In "Worlds in Collision", did Velikosky's comparative mythology suffer because his astrophysics was so bad?

Question

Is there value in his work, more today than in 1950?

I am nay hip to Stanislov Lem. I will get so. Haven't read SciFi in a while. I liked "Fundamental Disch" a lot.

You guys are both right, by the way. I'm just fishing for opinion.

Answer 1

Since his goal was apparently to completely re-write the sciences, it might be more accurate to say that his astrophysics suffered because his comparative mythology was so bad.

While it is always curious when stories from different cultures seem to correspond (it seems poor to called them 'myths' if we accept that they might - at least in part - be true), I think that to be COMPARING you have to also pay attention to where they are different. After all, Aztec stories held that we were actually on our FIFTH world... why did this have no place in Velikosky's comparisons? One can only conclude that he left them out because they didn't support the conclusions he was trying to make. That is not only poor science, that is poor story-telling!

I'm not going to say that there's no value in his work. Actually, I think it has quite a bit of value, but it's not the value that its author intended. It is a fascinating study not only of the richness of human imagination, both in the stories and Velikosky's new interpretations of them, but also in what people want to believe. Look how strongly scientists felt compelled to oppose this work (the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a special conference just to go over it!) and look at how strongly people did (and still) cling to it in spite of all this. THAT is what is fascinating and valuable about this work.

It is in that wise that I can say we would have been poorer if it had never been. Peace.

Answer 2

hmmm... actually, his name is "Velikovskiy"... but anyhow...
I find his writing a bit tired, shallow, and certainly less appealing now than I found it 40 years ago when read it first...
Granted, he poses some tantalizing questions, but the work which follows is sloppy at best, careless at worst. It is typical hit and run in terms of quasi-scientific writing. He lacked the discipline to follow thrugh and basically posed a bunch of hypothesis which he failed to flesh out. Yes, his astrophysics sucked (his decription of the Tunguska event is the best example), but that was only a minor failing...
sorrry, for an intellctual treat read anything by S. Lem.

P.S. OK, frogster, you will like Lem, I promise... He probably was the most significant sci-fi writer of our time... ridiculed in the west for chiding sci-fi writers here for obssessing over the time travel conundrum (grandfather clause) rather than focusing on ontology ;) ;)