideas are seriously discussed and criticized by three astronomers, a sociologist, and an expert on ancient astronomical records. The result is a full-scale critique of Velikovsky s work from several perspectives. Lucid and informative, the book not only shows the deficiencies of Velikovsky s views, but also makes clear why these views have attracted such a strong public following.

Genres: Science

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1978

About the author

Donald Goldsmith is an astrophysicist, popular science author and screenwriter. He is the president of Interstellar Media. He is also the winner of the 1995 American Astronomical Society's Annenberg Foundation Award for Education and the Klumpke-Roberts Prize for his contributions to the public understanding of astronomy.

He received his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley in 1969.He taught at Stony Brook University before becoming a full-time popularizer, and has written, co-written, or edited a number of popular science books.

His book "Origins," co-written with Neil Tyson, was the companion volume to the four-hour PBS series with the same title. Dr. Goldsmith worked on Carl Sagan's "COSMOS" series, and on Neil Tyson's series of the same name, and was the science editor and co-writer of the six-part PBS series "THE ASTRONOMERS." He has written many popular articles for journals such as Scientific American, Natural History, Discover, and Astronomy.

Reviews

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guess I was as prone to going for conspiracy theories as much as any youngster, reading those revelations of Velikovsky. But I got yet more pleasure out of this rigorous test of his theories, and I learned to expect that there must be a test.

[Mike Lisanke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I liked the book from the vantage of its attack of Velikovsky or its defend of their Science, I find it interesting that much of the analysis of Worlds in Collision was only couched in scientific analysis... As we can't Know what black swan conditions occur under catastrophic conditions, it'd be difficult to Answer a theory which Supposes that history/legend was factual rather than fictious. And, BTW, though I'm a fan of Asimov Sci-fi and Sagan popular Science books, it's disheartening to see both stoop to attacks in defense of Institutional Science. While I'd never try to validate Velikovshy, I can see the ad hominem nature of much of the book. I want to read more on Scientism... having a Sociologist write a significant portion of the introduction, and leading into a Sagan's complaint he had more important research to work on than to Write his Diatribe... this book makes clear that those (especially renowned) working in Science value their Institutionalize Defenses way more than I believe they should. IMO We'd all be much better off to discuss/argue/debate the Issues/Facts/Science than to question the People from Outside Science (exoheritics?) who question the Science!

[Heart DeCoupeville · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a damn shame we don't have more scientists standing up for science today. We need them!

I read Velikovsky 40 years ago and thought he was nuts then, but I'm no scientist. Wish I had known then that this was out there; I'd have sent it to the "friend" who introduced me to Worlds in Collision.