Charles Leroy Ellenberger (born 1942, known as C. Leroy) is perhaps best known as a one-time advocate,[1] but now a critic of, controversial writer Immanuel Velikovsky and his works on catastrophism. He first read Worlds in Collision in 1969.[2] In 1979, he became a contributing editor (and later Senior Editor & Executive Secretary) to the Velikovsky-inspired Kronos journal,[3] and has contributed material to many other publications.[4] In 1980 he was selected by the editor of Astronomy magazine to debate James Oberg on Velikovsky.[5]
His confidence in the validity of Velikovsky's ideas was shaken in January 1982 when Kronos sponsored his attendance at the semi-annual AAAS meeting in Washington, D.C., in order to distribute information on Velikovsky. In a wide-ranging conversation with Jeremy Cherfas, then a writer for the British weekly science magazine New Scientist over how the press misunderstood Velikovsky, Cherfas had counter-arguments to many points that Ellenberger was not able to rebut.[6] According to Professor of Social Theory Alfred de Grazia at New York University, "By 1983 Ellenberger was preparing to abandon much of quantavolution and found now that the story of Velikovsky was not without its shady tones, and more important, that Arctic ice cores and bristlecone pine dating technologies were directly contradicting Holocene quantavolutions . . .; further, that Gentry's studies of the surprising 'instant' polonium halos of creation . . . were probably invalid."[7]
Henry Bauer described Ellenberger's role in the Velikovsky scene as follows: ". . . was a confidant to Velikovsky, a frequent visitor (often with camera) from April 1978 to his death in November 1979, and a Senior Editor of the Velikovskian journal Kronos, until the evidence forced him to conclude that Velikovsky's scientific claims were baseless. Velikovsky inscribed his copy of Ramses II and His Time 'To Leroy who is consumed by the sacred flame of search for truth', 20 May 1978, and gave him permission to sell 'Velikovsky's right!' T-shirts. Alfred de Grazia, impetus for The Velikovsky Affair (1966), appointed him chronicler of the continuing Velikovsky controversy in 1980.
Ellenberger's last contact with Velikovsky was a phone call from him two days before he died."[8] Also, he "has tried unceasingly but to little avail to have his former colleagues acknowledge the accumulating evidence, for example, from Greenland ice cores, that Velikovsky's claimed catastrophes did not in fact occur. Ellenberger points out, too, that Velikovsky's writings have become superfluous: astronomically plausible argument and speculation about relatively recent cosmic catastrophism can now be found in the work of Victor Clube and Bill Napier (The Cosmic Serpent, 1982; The Cosmic Winter, 1990), where the testimony of myth and historical records is also taken into account."[9]
Ellenberger has degrees in chemical engineering and finance & operations research (B.S., Washington Univ.; M.B.A., Univ. of Pennsylvania). He is currently a Medical Article Retrieval Specialist in St. Louis, Missouri.[10]
" Over the past four years I have come to appreciate that, even if Velikovsky were right, there are good physical reasons why astronomers and other scientists have opposed him so tenaciously. Unfortunately, many of these reasons, often based on information developed since Velikovsky wrote his books, have never been discussed in Velikovskian forums or have never been discussed in a fully informed manner. Examples of the former include the Worzel Ash, ice cores, and plate tectonics. Examples of the latter include tree rings, ice age dynamics, geomagnetism, and cosmic electricity.
" Most often, spokesmen for mainstream science such as Sagan, Asimov, Gardner, and Oberg have not expressed their criticisms using valid arguments but, rather, tend to substitute polemic, ridicule, and caricature for serious discussion. The resulting performances are riddled with errors and are received by Velikovskian partisans with diminished credibility. Their fixation on Velikovsky's text to the exclusion of later researchers in Pensée and KRONOS has also been a source of frustration. As a result, focus has been shifted away from substantive criticism in depth with more cogent criticisms having gotten side-tracked."[11]
Ellenberger's most widely read criticisms of Velikovsky were two 1985 correspondences to Nature: "Falsifying Velikovsky" vol. 316, p.386,[12] and "Velikovsky's evidence?" vol. 318, p.204, and two 1987 letters to the editor in New York Times: May 15, p.14,[13] and August 29, p.14.[14] While citing these publications, Richard J. Huggett, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of Manchester, averred that Ellenberger "has, since his conversion to the anti-Velikovsky camp in 1984, relentlessly and mercilessly tried to show why Velikovsky's ideas were downright silly. . . ."[15] The second Times letter was rebutted by Clark Whelton in a letter published September 29.[16] Although the Times did not print Ellenberger's point-by-point surrebuttal to Whelton's letter,[17] it was distributed (a) privately by mail with the September 1, 1987 "Dear Friends" letter[18] and (b) to all attendees at the August 1990 "Reconsidering Velikovsky" Conference in Toronto.
