At 18:14 19/09/2007, you wrote:
Ian Tresman wrote:
Jastrow had also noted that Velikovsky was
"a man of extraordinary
talents" with "powers of scholarship and intellect", and his theory
as "radical, exciting, and potentially fruitful", and acknowledges
three correct predictions: "Venus is hot; Jupiter emits radio noise;
and the moon's rocks are magnetic" (and then notes seven false predictions)
This points to an "all-or-nothing" approach that some take to
information sources. From the above they might say that because
Velikovsky had a 70% error rate, none of what he said should be
considered valid. Similarly, if he had been 70% correct there would be
pressure to accept everything he said as being correct. The fact is
that generally brilliant people sometimes jump from a cliff with a
ridiculous theory; similarly, kooks can occasionally have amazing
insights.
Could be indeed, which is why it's not good to over-generalize. And I
have no doubt that many would disagree with Jastrow. I have quotes
which consider Velikovsky's three "successful" predictions to be
nothing of the sort, and other quotes which consider his "failed"
predictions to be... nothing of the sort.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com