From: Ev Cochrane Subject: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic Date: 1996/01/26 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 136751735 organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) newsgroups: talk.origins The most recent issue of Skeptic magazine included a trilogy of invited articles examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place in the history of science (Vol 3:4, 1995). Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic, has kindly granted me permission to post the following article by your's truly. Title: "Velikovsky Still in Collision" "If you have had your attention directed to the novelties of thought in your own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all really new ideas have a certain amount of foolishness when they are first produced." Alfred North Whitehead The theories of maverick scholar Immanuel Velikovsky sparked a virulent debate upon publication of his Worlds in Collision in 1950. The central thesis of the book--that spectacular cataclysms involving various planets recently wracked the solar system, being witnessed by man the world over and commemorated in countless myths and sacred rites--was deemed so unpalatable by the academic community that a Harvard astronomer organized a boycott of the publisher in an attempt to suppress the book (the most complete account of this shoddy episode is that of Vorhees, 1993). While this blatant attempt to subvert academic freedom succeeded in the short term--Velikovsky's reputation was forever tarnished and Macmillan was forced to give up the rights to the book despite the fact that it was a bestseller at the time--it would appear to have failed in the long run, as more and more readers came to be attracted to Velikovsky's work as a result of the controversy itself and as various space probes began to report data predicted by the heretical scholar (radio noises emanating from Jupiter, remnant magnetism in lunar rocks, the existence of a terrestrial magnetosphere extending to the Moon, etc.) How does one summarize the career of a man whose eight published volumes span the fields of ancient history, astronomy, paleontology, evolutionary theory, abnormal psychology, comparative religion, geology, and a host of others? This is a difficult task under any circumstances, much less in the limited-space available in a forum such as this. So I will present only a brief summary of Velikovsky's theory of planetary catastrophism. Born in Russia in 1895 and educated at some of the finest universities in Europe, Velikovsky eventually emigrated to Palestine, where he practiced medicine and psychoanalysis for the better part of two decades. In 1939, Velikovsky came to America to pursue research for a book on Freud's heroes. It was while contemplating various passages in the Old Testament--such as the sun standing still for Joshua--that Velikovsky arrived at the crucial insight that the Earth had been brought to the brink of destruction as a result of the near passage of a celestial body. In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky challenged orthodox science and history by claiming that: (1) Great cataclysms have distinguished the recent history of the Earth; (2) These cataclysms were caused by extraterrestrial agents; (3) The agents of catastrophe can be identified with the specific planets in the solar system (Velikovsky, 1950, p. ix) In addition to these general claims, Velikovsky also offered the following, more specific, claims: (1) The planet Saturn only recently loomed large in the heavens, an indication, apparently, of the Earth's former close proximity to the gas giant; (2) The planet Venus assumed a comet-like appearance during a particularly spectacular episode in the not-too-distant past; (3) The planet Mars recently participated in epoch-ending cataclysms, inspiring its reputation as a war-god and agent of destruction. The latter three claims are entirely without precedent in the annals of human thought and underscore the profoundly unique nature of Velikovsky's vision of the recent history of the solar system. Velikovsky's most famous claim--and the one which most drew the ire of the astronomical community--was that Venus once presented a comet-like form while threatening the Earth, only settling into its current orbit well within the historical period. Can there be any truth to this admittedly bizarre scenario? A wealth of evidence confirms that Velikovsky's hypothesis is not as far-fetched as might at first appear. Indeed, the truth of the matter is that the evidence in favor of Venus' comet-like past is far more pervasive than Velikovsky himself ever imagined. Thus, in a series of articles exploring Venus' role in ancient myth and religion, Dave Talbott and I documented that ancient terms for "comet"--including "hair-star," "serpent-star", "bearded-star", "tailed-star", "torch- star", "smoking-star", etc.