I know that when I am engrossed in science or math as an amateur and have an "aha" moment, I feel great. It's not always easy for the ego to realize that many others have been down the same path before, made the same observation/discovery, and went way beyond it.

What's great about astronomy for amateurs is that there are too many stars and events for the professionals to look at, and tasks like patient observation, catagorization, database queries, and so forth, do not require the same level of mathematics, physics and graduate study that are required for a career as an astronomer.

Keep up the good work on Astronomy Cast!

So it isn't surprising that one or two of Velokovsky's (sic) ideas were proved true. If you spew out enough bizarre ideas, statistics is on your side for the ultimate validation of one or two of them. Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" "proposed that around the 15th century BCE, a comet or comet-like object (now called the planet Venus), having originally been ejected from Jupiter, passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes which were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Fifty-two years later, it passed close by again, stopping the Earth's rotation for a while and causing more catastrophes. Then, in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Mars (itself displaced by Venus) made close approaches to the Earth; this incident caused a new round of disturbances and disasters. After that, the current "celestial order" was established. The courses of the planets stabilized over the centuries and Venus gradually became a "normal" planet." (quote lifted from Wikipedia article on Worlds in Collision)

Where does one start? Is orbital mechanics that unstable, so that the planets go bouncing around like pool balls whenever we need them to validate the chronology of some mythic event? Changing the Earth's orbit (apparently several times) and axis and then stopping the planet cold in its orbit within the last 3500 years would have left rather profound geological evidence. And it forces one to wonder: how did it get started moving again? And wasn't Velikovsky the one who claimed the earth was hollow?

I'll agree…that's certainly an example of unconvential thinking. It's also a great example of the sort of pseudoscientific thinking that seems to permeate popular culture these days.

While Carl Sagan did refute Velikovsky's theories in his book "Broca's Brain" and on the Cosmos TV series, highly public criticism of his claims dates all the way back to Harlow Shapley in the early twentieth century.

As far as the idea that "Indeed, we may eventully find that certain types of 'sensitive' individuals possess intuitive wisdom from sources outside 'normal reality" goes, I think that statement belongs on a New Age site rather than a science one. Discussion of realities outside of the "normal one" we all seem to be constrained to live our lives in belongs to the realm of the religious. I am continually astounded at the lack of scientific education and critical thinking produced by our American education system.

I love your soothing voices =]