From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein, and Cohen
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:22:25 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>The sum total of all that I've ever said on t.o regarding Velikovsky, Einstein,
>and Cohen, is as follows:

>1.  That Einstein and Velikovsky were friends from before either of them came
>to America whereas Cohen's sum total of conversation with Einstein was the
>one interview.

>2.  That judging from letters and other papers, including the one I've quoted,
>it is far less than apparent that Einstein regarded Velikovsky as any sort
>of a lunatic or fringe scientist, as Cohen clearly states.

>3.  That Einstein was tremendously interested in gravity and in the possibility
>of a unified field theory.  That you have to surmise that Velikovsky's
>published works indicating a belief in attenuated perceived gravity in
>prehistoric times at least got einstein's atttention.

>4.  That Einstein died with a copy of WinC open on his desk.

1) It is perfectly possible for Einstein to have liked Velikovsky
   and also thought his science nutty. That is the essence of the Cohen
   interview and Cohen's reply to Nathan in the Sci Am letters referring to
   Cohen's interview.

2) There's absolutely nothing in what you've quoted that suggests that my
   1) is not true. If you've got something that you think demonstrates that
   Einstein thought Velikovsky's science anything other than "crazy",
   quote it (properly referenced _please_).

3) There's absolutely nothing in what you've quoted that suggests that 3. is
   true. In fact, you called it a "remote possibility" yourself:
	prl>^I can see no reason for thinking that Einstein's work on a unified
	prl>^field theory had anything to do with Velikovsky, which seems to be
	prl>^Ted's original intent.

	HTE>I have merely suggested this as one possibility, albeit remote.

4) You've never supported this claim with *any* eyewitness account. The
   earliest reference to this that I've found is in Juergens[1], but
   he just makes the claim with no further reference. I personally
   don't believe that there is such an eyewitness account.


>Which of these statements requires direct support from Einstein, and why?

Can't you provide something in which Einstein makes *any* direct statement
about Velikovsky's science? He appears to have discounted its worth completely
in the Cohen interview. Provide us with something written by Einstein or
related to an uninvolved third party which demonstrates that Cohen is
the "liar" you call him in <152@fedfil.UUCP^<stone.723395205@cwis>.

Given that Velikovsky (in the introduction to "Earth in upheaval") mentions
correspondence with Einstein over some years on this subject, and claims
that Einstein made marginal notes on Velikovsky's work, is there *no*
material in all that in which Einstein directly addresses Velikovsky's
science?

If Einstein was truely influenced by Velikovsky to start work on a
unified field theory, then surely Einstein must have made mention of
that influence in acknowledgements in his publications, or in his notes
or diaries?  Is there any such material?


[1] R. E. Juergens, "Minds in chaos: A recital of the Velikovsky story",
        American Behavioral Scientist, 7(1) Sept 1963, on page 15.


-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)