From: Subject: THE ROLE OF COLLECTIVE AMNESIAIN RETARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF CORRECT IDEAS IN SCIENCE Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:21:25 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol0902/039role.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 THE ROLE OF COLLECTIVE AMNESIAIN RETARDING THE = ACCEPTANCE OF CORRECT IDEAS IN SCIENCE

THE ROLE OF COLLECTIVE AMNESIAIN RETARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF CORRECT = IDEAS=20 IN SCIENCE

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

Should the question be asked why my books caused such great enmity = and=20 agitation (several writers have compared it with the violent natural = events I=20 described), the answer should not be simplified into the formula - = "because the=20 theories argued in them run counter to the established views." Such an=20 explanation requires elaboration within a larger historical = perspective.

Fundamentally, it has been true that any new concept that carried = seeds of=20 truth and dispensed with many accepted tenets was apt to provoke some=20 opposition. But this is not all. There must be deeper reasons for the=20 extraordinary outburst on the part of the scientific community that = greeted and=20 pursued my works. This manifested itself in immense efforts to make me = appear to=20 be unscientific or unscholarly, an outcast, and my work of no = worth.(1)

The cases of Galileo, Darwin, and Pasteur were often brought into = comparison=20 by many reviewers and numerous correspondents. But, without losing = historical=20 perspective, the attacks in these cases were far less vituperative, far = more=20 mixed with praise, than the attacks made on the substance of Worlds = in=20 Collision and Earth in Upheaval, and personally upon their = author.

Galileo was received in many honorary assemblies with great pomp, = even by the=20 Pope himself; the initial unwillingness to believe what Galileo saw = through the=20 telescope soon turned into great admiration for his achievement.(2) It = was the=20 scorn to which Galileo exposed the Pope, putting his views on cosmology = into the=20 mouth of Simplicius, that caused Galileo's brush with the = Inquisition.

From the beginning, Darwin had many followers among scientists; and = actually=20 not he as much as his opponents were the targets of emotionally charged = abuse.=20 It was Huxley, not Bishop Wilberforce - the main opponent of Darwin - = who in=20 their famous encounter lost his temper and used insulting language.

Pasteur had envious and disbelieving colleagues, and some scientists = in=20 exalted positions, like Virchow, did not hurry to his side; yet Lord = Lister did=20 so. Before long Pasteur's name rang throughout Europe, and people = traveled to=20 his laboratory - this despite the fact that Pasteur had no formal = medical=20 training, as Darwin had no formal training in natural history. Darwin's = only=20 degree was that of Bachelor of Theology (3)

Galileo, Darwin and Pasteur, the standard examples of the persecution = to=20 which innovators are subjected, did not experience nearly as much abuse, = either=20 in sheer quantity (though the comparative scarcity of the press in the=20 seventeenth and nineteenth centuries needs to be taken into account), or = in its=20 intensity, as became the lot of the author of Worlds in = Collision.

In the history of science only the case of Copernicus caused a = comparable=20 objection and agitation. But Copernicus spared himself the abuse by the=20 intentional postponement of the publication of his book until his very = death. In=20 his last days he was persuaded by his only pupil, Rheticus, to permit = him to=20 publish his work, De Revolutionibus, which he dedicated to Pope = Paul=20 III. On May 24, 1543, a few hours before Copernicus died, the first copy = was put=20 in his hands. In it he said:

"I can easily conceive . . . that as soon as some people learn that = in this=20 book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly = bodies, I=20 ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I = and my=20 theory should be rejected. Accordingly, when I considered in my own = mind how=20 absurd a performance it might seem to those who know that the = judgement of=20 many centuries has approved the view that the Earth remains fixed as = center in=20 the midst of heaven, if I should on the contrary assert that the Earth = moves -=20 when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear = because of=20 the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to = abandon=20 the work I had begun. How did it occur to me to venture, contrary to = the=20 accepted view of the mathematicians, and well-nigh contrary to common = sense,=20 to form any conception of any terrestrial motion whatsoever? = "

The only opposition Copernicus experienced in his lifetime was not = from the=20 Catholic Church, but from Martin Luther who, having heard of the theory = of the=20 Canon of Frauenburg, spoke against the "new astrologer who wanted to = prove that=20 the earth was moving and revolving rather than the heaven and the = firmament, sun=20 and moon. . . . This fool wants to turn the whole area of astronomy = upside=20 down.

