- #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,986
- 6,661
This is a meaningless statement. Einstein's peers calling him a crackpot and us calling Velikovsky a crackpot are apples and oranges.x8jason8x said:at the risk of mincing, Einstein was also called a crackpot...
(I'm not saying "How could you call Einstein a crackpot!", I'm saying the two claims are not comparable.)
Einstein had some really out there ideas, but he followed scientific rigour, and showed his results mathematically. Anyone who took the time to rigourously examine his theories would find little wiggle room (noting the lack of competing theories as testament).
Velikovsky can be demonstrably proven wrong on claims. He makes up facts, uses dicey logic, and generally manipulates his way to implausible conclusions that will never withstand critical examination. He simply can't be taken seriously.
A different example: As the word 'crackpot' can have differing validity, so can the word 'theory'. Astrology "theorizes" that stars and planets affect humans. The atomic nature of matter is also a "mere" theory. But simply giving these two things the same label doesn't make them comparable in their validity.
Last edited: