h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> Haven't been around for a while, but have to congratulate you on the ad hominem. Did you have any concrete examples ... << #30380


See references referred to in #30374.
>> Friedlander's book At The Fringes of Science. Friedlander had direct experience of debating the matter with Velikovsky ... Friedlander also points to a book that details the errors in Velikovsky work: http://www.velikovsky.info/Beyond_Velikovsky <<

Someone who believes he is right while science is wrong, proposing planets that move by electromagnetic forces rather than by gravity can fairly be called a fruitcase, if fruitcase is a usable word in the English language.

I think the popularity of Velikovsky theories in some lay quarters of the US was that it supported a literal view of the bible & world history and provided further "testimony" to science skeptics of conspiracies amid the science community (such folk believe for example that the moon landings were faked & that 9/11 was staged by the CIA - Mossad).

Friedlander refers to the 1974 American Association for the Advancement of Science & the 1974 Philosophy of Science Association panel discussion - in which Velikovsky & two of his supporters were present.

Friedlander refers to the 1974 annual meeting of the American Association ...

That said I am interested in knowing if there is any historical "truth" that can be extracted from the bible (the starting point / assumptions being that the bible was written by man and that it might all be untrue).

I think many scholars believe the pre second temple stories / books might be completely mythical & akin to "Homers" Illiad & Odyssey (although of course the style of writing differs). I have read some of the biblical stories of David & Solomon (founders of the unified state of Israel-Judah & the first temple respectively) & the strange thing about it is that these two figures seem to be full of human faults & weaknesses. For example "King" David is said to have broken some of the ten commandments ... he coveted the wife of a "neighbour" & had the neighbour killed (Uriah the Hittite) to get his paws on his wife (Bathsheba). Moreover, Solomon was the product of this apparent "unholy" pairing of David & Bathsheba. So the question being if King David & Solomon were entirely fictitious why would these characters be portrayed as containing such obvious faults.

But maybe there is some Hellenistic influence (or source common to Greek & Hebrew "literature") ... as they seemed to portray their gods & heros as also containing faults etc.

So, Velikovsky would have been 79 at the time.

In any case, as I've said before, I don't support his cosmological theories, or even always his handling of the material that went into his chronological reconstruction. There are plenty of outstanding issues, but let's face it, there are plenty of outstanding issues with the SC, too, and that's been around a lot longer. And as I indicated in my last post, nobody has a monopoly on wobbly thinking.

As for historical "truth" in the bible, this is a vast subject with no simple yes/no answers. Van Seters, in his lifetime regarded as one of the foremost experts in textual analysis, regarded the Bathsheba story as a Persian period addition attached to an older corpus, based on the use of language and the social institutions incorporated into it.

We can trace real kings of Israel back as far as Omri (c975bc), mainly through the Assyrian annals, although it's patchy, as for long periods the Assyrians weren't active in Canaan, with a more consistent corroboration from the time of the neo-Assyrians (c740 on). The Egyptian history for the 9th and 8th centuries fits poorly with both.

Nor should it be forgotten that the SC treats the invasion of Shishak/Sheshonk in 925BC as a fixed date, and that's derived directly from the bible (though since the primary historical work is by Kenneth Kitchen, an avowed evangelical Christian, you might want to take that with a pinch of salt).

Noggin

My view is that Velikovsky's name is just too toxic for academia nowadays (as judged by those two references plus my own knowledge of the ridiculousness of his suggested science) ... so it would be more productive to focus on the weaknesses & assumptions of the Standard Chronology with suggested alternatives, where appropriate, directly addressing the evidence (& avoiding if at all possible naming or referring to Velikovsky).

There must come a point where the reputation has been so badly tainted and/or the methodology so weak or faulty that to progress the issue one should go direct to sources of evidence rather than referencing this persons work. Whether this is ad hominem or not is difficult to say but nowadays many people aren't given the time of day with regard research without the relevant qualifications & evidence of peer review publishing - which is a form of quality assurance.

>> Van Seters, in his lifetime regarded as one of the foremost experts in textual analysis, regarded the Bathsheba story as a Persian period addition attached to an older corpus, based on the use of language and the social institutions incorporated into it. <<

It seems strange why the Jewish priesthood would add and retain this particular story in their collection of morality & "sacred" scripture. It also seems so intertwined with Solomon and the founding of the first temple ... one wonders how it would be possible to meld so many sub-plots & stories if they came from separate sources.

John Van Seters seems to be an important figure in biblical literature / history. Did he have any comment as to the standard chronology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Van_Seters#Research_and_Publication

Van Seters worked within the SC paradigm, and AFAIK never mentioned Velikovsky explicitly in his work, although it seems unlikely that he would have been completely unaware of him.

Nevertheless, it was he who placed the Ipuwer Papyrus definitively at the end of the 13th dynasty, where Velikovsky placed it, and where it is consistent with the account in Manetho/Josephus of the end of this dynasty and the beginning of the Hyksos period, and with some other archaeological data gives us good reason to believe that "something bad" happened at this time. Before this, the majority, but not unanimous, view was that it was written in the Middle Kingdom and referred back to the First Intermediate Period. There is still some support for this view, but it seems mostly to be an attempt by its proponents to distance themselves from Velikovsky, as no reasons are given for maintaining it.

Noggin

On the toxicity of Velikovsky: I have to agree with you. For me the unfortunate thing is that the discrediting of the cosmology seems to be held up as proof of the incorrectness of the chronology, and while the Worlds in Collision sequence does depend on the revised chronology, the opposite isn't true. For example, whether Velikovsky is right or wrong about the Greek letters, Persian tiles and Ptolemaic-style tombs connecting Rameses III and the 20th dynasty (SC 12th century BC) with the Persian/Greek period (4th century BC), this plainly does not depend in any way on his cosmology, and if he's right the SC can't be rescued, the Cosmology notwithstanding.

Noggin

On the standard chronology. Some questions.

Which came first? The broad outline of the standard chronology, the decipherment of hieroglyphics, or archaeology as something more than tomb-robbing?

When was the last major Chronological revision accepted into the SC (there were actually two, a couple of decades apart)? What were the objections at the time, and what were created as a result that hadn't previously been accepted?

In the meantime, as a kind of clue, you might be interested in this https://archive.org/details/BC110513

Noggin

Not sure why that doesn't come up as a link, but copy and paste it into your search bar it should work. It's a 45 minute video about the Hittites. As far as I can check with google the facts are correct.

Noggin

If I may distract this thread from its recent arguments
about chronologies and historical accuracies, perhaps this
video will re-freshen some of our more basic 'Questions'
on the Meaning of Life.

The video production values are very high; lots of great
imagery. And it is a rare opportunity to visit the mind of
a young man of the Muslim faith as he desparately tries
to understand the 'great question' while already convinced
of the answer to the Meaning of Life.

http://youtu.be/7d16CpWp-ok

The passion is undeniable, the insights and 'new' approach
quite modern and trendy in a rapper sorta way. And yet... the
final message, to 'Read for Understanding', does seem at odds
with the very progressive use of modern media. My interest
here is mostly from a 'medium is the message' sorta curiosity.
But I was really impressed by his familiarity with the detail
of certain inexplicable mysteries that occur in the recorded
knowledge of the Koran. How did such knowledge appear
in the 7th century without divine intervention.


~jwf~

>> How did such knowledge appear
in the 7th century without divine intervention. <<

Some people find knowledge in a Rorschach inkblot, others in a Justin Bieber song, others in money, others in Drawkins ... it's difficult to say. Can we be curtain that our minds are our own, that free wheels is an allusion, could we be a simulated confabulation created by an anomaly in the flux capacitance driven by an ex cess pool of dribble in the cornfields of the fallopian fields of our ancestors?

>>..driven by an ex cess pool of dribble in the cornfields of the fallopian fields of our ancestors? <<

Well said sir! And within your jest lies great Truthiness.

Heard some astrophysicist on the CBC yesterday telling us
about the 3500 exoplanets discovered by the Keppler before
it went offline. Soon there'll be a new satellite built to cover
the entire dome of the sky but will concentrate on all the stars
within 50 light years. With new remote sensing they will be able
to analyse the data showing the chemistry of the nearest earth-like
(Goldilocks) planets - but he warned that we must not prejudge
what Life is or assume it is a water and carbon base supported
by oxygen. Oxygen, he reminds us, is what killed off most of the
LIfe here on earth once upon a time and is a very unlikely thing
to expect elsewhere. So we will need to access these cess pools
of which you speak with care and open mines.


~jwf~

I spoke to the eggspirt on evilocution, the Rite Riverend McDouknow, & he relieably tellus me evablution jest disney work accordion two Darlosean principles, even punchewated equilibrium is indigestible ... so there is still macho to work out. She praysed the astrocists for looking to the heavens in their search for answers but warns them not to neglect the message contained in the Gospel of Oxy John.

... evablution jest disney wash ...

Ah yes the gobsmell accordion of Sane John.

Always confused by the number and declention of Johns.
Y'got your disciple John, your apostle John, John the Revelator,
John the Baptiste, and John of the Ambulance Brigands to name a few.


For the record, Dawkins was a guest last week on the Daily Show
with Jon Stewart. He didn't have much to say and was mostly on
the defensive and qualifying everything he said with 'some people
say that' or 'some people think that' but he was quite eager to say
he believes there is a 50-50 chance that Science poses as big a threat
to human survival as Fundamentalism. Doing the math, it seems he gives
humanity a mere 25% chance of surviving the 21st century. Even less if
the Fundamentalists get hold of (steal) the science to create WMDs.


~jwf~

An interesting article in response to Dawkins tweet: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though". The way he generalises a whole class of people (estimated at 20% of the human population) ... "you Muslims" ... is one of the reasons why accusations of "racism" are made at him. Dawkins responds by denying the terms of the accusation "Muslims aren't a race":

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/why-do-so-many-nobel-laureates-look-richard-dawkins

"Even less if the Fundamentalists get hold of (steal) the science to create WMDs".

Are ye talking of religious fundamentalists, capitalist fundamentalists, nationalistic fundamentalists, or some other fund a mentalist?

Hmmm...

"Science Is Real" Utoob video from They Might Be Giants.

http://youtu.be/ty33v7UYYbw

My impression is that this is a childish and patronising
piece of propaganda aimed at the wee kiddies. Poor things.

It aint that the message is just overly simplistic it's that
it is presented as part a prerequisite socialising mandate.

To deny the presented 'facts' is to deny associated 'happiness'.

How do kids today cope with all the smiley faces aimed at
their brains by video mongers?


~jwf~