In 1994, Ellenberger's invitation to a conference on Velikovsky was rescinded, due to other participants' stating that they would not attend if he participated.[19][20] This incident came about through the efforts of a group of individuals who in 1992 had deleted the section "Magnetism, Dynamos and Neptune"[21] from Ellenberger's memoir for Aeon[22] that explained the ignorance of Velikovsky and many of his supporters concerning the role of electromagnetism in astronomy and the origin of planetary magnetic fields. Previously, he was an invited speaker at Milton Zysman's August 1990 "Reconsidering Velikovsky" Conference at University of Toronto, identified on the program as "Velikovsky's most unrelenting critic" who was interviewed for The Globe and Mail,[23] and he was the keynote speaker at the August 1992 Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies conference in Haliburton, Ontario. He is also the author of the article "Top Ten Reasons Why Velikovsky Is Wrong About Worlds In Collision" which he says:
".. is based on 30 years exposure to Velikovsky's ideas which includes 8 years as an insider at the Velikovsky journal Kronos (1978 - 1986), confidant to Velikovsky (4/78 - 11/79), invited "Devil's Advocate" at Aeon ('88 - '91),[24] and 13 years as a turncoat/critic interacting with Velikovsky's defenders and/or successors at conferences, in private, and in Usenet ('94 -'96) & list-serve forums."[25]
Of these attempts to convince Velikovsky's supporters, Henry Bauer noted Ellenberger "has tried unceasingly but to little avail to have his former colleagues acknowledge the accumulating evidence, for example, from Greenland ice cores, that Velikovsky's claimed catastrophes did not in fact occur."[26] His resignation from Kronos as senior editor in December 1986 was acknowledged by Martin Gardner,[27] who previously noted Ellenberger's "vitriolic" letters defending Velikovsky.[28] Regarding Ellenberger's defection, Skeptic editor Michael Shermer declared: "One major strike against Velikovsky is that Leroy Ellenberger, a one-time Velikovsky supporter, after stepping outside of the paradigm to examine the evidence in a clearer light, now completely rejects all tenets of the theory."[29]Sagan biographer Keay Davidson credits Ellenberger "In my experience" as "the single richest source of information on the Velikovsky controversy."[30] Astronomer Dennis Rawlins hails Ellenberger "the world's top anti-Velikovsky expert".[31] NASA astronomer David Morrison, who has monitored the Velikovsky scene since 1972, has thanked Ellenberger for helping "to look at these issues from the other side and to appreciate how poorly the scientific critics communicated with the public."[32] Ellenberger's role as a Velikovsky turncoat and critic has been recently affirmed by Ronald H. Fritze in Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions.[33] Princeton historian Michael Gordin acknowledged "a special debt of gratitude" to Ellenberger for his contributions to The Pseudoscience Wars.[34]
Clube and Napier's model
Ellenberger came to accept Victor Clube and Bill Napier's model as a scientifically valid and intellectually satisfying replacement for Velikovsky-inspired models of recent, interplanetary catastrophism. Astronomer David Morrison noted "In fact, the work of Clube and Napier attracts many people who were once impressed by Velikovsky, such as Leroy Ellenberger, at one time a member of the Velikovsky inner circle and now one of the most outspoken critics of his current followers".[35] Since 1990, Ellenberger has actively promoted Clube and Napier's model, now named "coherent catastrophism",[36] in articles for Skeptic,[37]C&C Review,[38] and Catastrophism and Ancient History,[39] letters to editors,[40] and postcard mailing campaigns to Velikovskians.[41]
↑ Kronos Vol. X No. 3 (Summer 1985) p.24 "Contributors." Invited defenses of Velikovsky were published in Zetetic Scholar, Biblical Archaeology Review, Astronomy, and Frontiers of Science.
