[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The appeal to the public is, of course, valueless from the scientific standpoint.The findings of science, after all, cannot be canceled or reversed by majority vote, or, forthat matter, by the highest legislative or executive fiat.If every government in the world declared, officially, that the earth was flat, and if every scientist were forbiddento argue the contrary, the earth would nevertheless remain spheroidal and every scrap of evidence maintaining that conclusion would still exist.Nevertheless, the appeal to the public has other rewards than that of establishing scientific proof.1. If the public responds favorably, it is soul-satisfying.The exoheretic an easily convince himself that the fact that he is the center of a cult demonstrates the value of hisviews.He can easily argue himself into believing that people would not flock to nonsense, though all history shows otherwise.2. If the public responds favorably, the results can be lucrative.It is well known that books and lectures dealing favorably with a popular cult do far better than dobooks and lectures debunking it.This is not altered by the53 The Role of the Hereticfact that the books in favor may be poorly written and reasoned, whereas the books against may be models of lucidity and rationality.3.If the public responds favorably, scientists may be hounded into open opposition and may express, with injudicious force, their opinion of the obvious nonsense ofthe exoheretical views.This very opposition, casting the exoheretic into the role of martyr, works to accentuate the first two advantages.The fact remains, nevertheless, public support or not, that the exoheretic virtually never proves to be right.(How can he, when he, quite literally, doesn't know whathe's talking about.) Of course, he may prove to have said something somewhere in his flood of words that bears some resemblance to something that later proves to beso, and this coincidental concurrence of word and fact may be hailed as proving all the rest of the corpus of his work.This, however, has only cultic value.We see, then, the vast difference between endoheretics and exoheretics:1a.The public is, generally, not interested in the endoheretic; or, if aware of him at all, is hostile to him.The endoheretic therefore rarely profits from his heresy in anymaterial way.*lb.The public, on the other hand, can be very interested in the exoheretic and can support him with a partisan and even religious fervor, so that the exoheretic may, in amaterial way, profit very considerably by his heresy.2a.The endoheretic is sometimes right, and, indeed, since startling scientific advances usually begin as heresies, some of the greatest names in science have beenendoheretics.2b.The exoheretic, on the other hand, is virtually never right, and the history of science contains no great advance, to my knowledge, initiated by an exoheretic.One might combine these generalizations and, working backward (not always a safe procedure), state that when a view denounced by scientists as false is,nevertheless, popular with the general public, the mere fact of that popularity is strong evidence in favor of its worthlessness.It is on the basis of public popularity of particular beliefs, for instance, that I, even without personal investigation of such matters, feel it safe to be extremely skepticalabout ancient astronauts, or about modern astronauts in UFOs, or about the value of talking to plants, or about psionic phenomena, or about spiritualism, or aboutastrology. * I must qualify these generalizations because there are exceptions of course.Edward Jenner, who advanced the endoheretical technique of smallpox vaccination, wasaccepted eagerly by the public, and profited materially as a result. Of course, I would also have used this line of reasoning to feel it safe to be skeptical about the value of smallpox vaccination, but the facts would have converted mewithin a year in that case.54 The Role of the HereticAnd this brings me to Velikovskianism at last.Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most succesfully forced himself to be taken seriously.Why isthat? Well 1. Velikovsky was a psychiatrist and so he had training in a scientific specialty of sorts and was not an utter exoheretic.What's more, he had the faculty of sounding asthough he knew what he was talking about when he invaded the precincts of astronomy.He didn't make very many elementary mistakes and he was able to use thelanguage of science sufficiently well to impress a layman, at any rate.2. He was an interesting writer.It's fun to read his books.I myself have read every book he published.Although he didn't lure me into accepting his views, I can wellsee how those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky dealt with succumbed.3. Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it; that the miraculous events described in theOld Testament really happened as described.To be sure, Velikovsky abandons the hypothesis that divine intervention caused the miracles and substitutes a far less that? Well 1. Velikovsky was a psychiatrist and so he had training in a scientific specialty of sorts and was not an utter exoheretic.What's more, he had the faculty of sounding asthough he knew what he was talking about when he invaded the precincts of astronomy.He didn't make very many elementary mistakes and he was able to use thelanguage of science sufficiently well to impress a layman, at any rate.2. He was an interesting writer.It's fun to read his books.I myself have read every book he published.Although he didn't lure me into accepting his views, I can wellsee how those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky dealt with succumbed.3. Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it; that the miraculous events described in theOld Testament really happened as described [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.The appeal to the public is, of course, valueless from the scientific standpoint.The findings of science, after all, cannot be canceled or reversed by majority vote, or, forthat matter, by the highest legislative or executive fiat.If every government in the world declared, officially, that the earth was flat, and if every scientist were forbiddento argue the contrary, the earth would nevertheless remain spheroidal and every scrap of evidence maintaining that conclusion would still exist.Nevertheless, the appeal to the public has other rewards than that of establishing scientific proof.1. If the public responds favorably, it is soul-satisfying.The exoheretic an easily convince himself that the fact that he is the center of a cult demonstrates the value of hisviews.He can easily argue himself into believing that people would not flock to nonsense, though all history shows otherwise.2. If the public responds favorably, the results can be lucrative.It is well known that books and lectures dealing favorably with a popular cult do far better than dobooks and lectures debunking it.This is not altered by the53 The Role of the Hereticfact that the books in favor may be poorly written and reasoned, whereas the books against may be models of lucidity and rationality.3.If the public responds favorably, scientists may be hounded into open opposition and may express, with injudicious force, their opinion of the obvious nonsense ofthe exoheretical views.This very opposition, casting the exoheretic into the role of martyr, works to accentuate the first two advantages.The fact remains, nevertheless, public support or not, that the exoheretic virtually never proves to be right.(How can he, when he, quite literally, doesn't know whathe's talking about.) Of course, he may prove to have said something somewhere in his flood of words that bears some resemblance to something that later proves to beso, and this coincidental concurrence of word and fact may be hailed as proving all the rest of the corpus of his work.This, however, has only cultic value.We see, then, the vast difference between endoheretics and exoheretics:1a.The public is, generally, not interested in the endoheretic; or, if aware of him at all, is hostile to him.The endoheretic therefore rarely profits from his heresy in anymaterial way.*lb.The public, on the other hand, can be very interested in the exoheretic and can support him with a partisan and even religious fervor, so that the exoheretic may, in amaterial way, profit very considerably by his heresy.2a.The endoheretic is sometimes right, and, indeed, since startling scientific advances usually begin as heresies, some of the greatest names in science have beenendoheretics.2b.The exoheretic, on the other hand, is virtually never right, and the history of science contains no great advance, to my knowledge, initiated by an exoheretic.One might combine these generalizations and, working backward (not always a safe procedure), state that when a view denounced by scientists as false is,nevertheless, popular with the general public, the mere fact of that popularity is strong evidence in favor of its worthlessness.It is on the basis of public popularity of particular beliefs, for instance, that I, even without personal investigation of such matters, feel it safe to be extremely skepticalabout ancient astronauts, or about modern astronauts in UFOs, or about the value of talking to plants, or about psionic phenomena, or about spiritualism, or aboutastrology. * I must qualify these generalizations because there are exceptions of course.Edward Jenner, who advanced the endoheretical technique of smallpox vaccination, wasaccepted eagerly by the public, and profited materially as a result. Of course, I would also have used this line of reasoning to feel it safe to be skeptical about the value of smallpox vaccination, but the facts would have converted mewithin a year in that case.54 The Role of the HereticAnd this brings me to Velikovskianism at last.Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most succesfully forced himself to be taken seriously.Why isthat? Well 1. Velikovsky was a psychiatrist and so he had training in a scientific specialty of sorts and was not an utter exoheretic.What's more, he had the faculty of sounding asthough he knew what he was talking about when he invaded the precincts of astronomy.He didn't make very many elementary mistakes and he was able to use thelanguage of science sufficiently well to impress a layman, at any rate.2. He was an interesting writer.It's fun to read his books.I myself have read every book he published.Although he didn't lure me into accepting his views, I can wellsee how those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky dealt with succumbed.3. Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it; that the miraculous events described in theOld Testament really happened as described.To be sure, Velikovsky abandons the hypothesis that divine intervention caused the miracles and substitutes a far less that? Well 1. Velikovsky was a psychiatrist and so he had training in a scientific specialty of sorts and was not an utter exoheretic.What's more, he had the faculty of sounding asthough he knew what he was talking about when he invaded the precincts of astronomy.He didn't make very many elementary mistakes and he was able to use thelanguage of science sufficiently well to impress a layman, at any rate.2. He was an interesting writer.It's fun to read his books.I myself have read every book he published.Although he didn't lure me into accepting his views, I can wellsee how those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky dealt with succumbed.3. Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it; that the miraculous events described in theOld Testament really happened as described [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]