But as the Holy Scripture testifies, Joshua ordered the sun to stand = still,=20 not the earth!"

The Copernican theory was, as its author saw in advance, silenced for = almost=20 a hundred years; scientists were afraid to study or to teach it - the = only=20 exception being Giordano Bruno. After nine months in the dungeon of the = Venetian=20 Inquisition and seven years in the cell of the Roman Inquisition, Bruno = was=20 burned at the stake in Rome for his denial of the Immaculate Conception = - a=20 theological heresy - and for his teaching of the Copernican theory, = which he=20 extended by claiming the plurality of worlds. For Bruno, the fixed stars = were=20 not lights attached to an enormous sphere that bounded the universe, as=20 Copernicus thought them to be. They were suns, like our Sun, encircled = by=20 planets, and some of these he believed were populated by intelligent = beings.=20 "You are perchance more afraid to pronounce your judgement", Bruno said = at the=20 last hearing of the tribunal, "than I am to hear it." On February 17, = 1600, from=20 the pile of faggots kindled in Campo dei Fiori in Rome, he was sent to = the=20 Inferno by the Inquisition.

These were no longer the dark Middle Ages. It was an illustrious = time. The=20 same year, 1600, Shakespeare wrote his Hamlet; Bacon had = published his=20 Essays in 1597; and both of them remained steadfast adherents = of the=20 Ptolemaic, geocentric system of the world, almost one hundred years = after=20 Copernicus. Bruno had spent his time and zeal in England, having made = only one=20 convert - William Gilbert, who published his great opus, De = Magnete, in=20 the same 1600. But when I said that Bruno was despised and pursued by = both the=20 Church and by scientists, I had in my mind that Galileo, whose later = (1633)=20 detention by the Inquisition was of a much shorter duration, in no book = and in=20 no letter of his enormous extant correspondence mentioned Bruno. = Johannes=20 Kepler, whose great discoveries became known as Kepler's Laws, himself = wrote of=20 Bruno's concept of the plurality of worlds as that "horrible = theory".

It was this that Bruno feared most; and though Bruno's ideas are = acknowledged=20 to have been the greatest influence on Spinoza's ( 17th Century) = pantheism, he=20 otherwise was all but forgotten for fully two hundred years and = rediscovered=20 only in the nineteenth century. God's mills grind slowly.

In August of 1597, Galileo wrote to Kepler:

"Many years ago I became a convert to the opinions of Copernicus, = and by=20 that theory have succeeded in fully explaining many phenomena which on = the=20 contrary hypothesis are altogether inexplicable. I have drawn up many=20 arguments and confutations of the opposite opinions, which however I = have not=20 hitherto dared to publish, fearful of meeting the same fate as our = master=20 Copernicus who, although he has earned for himself immortal fame = amongst a=20 few, yet amongst the greater number appears as only worthy of hooting = and=20 derision; so great is the number of fools."

Galileo became bolder only when, having observed Jupiter and its = satellites=20 through his telescope, he recognized a structure similar to that = described by=20 Copernicus: a sun encircled by planets. But his open defense of the = Copernican=20 theory caused a storm of opposition.

What was so unacceptable in the heliocentric system? Most generally = it=20 threatened humankind's psychological need for the feeling of security, = itself=20 most probably based on a deep hidden insecurity. A moving Earth is a = less secure=20 place than an unmoveable one. Additionally, mankind was denied the = central role=20 in the universe. This not only was injurious to his ego but was also = interpreted=20 to be in conflict with the tenets of the Christian Church. Did Jesus = come just=20 to a very secondary planet, one of many? But more than these = considerations, the=20 awakened feeling of insecurity was the basis of the great anguish that = greeted=20 the belated announcement of the Copernican theory.

