In the 1970s, as humanity set its sights on the stars and the space race was in full swing, an intellectual battle raged in the classrooms and auditoriums of American universities. On the one hand, a charismatic astronomer with a turtleneck and a slow voice named Carl Sagan (1934-1996); on the other, a controversial best-selling author who had captivated the public imagination with theories as extravagant as they were popular: Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979).
It all began in 1950, when Velikovsky, a psychoanalyst born in Belarus, published “Worlds in Collision”, a book that would become a publishing phenomenon and the nightmare of astronomers. The premise was as audacious as it was crazy: Venus was actually a comet ejected by Jupiter that had passed close to Earth, causing the plagues of Egypt and stopping the rotation of our planet.
“It was as if someone had written a best-seller stating that the Moon was made of Roquefort cheese,” Carl Sagan would joke years later. The difference is that many people actually believed Velikovsky’s theories.
The truth is that ‘Worlds Collide’ became an instant success. Readers were fascinated by the way Velikovsky weaved ancient myths, historical events, and celestial phenomena into a coherent and exciting narrative. The problem was that it violated virtually every known law of physics.
The scientific community reacted with horror. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard Observatory, even threatened to boycott Macmillan, the publisher that published the book. The pressure was such that Macmillan transferred the rights to Doubleday, something unprecedented for a book that topped the best-seller lists.
Sagan, the champion of reason
Carl Sagan, then a young astronomer who was beginning to stand out for his ability to communicate science to the general public, saw in the Velikovsky controversy a perfect example of the danger of pseudoscience. For him, the real problem was not that Velikovsky was wrong, but that his work represented a form of anti-scientific thinking that could be dangerously seductive.
“The fascinating thing about Velikovsky,” Sagan would write, “is not that he was wrong about practically everything, but that he managed to convince so many people that he was right.”
In 1974, the American Association for the Advancement of Science organized a symposium that would pit Sagan directly against Velikovsky. The event, which attracted unprecedented media attention, became the scene of one of the most memorable debates in the history of modern science.
On the one hand, there was the rigorous but charismatic scientist, capable of explaining complex concepts with brilliant analogies. On the other, the creative outsider who challenged the establishment with theories that, although fantastic, connected with something deep in the human psyche.
Sagan, armed with data, equations, and infinite patience, proceeded to systematically dismantle each of Velikovsky’s claims. He calculated the energy needed to eject Venus from Jupiter (impossible), the probability of a planet changing its orbit without destabilizing the entire solar system (null), and the real consequences of the Earth stopping its rotation (apocalyptic).
The American astronomer demonstrated that it was possible to confront erroneous ideas without resorting to ridicule or condescension, establishing a model for scientific communication that endures to this day.
“It is easier to believe in exciting stories than in difficult equations,” Sagan would reflect years later. “But the universe is not obliged to be as entertaining as we would like.”
Velikovsky, for his part, maintained his convictions until his death in 1979. His followers continued to defend his theories, although their influence gradually waned in the face of the weight of scientific evidence.
Reflections for the present
In the era of fake news and viral conspiracy theories, the confrontation between Sagan and Velikovsky takes on new relevance. It reminds us that the battle between critical thinking and unfounded beliefs is not new and that the best defense against misinformation remains scientific education.
The controversy also teaches us something about the importance of scientific communication. Velikovsky initially succeeded because he was an exceptional storyteller, but Sagan showed that real science can be just as fascinating when communicated with passion and clarity.
#battle #cosmos #Sagan #faced #Velikovsky
