Velikovsky's Venus scenario unfolds in stages, each of which presents its own questions for evaluation. My first approach to each of these questions has always been to ask whether Velikovsky could be flatly wrong in his outlook. In many cases we could argue that he might be, but to see it that way often required me to dismiss point after point as mere coincidence.
In the way that I was instructed to think about scientific inquiry, viable solutions don't rest on us dismissing multiple coincidences. Too many coincidences in the solution to a problem implies a flawed outlook on the problem.
When we flip our point of view on these questions and ask whether there could be a perspective from which Velikovsky's outlook makes sense, in nearly every case it turns out that there is one. Most often it requires us to set aside one or more of our own predispositions regarding what must be true. When I hear myself responding, "It MUST be true", it triggers a cue to ask in all sincerity, "WHY must it be true?". Most often I find that the predisposition rests on an assumption that, in the end, can't actually be demonstrated.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Nov-15 16:55 by Laird Scranton.