Man as a species needs security from the elements, from the beasts; = and not=20 until he aggregated into communities and built shelters and walls could = he feel=20 himself protected from the outrages of nature and from the predatory = animals.=20 But it was not the daily vicissitudes of the ever-lurking predators that = put=20 such deep-seated fear into his soul: it was the great derailment of this = planet=20 on its travels that left its deepest impression on him; and as the = deepest=20 traumas are put in oblivion in the soul of an individual, so also is the = case=20 with humankind.

It was very unpleasant, therefore, to find out that the Earth, the = whole=20 Earth under our feet, moves. (How spontaneously and instinctively = correct when=20 the entire population of a city runs outside in panic at the first = rumblings of=20 an earthquake.) Later it was also very unpleasant to be told by the = biologists=20 that animal species are not immutable, that there is change and = evolution in the=20 animal kingdom, and that these natural mechanisms had produced humankind = itself.=20 Still more recently, it was markedly unpleasant to learn from = psychoanalysis=20 that man's motives are not always those that he thinks; that in his = instincts he=20 is much more primitive and animal than he wishes to admit; and that=20 consciousness thus has understructures of an unconscious mind, and that = these=20 are quaking and uncontrollable domains, ruling over his conscious acts = and=20 motives.

But nothing of this compares with the insecurity engendered = (especially if=20 one is a scientist) when it comes to understanding that the planet on = which we=20 travel has been involved in cosmic accidents; even more if it seems that = the=20 plan of propagation and evolution has made the role of such accidents of = collision not incidental but a precondition of evolutionary progress and = destruction alike.

This is, in my view, the main cause of the emotional outbursts that = have=20 followed Worlds in Collision. The idea of a great fear living = in man=20 since the days of the great catastrophes presented itself early to me - = I was a=20 student of psychology before I became a student of history, natural = history, and=20 folklore; and I was aware that there is some "blocking", in the = psychoanalytic=20 sense, to see obvious things. Why have students of mythology failed to = discover=20 why the gods of the pantheons of all ancient races should have been = identified=20 with the planets? Why do the traditions of all races speak of celestial=20 theomachy, of great natural perturbations, with the Sun, stars, and = meteors=20 taking part? Or, why do modern students of religion not wonder at the = grandiose=20 natural events described in the holy books and the concepts of = eschatology so=20 prominent in the Gospels and the Koran? Why do students of geology = strain=20 themselves to explain, or explain away, catastrophically-formed = phenomena they=20 observe on the bottoms of the seas, in mountain ridges, in great fields = of lava,=20 and great deserts?

I have called this psychological phenomenon collective = amnesia, and=20 I have explained the term elsewhere: it is not that we have no = historical=20 evidence; it is rather the inability to read the texts as they are - = Mars for=20 Mars, Jupiter for Jupiter, fire for fire, hurricane for hurricane, and = deluge=20 for deluge.

To elaborate on this subject and to show how the unconscious mind = works in=20 all areas of our activities, even in our many sporadic wars, I have = written=20 Mankind in Amnesia. If Jung was right in his concept of a = collective=20 unconscious mind, then its probing must reveal the persistent racial = memories of=20 great catastrophes of the past when the sea, the sky, and the earth = competed in=20 destruction - for we are "survivors of survivors".(4)

Are there no other reasons for the outcry and concerted opposition to = the=20 reconstruction offered in Worlds in Collision? True, most = scholars have=20 a vested interest in accepted theories. There is also a psychological = urge to=20 reject anything contrary to what we have learned.

But these are additional reasons; vested interests and resistance to = change=20 one's thinking are both secondary to the great and primary reason: the = fear of=20 the repetition of the events, grown in the racial memory of the = survivors of=20 these crises, when the Earth was carried to the brink of destruction. It = is this=20 hidden fear which is behind the scientists' vehement denial of the = available=20 evidence for global catastrophes in historical times. The same fear = manifests=20 itself in many forms of irrational behavior - directed, above all, = against=20 anyone whose findings threaten to bring the archaic trauma into = the=20 open.

