University of Illinois Press 2001
REVIEWS of the book are listed HERE

My first major case study of a scientific unorthodoxy was about  the  Velikovsky Affair.
My conclusions and how I arrived at them are described in the book

University of Illinois Press 1984; paperback edition 1999

     REVIEWS of the book are listed HERE
Later writings about the Velikovsky Affair include:

pp.781-88 in Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, ed. Gordon Stein, Prometheus Books, 1996

Velikovsky's place in the history of science, Skeptic (Altadena CA), 3 #4 (1995) 52-56

The Velikovsky Affair: science and scientism in contemporary society
chapter 7 (pp.62-70) in The Universe and its Origins, ed. S. Fred Singer, Paragon House 1990

The Velikovsky Affair, La Recherche, #205 (December 1988) 1448-1455
English-language version, AEON, II #6 (May 1992) 75-84

Inside the Velikovsky Affair  --- a review of Cosmic Heretics by Alfred de Grazia (Metron Publications, 1984)
Skeptical Inquirer   9 (1985) 284-288
History teaches about scientific unorthodoxies that
o   heresies sometimes win out in the end --- as Galileo's did
o   very few heresies succeed --- Galileo is one of the rare exceptions
o   contemporary judgment is as fallible as can be,
   about which contemporary heresies will turn out victorious
o   it's likely --- though not certain --- that some of the current unorthodoxies ---
   UFOs, psychic phenomena, Loch Ness monsters, cold fusion, etc.
  will eventually be vindicated: maybe tomorrow, maybe next millennium
o   but only very few if any of them will be
o   and no one can now know, which ones will be accepted by science in the future
Most of what I've written about scientific unorthodoxy is about
how to make good judgments about fascinating contemporary mysteries.
It's foolhardy to believe in the reality of something like the Loch Ness monsters
without having looked at some of the different points of view.
It's also foolish to accept what dogmatic disbelievers say about it
without having looked at some of the different points of view.
The Internet has much gullible, unreliable material  about these topics,
both for and against. "Skeptic" sites can be as unreliable as "believer" sites.
Neutral, non-ideological resources  about scientific anomalies are rare.
Outstanding is the Sourcebook Project, featuring data more than interpretation.
Level-headed judgments characterize Jim Lippard's Skeptical Page.
An outstanding collection of fascinating material is at Bill Beaty's Weird Science site.
The Society for Scientific Exploration offers a forum
for reasoned discussion of unorthodoxies and anomalies
and publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration.


I discuss that, with numerous case studies, in my  book:
Something that is "good science" is not necessarily right---science has often been wrong, it proceeds by trials and errors.   Subjects on which many people have done some very BAD science might still have something worth looking into. The fact that there have been many hoaxes or frauds about something doesn't necessarily mean it's all hokum---
fraudsters, hoaxers and con-artists are out to fool people, not to educate them.


I happen to believe that Loch Ness monsters are real animals
waiting to be identified; but I don't insist that everyone else
should share that belief, and I know I might be wrong about it.
For the evidence that Loch Ness monsters are real,
and why so few people know about that evidence, see my LOCH NESS PAGE

There are a number of other contemporary unorthodoxies
that I think might be vindicated, at least partly or in some fashion --
almost certainly, that there are some non-Doppler cosmological redshifts
not unlikely,  there is some real phenomenon in what has been called "cold fusion" perhaps some "psychic" effects will come to be recognized
as  no less normal than placebo and psychosomatic illness.

One  current unorthodoxy almost certain to be vindicated is that
HIV is not the cause of AIDS
My   Other   Pages ---
This page was last updated on: June 9, 2009
Some other articles I've written about more or less general aspects of scientific unorthodoxy are:

‘Pathological Science’ is not scientific misconduct (nor is it pathological), HYLE (International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, ISSN 1433-5158), 8 (#1, April 2002) 5-20

         pp.199--214 in Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, ed. Gordon Stein, Prometheus Books, 1996

Physical interpretation of very small concentrations
         Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4 (1990) 49--53

Distributions of belief on controversial matters, Zetetic Scholar, #12/13 (1987) 99--102

The literature of fringe science, Skeptical Inquirer, 11 (#2, Winter 1986-87) 205--10

Velikovsky and social studies of science (>4 MB, allow 2 minutes for download)
4S Review, 2 (#4, Winter 1984) 2--8

Velikovsky and the Loch Ness Monster:
Attempts at demarcation in two controversies
         Working Papers of the Center for the Study of Science in Society (VPI&SU)
                   2 #1 (April 1983; Rachel Laudan, ed.) 87--106

Problems in the scientific study of anomalous experiences,
         chapter1 (pp. 5--10) in Anomalous  Experiences & Trauma: Current Theoretical, Research and
         Clinical Perspectives, eds. Rima E. Laibow, Robert N. Sollod, & John P. Wilson,
         Center for Treatment & Research of Experienced Anomalous Trauma, 1992