AT-0273

The Pseudoscience Wars

DOI · Claim origin / tracking

verifiedRetraction / correction review1 usage record

Source record

This is one canonical bibliographic record with topic-scoped research-use entries. It does not reproduce the paper, book, text, dataset, image, or manuscript and does not imply that full text was reviewed.

Canonical source ID: AT-0273
Accepted usage IDs: AT-0273
Types: DOI
Roles: Claim origin / tracking
Verification: verified
Archive state: unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Access: unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Rights: not identified; not cleared
Public reproduction: Not cleared; citation and link only.
Correction / retraction: no retraction flag in checked Crossref/OpenAlex metadata

Recorded research uses

AT-0273

Velikovsky Catastrophism

Why Ancient Inquiry uses this citation here

History-of-science context: publisher DOI for Michael D. Gordin's study of Velikovsky, scientific boundary work, and the modern fringe.

What this usage does not establish

Bibliographic verification does not by itself establish that the full text was read.

Topics citing it and claims using it

Topic citing this source

Velikovsky Catastrophism

Supporting citation for public claim

Velikovsky interpreted diverse myths and texts as memories of physical catastrophe.

Answer / theory: In a broad sense, some disasters likely shaped some memories. His specific planetary mechanism is unsupported. What supports it: Disaster motifs and real catastrophes exist. What is weak or disputed: Venus / Mars close encounters and planetary-orbit changes. Evidence level: Mixed Evidence for broad memory; Weak Evidence for his model.

Open claim topic

Supporting citation for public claim

Reception history records claimed Velikovskian predictions, while the listed scientific correctives do not validate his recent-encounter mechanism.

Answer / theory: Some supporters cite apparent predictions, but critics argue these were vague, not original, wrong in detail, or not connected to his actual mechanism. What supports it: Velikovsky made some claims about Venus before later spacecraft data. What is weak or disputed: Prediction quality and mechanism fit. Evidence level: Weak Evidence.

Open claim topic

Supporting citation for public claim

The Velikovsky affair involved a documented publication and science-boundary controversy.

Answer / theory: The publication controversy shows real institutional conflict and poor handling by some critics. That does not make the scientific claims correct. What supports it: The Macmillan controversy and AAAS debate are real. What is weak or disputed: Suppression as proof of correctness. Evidence level: Mixed Evidence for controversy; Weak Evidence for vindication.

Open claim topic

Supporting citation for public claim

Reception controversy does not supply scientific evidence for Velikovsky's planetary near encounters.

Answer / theory: The publication controversy shows real institutional conflict and poor handling by some critics. That does not make the scientific claims correct. What supports it: The Macmillan controversy and AAAS debate are real. What is weak or disputed: Suppression as proof of correctness. Evidence level: Mixed Evidence for controversy; Weak Evidence for vindication.

Open claim topic

Supporting citation for public claim

Velikovsky is a well-documented historical claim-source in modern fringe catastrophism, not a reliable evidence source for planetary history.

Answer / theory: Yes, as a major claim-source and influence node, not as a reliable evidence source. What supports it: His public influence on catastrophism and fringe-history networks is clear. What is weak or disputed: His physical claims. Evidence level: Strong Evidence for influence; Weak Evidence for claim truth.

Open claim topic

Access and actions

The Pseudoscience Wars