NOTES

1. Editor's Note {DG): In an address delivered at the 1974 AAAS = Symposium,=20 Velikovsky elaborated his psychoanalytic perspective on the scientists' = extreme=20 reaction:

"The behavior of the scientific community was and partly still is a=20 psychological phenomenon. The spectacle of the scientific establishment = going=20 through all the paces of self degradation has nothing with which to = compare in=20 the past, though every time a new leaf in science was turned over there = was a=20 minor storm, and it is not without precedent that most authoritative = voices in=20 science usually served to discourage the trail blazers - think of Lord = Kelvin,=20 unsurpassed authority of later Victorian days, who rejected Clerk = Maxwell's=20 electromagnetic theory, demeaned Guglielmo Marconi's radiotelegraphy, = and till=20 his death in 1907 proclaimed Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen for a = charlatan.

But it is without precedent that the entire scientific community = should be=20 aroused to very base actions of compelling, by organized boycott, the = publisher=20 of a book checked and rechecked before the printing to discontinue its=20 publication, to destroy the entire stock, and to punish the editor of=20 twenty-five years service by dismissal. This community offered a united = front of=20 academic and scientific societies, of faculties, of scientific and=20 semi-scientific press against a solitary figure whose only iniquity was = to=20 present views carefully arrived at in more than a decade of work, = supplied with=20 all references to enable the reader to check multitudinous sources, with = never a=20 jest or a harsh word against those with whom the nonconformist = disagreed, with=20 no new terms introduced, in lucid language, though foreign to me, never = given to=20 misunderstanding.

Now, after twenty-four [now thirty-four - ed.] years, and more than=20 seventy-two printings in the English language alone, forty of which were = in hard=20 cover, my Worlds in Collision, as well as Earth in = Upheaval,=20 do not require any revisions, whereas all books on terrestrial and = celestial=20 sciences of 1950 need complete rewriting. The opposition and the = indecent forms=20 it took are a psychological phenomenon and cannot be explained by a mere = desire=20 to protect the vested interests. The forms the suppression assumed are = so=20 multiple and sometimes ingenious, but mostly crassly rough and often = dishonest,=20 that only having been trained in recognizing various forms of resistance = with=20 which analytical patients react when unwelcome truth is about to reveal = itself,=20 could I understand the unique spectacle which I observe now for a full=20 generation." (KRONOS III:2, pp. 15-16)]

2. A case in point is Clavius, author of the Gregorian calendar = reform. At=20 first a vehement opponent of Galileo, Christopher Clavius, with other = Jesuits of=20 the Roman College, repeated Galileo's observations in 1611, a year after = Galileo=20 published his Sidereus Nuncius. "John Adam Schall von Bell, later to be = the=20 first European director of the Chinese Bureau of Astronomy, was present = as a=20 young man in the hall of the Roman College in May 1611 when Galileo = received a=20 triumphant welcome from Clavius and his mathematicians after their = confirmation=20 of his discoveries." (Joseph Needham and Wang Ling, Science and = Civilization in=20 China, Vol. III(1959), p. 444.)

3. Much criticism leveled at Velikovsky attacks his qualifications, = i.e.,=20 that in formulating his reconstruction Velikovsky had to cross = disciplinary=20 lines and, thus, in these areas, lacked scholarly authority. The point = is not=20 emphasized, however, concerning his widespread academic achievements, = his=20 specialization in medicine, and later the rigorous training in = psychoanalysis.=20 No reasonable person who examined Velikovsky's academic and professional = record=20 could claim seriously that he was inadequately grounded in the sciences, = or that=20 he failed to consult with and cite relevant authority, or that he was = not=20 thorough in researching and understanding the substance of the = disciplines he=20 was obliged to enter. Thus, the attack was directed not only on the = work, but=20 also upon the academic and scientific legitimacy of Velikovsky himself - = a=20 visible, objective untruth; yet a favorite ploy of his critics. - DG =

4. Velikovsky included an introduction to the subject in Worlds = in=20 Collision, Chapter 6. In Mankind in Amnesia (pp. 9-35) = Velikovsky=20 traces the development of the psychoanalytic concepts of racial memory = and=20 spells out his own contribution to the theory - collective amnesia for = global=20 catastrophe. See also KRONOS I:1 and KRONOS VII:1. - DG

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0902\039role.htm=20