↑ Ellenberger, C. Leroy (1979). Heretics, Dogmatists and Science's Reception of New Ideas. Kronos Vol. IV No. 4, pp. 60-74.
↑ Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979) p. Cover iii "Contributors."
↑ For example, Ellenberger has had Velikovsky-related material published in Science Digest, New Leader, The Humanist, Industrial Research & Development, Fate, and the SIS Review, (ref: Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979) p. Cover iii "Contributors"), and articles on other subjects in Analog, New Scientist, Penthouse, Science Digest, Fate and Pursuit (ref: KronosVol. X No. 3 (Summer 1985) p.24 "Contributors"). In Physics Today he rebutted Robert V. Gentry on polonium halos (Dec. 1984, pp. 91-2) and on absolute dating (Mar. 1986, pp. 152, 154).
↑ Ellenberger, C. Leroy (1980). Oberg in Confusion. Astronomy October, pp. 26-28, replying to Oberg's Forum essay "Predictions in Collision" in July issue and Ellenberger, Leroy (1981). Velikovsky Redux. Astronomy February, p. 36, replying to Oberg's letter in December issue.
↑ Ellenberger, Leroy (1992). Of Lessons, Legacies, and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri (Part One). AeonIII, 1. pp. 86-105.
↑ Bauer, Henry (1996). Editorial Prologue by Henry Bauer. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10 (4), 561; UGA.eduArchived 2008-10-14 at the Wayback Machine
↑ Bauer, Henry H. (1996). Velikovsky, Immanuel. in Stein, Gordon (editor), The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Press. ISBN1-57392-021-5. p. 783.
↑ Kronos Vol. X No. 1 (Fall 1984) "Still Facing Many Problems (Part I)", pp. 87-102: showing that the evidence from the Worzel ash, tree rings, and Greenland ice cores does not support Worlds in Collision.
↑ Ellenberger, C. Leroy (1985). Falsifying Velikovsky (correspondence). Nature, 316 p. 386: "SIR--In his review of Henry Bauer's Beyond Velikovsky, Owen Gingerich observes: 'Although science cannot prove that a Velikovskian scenario is impossible, it might well prove that it did not happen'[1]. Although Gingerich selects Peter Huber's analysis of the Babylonian Venus tablets for this purpose, they simply are not decisive enough. Indeed, Rose and Vaughan's critique of Huber[2], to which Gingerich alludes, is stronger than he allows. "The best evidence proving Velikovsky's scenario did not happen is provided by Greenland's Dye 3 ice core[3]. This core is continuous and datable by counting annual layers back at least 7,200 years. Velikovsky's catastrophes should have left unequivocal markers in the ice. Not only are the expected heavy dust layers absent, but volcanic acid fallout, identified with ancient eruptions in the Velikovskian time frame, is comparable in amount to that associated with single, recent eruptions[4]. This is not what would be expected if catastrophes of the magnitude described by Velikovsky had actually happened[5]. C. Leroy Ellenberger, 3929A Utah Street, St Louis, Missouri 63116, USA [1] Gingerich, O. Nature 314, 692-693 (1985). [2] Rose, L.E. & Vaughan, R.C. Kronos X:2, 1-12 (1985). [3] Dansgaard, W. et al.Science 218, 1273-1277 (1982). [4] Hammer, C.U. et al.Nature 288, 230-235 (1980). [5] Ellenberger, C.L. Kronos X:1, 97-102 (1984)."
↑ Immanuel Velikovsky 40 Years Later: Not to Be Taken Seriously, NYtimes.com
↑ Eruption That Destroyed Thera Left Crete's Civilization Intact; Theory Also Exploded, NYtimes.com
↑ Huggett, R. J. (2002). Cranks, conventionalists and geomorphology. Area34(2), 182-189.
