Velikovskyism with Immanuel Velikovsky at Seaside Heights, New Jersey, in 1978. Velikovsky inspired numerous followers during the 1960s and 1970s.
Alfred de Grazia dedicated a 1963 issue of his journal,
American Behavioral Scientist, to Velikovsky, which was published in an expanded version as a book,
The Velikovsky Affair – Scientism Versus Science, in 1966.
The Skeptical Inquirer, in a review of a later book by de Grazia,
Cosmic Heretics (1984), suggests that de Grazia's efforts may be responsible for Velikovsky's continuing notability during the 1970s. The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) was "formed in 1974 in response to the growing interest in the works of modern catastrophists, notably the highly controversial Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky". The Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS) is a 1985 spinoff from the SIS founded under the directorship of
David Rohl, who had come to reject Velikovsky's
Revised Chronology in favour of his own "
New Chronology".
Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis was founded in 1975 explicitly "to deal with Velikovsky's work". Ten issues of
Pensée: Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered appeared from 1972 to 1975. The controversy surrounding Velikovsky peaked in the mid-1970s and public interest declined in the 1980s and, by 1984, erstwhile Velikovskyist
C. Leroy Ellenberger had become a vocal critic of Velikovskian catastrophism. Some Velikovskyist publications and authors such as David Talbott remain active into the 2000s.
Criticism Velikovsky's ideas have been rejected by the scientific community and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions.
Stephen Jay Gould offered a synopsis of the scientific community's response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither
crank nor
charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of
celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends." Velikovsky's bestselling, and as a consequence most criticized, book is
Worlds in Collision. Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan's decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of
conservation of energy and
conservation of angular momentum. Velikovsky relates in his book
Stargazers & Gravediggers how he tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original appendix on the subject from
Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However, this strategy did not protect him: the appendix was an expanded version of the
Cosmos Without Gravitation monograph, which he had already distributed to Shapley and others in the late 1940s—and they had regarded the physics within it as absurd. By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's work had permeated US society to the point where the
American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to
UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Professor
Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky's ideas (the book version of Sagan's critique is much longer than that presented in the talk; see
below). His criticisms are available in
Scientists Confront Velikovsky and as a corrected and revised version in the book ''
Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science''. It was not until the 1980s that a very detailed critique of
Worlds in Collision was made in terms of its use of mythical and literary sources when Bob Forrest published a highly critical examination of them (see
below). Earlier in 1974, James Fitton published a brief critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of myth (ignored by Velikovsky and his defenders) whose indictment began: "In at least three important ways Velikovsky's use of mythology is unsound. The first of these is his proclivity to treat all myths as having independent value; the second is the tendency to treat only such material as is consistent with his thesis; and the third is his very unsystematic method." A short analysis of the position of arguments in the late 20th century is given by Dr Velikovsky's ex-associate, and
Kronos editor,
C. Leroy Ellenberger, in his
A Lesson from Velikovsky. More recently, the absence of supporting material in
ice-core studies (such as the Greenland Dye-3 and
Vostok cores) has removed any basis for the proposition of a global catastrophe of the proposed dimension within the later
Holocene period. However, tree-ring expert
Mike Baillie would give credit to Velikovsky after disallowing the impossible aspects of
Worlds in Collision: "However, I would not disagree with
all aspects of Velikovsky's work. Velikovsky was almost certainly correct in his assertion that ancient texts hold clues to catastrophic events in the relatively recent past, within the span of human civilization, which involve the effects of comets, meteorites and cometary dust ... But fundamentally, Velikovsky did not understand anything about comets ... He did not know about the hazard posed by relatively small objects ... This failure to recognize the power of comets and asteroids means that it is reasonable to go back to Velikovsky and delete all the physically impossible text about Venus and Mars passing close to the earth ... In other words, we can get down to his main thesis, which is that the Earth experienced dramatic events from heavenly bodies particularly in the second millennium BC." Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all historians and
Egyptologists. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective. In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at
Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of
Mesopotamian
cuneiform sources. Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack. In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's
Ages in Chaos series, the
United Kingdom-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in
Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology. The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including
Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and
David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable. The SIS has continued to publish updates of this ongoing discussion, in particular the work of historian Emmet Sweeney. While James credits Velikovsky with "point[ing] the way to a solution by challenging Egyptian chronology", he severely criticised the contents of Velikovsky's chronology as "disastrously extreme", producing "a rash of new problems far more severe than those it hoped to solve" and claiming that "Velikovsky understood little of archaeology and nothing of stratigraphy." Bauer accuses Velikovsky of dogmatically asserting interpretations which are at best possible, and gives several examples from
Ages in Chaos. =="The Velikovsky Affair"==