--were each specifically applied to Venus! (Talbott & Cochrane, 1984, 1985, 1987). From ancient Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica, Venus was described as a "hairy" star, "smoking" star, "bearded" star, "serpent" star, etc. Such terminology, as we documented, was not only common among most ancient cultures, but surprisingly prominent in the earliest religious and mythical traditions, thereby attesting, it would appear, to the importance accorded Venus/comets in ancient thought. In addition to this shared terminology, Venus and comets also shared a similar reputation in ancient tradition. Thus, comets were universally associated with the following themes: (1) Disaster (i.e., the appearance of a comet heralded a great epidemic, earthquakes, a terrifying eclipse of the sun, etc.); (2) The end of the world (end of a world age or kingdom, etc.); (3) The death of a great king; (4) The transmigration of a great king's soul. Strange to say, and wholly inexplicable from the vantage point of orthodox modern astronomy, the very same themes are also associated with Venus. In the New World as well as the Old, from the most ancient times to the advent of the modern age, Venus was widely regarded as an omen of disaster, a harbinger of the end of a world age, the agent of a great eclipse at the dawn of time, a sign that a prominent king was about to die, and explicitly associated with the departing "soul" of a dying king (Cochrane, 1989; Talbott, 1994). Given this striking correspondence between the ancient lore surrounding Venus and comets, it is difficult to deny Velikovsky's thesis that Venus recently presented a comet-like appearance, however the phenomenon is to be understood in astronomical terms. According to archaeoastronomical traditions of peoples the world over, Mars and Saturn were also associated with spectacular cataclysms in very recent times. And each of these planets was described in terms which are impossible to reconcile with their current, relatively staid appearances. Mars, for example, was associated with prodigious eclipses of the sun throughout the ancient world (Cochrane, 1993). Saturn was identified as the ancient sun-god by the Babylonians, Indians, and Greeks. Helios, for example, was originally a name for the planet Saturn rather than the current Sun (Talbott, 1980). Here it may well be asked, "Granted that Velikovsky might have been on the right track with regard to the presence of cometary imagery in ancient traditions surrounding Venus, of what significance is this finding for modern science?" It is the far-reaching ramifications of this finding for ancient history and modern astronomy, of course, which have long intrigued Velikovsky's admirers and incensed his detractors. Stated simply, if the spectacle of Venus as a comet-like body threatening the Earth was actually witnessed by ancient humans the world over, our entire conception of the recent history of the solar system--not to mention our understanding of celestial mechanics and a score of other sciences--is destined to be turned upside down. It would thus appear that the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's ideas is far from settled. Is he fated to go down in history as the epitome of a crank, as Carl Sagan and the astronomical community would have it? Or is he to be regarded as the decisive catalyst in a scientific revolution the likes of which has yet to be seen? In my opinion, the answer hinges on the scientific validity of recent planetary catastrophism. Should Velikovsky be vindicated on this score--and I believe he will--its stands to reason that he will be granted a prominent place in intellectual history. Like Darwin, Freud and other intellectual catalysts throughout history, Velikovsky is not only important for what he added to the storehouse of knowledge, but for the bold new questions he posed and hitherto unimagined horizons he exposed. To read Velikovsky is to be catapulted into an entirely new way of viewing the world and its history. Just as, after On the Origin of Species, few can contemplate one of Nature's myriad of life forms without seeing evidence of its evolutionary history in every feature; and just as, after The Interpretation of Dreams, few can afford to overlook unconscious determinants of behavior; so too, after Worlds in Collision, one can never again look at myth--nay the entire intellectual heritage bequethed to us by ancient man in the form of sacred literature, heroic epics, folklore, rock art, etc.--without seeing unequivocal evidence of the Earth's cataclysmic recent history. Bibliography E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," Aeon, 1989, pp. 53-75. E. Cochrane, "On Mars and Pestilence," Aeon 1993, pp. 59-79. D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (New York, 1980). D. Talbott, "The Great Comet Venus," Aeon, 1994, pp. 5-51. D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, "The Origin of Velikovsky's Comet," "On the Nature of Cometary Symbolism," and "When Venus was a Comet," in Kronos, 1984, 1985, and 1987 respectively. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950). D. Vorhees, "Velikovsky in America," Aeon, 1993, pp. 32-58.