↑ Catastrophism Can Still Explain Earth's Changes, NYtimes.com
↑ Ellenberger (1997). Hysterical Velikovskians Flee Own Frankenstein-Mongoose! DIO, 7 (1), 30-33., DIOI.org
↑ "Magnetism, Dynamos and Neptune" posted to sci.skeptic and talk.origins by James J. Lippard, 25 Apr 1994, as an example of what Aeon considered unacceptable: Skepticfiles.orgArchived 2008-03-27 at the Wayback Machine
↑ Ellenberger, Leroy (1992). Of Lessons, Legacies & Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri, Part 1. Aeon, 3 (1), 86-105.
↑ Balsara, Nilu (1990). Earth a dangerous planet, writer warns. The Globe and Mail, August 20, 1990.
↑ Letter, David Talbott to C. Leroy Ellenberger, August 31, 1988
↑ Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (Reaktion Books, London). ISBN978-1-86189-430-4. pp. 183-4, 191.
↑ Morrison, David (1997). Is the Sky Falling? Skeptical Inquirer, 21 (3), 22-28.
↑ Asher, D.J., S.V.M. Clube, W.M. Napier and D.I. Steel (1994). "Coherent Catastrophism". Vistas in Astronomy, 38 (1), 1-27; Abstract at Harvard.edu
↑ Ellenberger, Leroy (1995). An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions. Skeptic, 3 (4), 49-51. Posted to talk.origins, 2 February 1996: Google Groups
↑ Ellenberger, C. Leroy (1992). Celestial Hazard vs. Celestial Fantasy. C&C Review, XIV, 41-4.
↑ Ellenberger, C. Leroy (1990). Tisserand and a Trojan to the Rescue. Catastrophism and Ancient HistoryXII (2), 206-18.
↑ The Sciences, Jul/Aug 1991, p. 56; Skeptic 1995, 4 (3), 22, Skeptical Inquirer, Sep/Oct 1997, pp. 60-1 UGA.eduArchived 2007-07-01 at the Wayback Machine and Discovering Archaeology, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 6-7.
↑ For example: 75 "To those interested in Velikovsky" dated Oct 24, 1990; 35 "A Guide to Velikovskian Studies", January 1991, Google Groups, 134 "Clube & Napier Update", August 2, 1994; 311 "Dawn Behind the Dawn", Oct 23, 1995; and 150 "The Nexus of History & Religion with Astronomy", Apr 27, 1996.
Related Research Articles
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.
Zecharia Sitchin was an author of a number of books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. He asserted that Sumerian mythology suggests that this hypothetical planet of Nibiru is in an elongated, 3,600-year-long elliptical orbit around the Sun. Sitchin's books have sold millions of copies worldwide and have been translated into more than 25 languages.
In geology, catastrophism is the theory that the Earth has largely been shaped by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. This contrasts with uniformitarianism, according to which slow incremental changes, such as erosion, brought about all the Earth's geological features. The proponents of uniformitarianism held that the present was "the key to the past", and that all geological processes throughout the past resembled those that can be observed today. Since the 19th-century disputes between catastrophists and uniformitarians, a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed, in which the scientific consensus accepts that some catastrophic events occurred in the geologic past, but regards these as explicable as extreme examples of natural processes which can occur.
Immanuel Velikovsky was a Russian-American psychoanalyst, writer, and catastrophist. He is the author of several books offering pseudohistorical interpretations of ancient history, including the U.S. bestseller Worlds in Collision published in 1950. Velikovsky's work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience and has been used as an example of the demarcation problem.
Ignatius Loyola Donnelly was an American Congressman, populist writer, and fringe scientist. He is known primarily now for his fringe theories concerning Atlantis, Catastrophism, and Shakespearean authorship. These works are widely regarded as examples of pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Donnelly's work corresponds to the writings of late-19th and early-20th century figures such as Helena Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner, and James Churchward.
A debunker is a person or organization that exposes or discredits claims believed to be false, exaggerated, or pretentious. The term is often associated with skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as UFOs, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.
