It was through reading about the treatment of Velikovsky by the science community in the sixties that I had my first doubts about academic science. I have no idea if he was right or wrong, but what I do know is that his critics were far more wrong than right.

Had more recent science attempted to put the record straight after NASA had shown his case to be a strong one, they may have limited some of the damage. But astronomy and other disciplines continued the hand waving hubris and lost the trust of at least some of my generation if not others.

The other page that you asked for is here:
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keel...
And I've examined his mistakes here:
"Cavitation, Keely, Griggs and Clem"
www.n-atlantis.com/energy.htm
The reason I didn't link it is because it has nothing to do with the current thread.
My critique of the professor's logic page can be found here:
www.n-atlantis.com/logic.htm

There you go again, hacking at scientists for unexplained reasons.  As your linked page expressly says, in science (and with inductive reasoning generally) there are no absolutes, no dogmas.

This is a wonderful example of an appeal to authority just like the hand waving used against Velikovsky. Sceptics and scientists expect to be taken seriously when presenting their own authority as if it were an absolute. Saying there are no absolutes and no dogmas is declaring an absolute that can be shown to be a untrue by examining the history of the Velikovsky affair.
The professor's statement is totally illogical, but that's OK because he doesn't use logic!!!! This is the stuff of the rubber-room.

Spherical Earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
The link above takes us back to the Greeks, but astronomy was practised in all the civilisations you mention as an aid to astrology. In every case where astronomy was practised it had to be assumed that the Earth was a sphere or the calculations would not have worked. The alchemists and mages who date back at least to ancient Egypt certainly knew the shape of the Earth and cannot be waved away in the usual manner because the foundations of modern science derive directly from their knowledge.

If Keely was a conman he was the strangest in history. Most of the money he was paid he spent on expensive prototype machines. But we can pursue this later.

You will need to clarify what you mean by the following cryptic statements:

"Except for a distortion of emphasis caused by focusing on logic instead of reason, I largely agree with the exposition on your link."

"I'm not appealing to authority - the point I made is a self-evident aspect of induction, and has been made many times here.  I'm just noting that it appears in your own material."

What is meant by your use of the word reason, its meaning is the same as logic.
What is: "a self-evident aspect of induction".
What "appears in my material"?

"Really?  But there are no absolutes, and if people have dogmata, they have them in some other capacity than that of scientist."

You seem to be falling into the same old illusion. What science claims to be doing and what it actually does. Are you trying to convince me that biological evolution is not presented as an absolute?
But what is more important is how education and the popular scientific press present all of science as an absolute. I don't see those who know better complaining.

"Which of Velikovsky's disputed claims do you say was true for the reason he said it was true?  The atmosphere of Venus wasn't such a case and I'm not aware of any others."

Data about the atmosphere of Venus and its thermal gradient are the best kept secrets in science and if you have such information why not share it?

"In every case where astronomy was practised it had to be assumed that the Earth was a sphere or the calculations would not have worked."

"You're just making that up.  It's nonsense.  You don't know what calculations they used, if any, and you can't show it for even one of the civilizations I mentioned."

When Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth, he must have done so whilst assuming that the Earth was a sphere. In other words there must have been a tradition that the Earth was a sphere prior to the calculation of circumference or no one would have known what he was talking about.

Caduceus

What is meant by your use of the word reason, its meaning is the same as logic.

Reason is the power of orderly and purposeful thought.  It's the Leatherman.  Logic, maths, scientific method, are some of the blades.

A self-evident aspect of induction is one that you can easily see for yourself if you know what induction is.

What appears in your material - the link you posted - is that the conclusions of science are derived inductively and that inductive conclusions are tentative.

What science claims to be doing and what it actually does.

You really really hate those guys, eh?

Are you trying to convince me that biological evolution is not presented as an absolute?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything - there seems no point.  I'll simply repeat my observation about no absolutes.

if you have such information why not share it?

So you don't have a single example to offer us of a disputed claim of Velikovsky that was true for the reason he said it was true?  I'm not at all surprised.

When Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth, he must have done so whilst assuming that the Earth was a sphere.

He was indeed testing an hypothesis.  If you want to repeat your claim that this hypothesis was around in earlier cultures, show us the evidence.

Likewise if you want to repeat your claim that the maths of earlier cultures wouldn't work for a flat earth, produce an authentic example from history of the maths you're talking about and demonstrate your point.

If you can't do those things then don't waste further time.  Say clearly, I have no evidence.  I just made that stuff up.

Caduceus

Do you still answer to AL?

"Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its center."

Where's a credible report of this claim?  All this stuff has the feel of New Age nonsense rather than scholarship.

And even were the Indian claims correct, which I very much doubt, it hardly solves your problem. You made a clear statement that must include (as I said) Çatal Hüyük, Sumer, Egypt, Akkad/Babylon, Harappa, ancient China, and the Minoans, Phoenicians and Jews.

the widespead belief in scientiific propaganda that can easily be shown to be false.

With all due respect, the best that can be is the pot calling the kettle black. You're riotously careless with the truth yourself.

Mar 11, 2012 -- 10:38AM, Blü wrote:

Caduceus

Do you still answer to AL?

"Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its center."

Where's a credible report of this claim?  All this stuff has the feel of New Age nonsense rather than scholarship.

It's not so much New Age nonsense as a recent type of Hindu chauvinism according to which all the major scientific discoveries of the West were originally made centuries or millennia earlier in ancient India.