Ages in Chaos is a book by the controversial writer Immanuel Velikovsky, first published by Doubleday in 1952, which put forward a major revision of the history of the Ancient Near East, claiming that the histories of Ancient Egypt and the Israelites are five centuries out of step. He followed this with a number of other works where he attempted to complete his reconstruction of ancient history, collectively known as the Ages in Chaos series.
The cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis is a pseudo-scientific claim that there have been recent, geologically rapid shifts in the axis of rotation of Earth, causing calamities such as floods and tectonic events or relatively rapid climate changes.
The phantom time conspiracy theory is a pseudohistorical conspiracy theory first asserted by Heribert Illig in 1991. It hypothesises a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence. According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years added to the Early Middle Ages.
Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact is a book by Native American author Vine Deloria, originally published in 1995. The book's central theme is to criticize the scientific consensus which has, in his words, created "a largely fictional scenario describing prehistoric North America".
Worlds in Collision is a book by Immanuel Velikovsky published in 1950. The book postulates that around the 15th century BC, the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object and passed near Earth. The object allegedly changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that are mentioned in early mythologies and religions from around the world. The book has been heavily criticized as a work of pseudoscience and catastrophism, and many of its claims are completely rejected by the established scientific community as they are not supported by any available evidence.
William M. Napier is the author of five high tech thriller novels and a number of nonfiction science books.
Henry Hermann Bauer is an emeritus professor of chemistry and science studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is the author of several books and articles on fringe science, arguing in favor of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and against Immanuel Velikovsky, and is an AIDS denialist. Following his retirement in 1999, he was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a fringe science publication. Bauer also served as dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech, generating controversy by criticising affirmative action.
Gunnar Heinsohn was a German author, sociologist and economist and professor emeritus at the University of Bremen where he had a chair in social pedagogy from 1984.
Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis published articles on topics related to the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, it was "founded, with no apologies, to deal with Velikovsky's work"; and as such hosted epigraphs on a wide range of subjects from ancient history, catastrophism and mythology. It ran 44 issues from the Spring of 1975 to the Spring of 1988. The title is an homage to the Greek name for the Roman god Saturn whose planetary namesake Velikovsky believed Earth once orbited as a satellite. Professor of Social Theory Alfred de Grazia at New York University, co-author of The Velikovsky Affair and avowed supporter of some of Velikovsky's maverick ideas, however, remarked that although the journal was devoted to discussing Velikovsky's ideas, "[t]his is not to say that the directors of Kronos were uncritical". The journal was published by Kronos Press, a division of Cosmos and Chronos. Its subscription list grew to about 2000 and then settled to about 1500 people from 10 countries.
Pensée: Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered ("IVR") was a special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée advancing the pseudoscientific theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. It was produced to "encourage continuing critical analysis of all questions raised by Velikovsky's work", published between May 1972 and Winter 1974-75 by the Student Academic Freedom Forum, whose president was David N. Talbott, with the assistance and cooperation of Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon. Velikovsky -- "the man whose work was being examined 'objectively'" insinuated himself into the editing of the May 1972 issue, just as he had done earlier for the April 1967 "Velikovsky" issue of Yale Scientific Magazine.
Stace Victor Murray Clube is an English astrophysicist.
The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a group committed to studying fringe science. The opinions of the organization in regard to what are the proper limits of scientific exploration are often at odds with those of mainstream science. Critics argue that the SSE is devoted to disreputable ideas far outside the scientific mainstream.
Robert J. (Bob) Schadewald was an author, researcher, and former president of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). An internationally recognized expert on pseudoscience, Schadewald penned numerous articles on creationism, perpetual motion, flat earthism, and other pseudoscience for such magazines as Science 80, Technology Illustrated, Smithsonian, and Science Digest.
Michael Wulf Friedlander was a South African-born American physicist and skeptic. Friedlander was professor emeritus of physics at Washington University in St. Louis. His research involved the study of cosmic rays and gamma ray astronomy. He is the author of the book At The Fringes Of Science (1998), a scholarly study of fringe science. The book is notable for its criticism of the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
