User:Decumanus/peter lynds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why I am Disputing the Neutrality of the Peter Lynds Article (and what it will take to resolve this)
In January, the Peter Lynds article underwent numerous edits involving a debate about the tone of the article largely between a single anonymous editor and a group of other editors, including myself. The result was a peace, because the anonymous user was basically left victorious, but it left me quite disatisfied in many ways. At the time, I was willing to be more neutral, since I knew only a little about Lynds, but I have since done much investigation, including going through Lynds paper in detail, and researching his reputation among my peers and have come to some conclusions.
I now believe strongly that the article in its current form is a puff piece for Lynds. Although it mentions that a controversy surrounds him, it does so in a way that is nevertheless quite generous to him, even enhancing him. For example, it uses criticisms of him as an excuse to compare him to Albert Einstein with a wikified link. The implication is thus "yes, there are those against him, but what great mind hasn't faced opposition?"
The anonymous contributor who wrote most of the current article and who keeps reverting my addition of {{msg:NPOV}} would have us believe the controversy is about whether or not Lynds' ideas are correct/incorrect, or even whether or not Lynds exists or is a sock puppet for another legitimate physicist.
But I believe that to frame the controversy as this way is not to recognize the broader controversy, the "elephant in the room". To wit, I would assert strongly that there is a widespread suspicion among the physics community and others that Lynds is huckster who has "gamed" the mass media, and in particular the Internet science sites, to create an undeserved reputation for himself while having accomplished very little of genuine substance.
Unless this is discussed in detail, then the article is hopelessly POV in favor of Lynds.
The widely-held suspicion that I have voiced is specifically that after Lynds squeezed a small paper into a journal known for speculative and philosophic articles, he created a press release, in the guise of an "Independent Media Consultant" and issued ito Eurakalert.org (here's the text) and other web sites, proclaiming the article as "set to change the way we think about nature and time." The mass media and science web sites, unqualified to decide between genuine scientific accomplishment and rank self-promotion, picked up the press releases and ran them with little alteration, like here and here. (The original press release link above is definitely worth reading, by the way. It almost speaks for itself in proving my point.)
This then is how Lynds became known: through is own self-promotion of an unremarkable article that basically says little of substance, but is vague enough to give the impression that it says something about the nature of time, arguably one of the deepest and broadest fundamental issues in physics. And yes, I've read his one published article quite closely, as well as his "rebutals" on his web site.
But my opinion of his actual physics (or more accurately philosophy) is not the issue here. Rather it is the issue of his media manipulation, and I believe the maintenance of a puff-piece article about Lynds is a large part of his on-going attempts to keep the media hype about him alive.
I am aware of the controversy about Lynds first-hand. Among the few physicists who even know about him, mentioning his name brings scowls of laughter. I would assert that most physicists in my own circle (which in fact the very circle Lynds would be among if he actually went to conferences on the role of time in fundamental mechanics) are not all angry but quite amused at all this. As I've mentioned, I have published in and refereed for the very journal in which Lynds' sole article was published, and if Lynds submitted another article to it, it is possible I would be the referee for it. But I doubt he could a physics article get published anywhere else at this point, which is perhaps why he is now attempting to publish in philosophy journals. As they say, fool me once...
Why hasn't there been a huge outcry in public among physicists about this? It is because physicists as a rule don't go around slamming other investigators, even people they think are crackpots, in the mass media. There is a general unspoken code to avoid such things, perhaps based on the knowledge of how wrong the media gets things about physics. In the lay press, such open personal criticisms tend to further distort the issue by creating sympathy for the person "being attacked by the Establishment." "Obviously it must be jealously!" they cry. Whoever first said "Don't feed the Trolls" may well have been a physicist.
The widespread belief is that Lynds has, as I would assert too, capitalized on the fact that the mass media, and the population at larges, loves the idea of the "Young Einstein" who confounds the eggheads [1]. But this a fable, not a reality. In my opinion, and I would assert in the opinion of many in the field of relativistic mechanics, Lynds picked up the "Young Einstein" myth and created an image from it, milking his single article right into the main stream press. In my opinion, he is still doing this by cleverly using the Internet. If he is good at anything, it is self-promotion.
In particular I believe the maintenance of the Wikipedia article as a puff-piece is of high priority to Lynds. This is because it is the second article that comes up in Google for his name, and he can't afford to have this controversy aired so prominently. The question is: will Wikipedia continue to be his shill?
Lynds' self-promotion, unto itself, is actually nothing new, in the sense that various crackpots and self-promoters are a consistent feature of physics. Such self-promotional materials have landed in mailbox regularly over the years. The person I worked for was a Nobel Prize winner who also wrote pop physics books à la Hawking and thus received this kind of stuff on almost a daily basis, some of based on fringe speculative material in publication. I would assert that what Lynds did is is take this same idea of self-promotion but update it for the age of the Internet and for the echo-chamber of weblogs. The web, for all its good, has arguably created a "level playing field" between genuine scientific accomplishment and science fame driven by press release. But in the end, self-promotion is considered a big negative in physics. It is easiest way to create a bad reputation for oneself, since it is regarded as trying to make an "end run" around gaining a legitimate reputation through the hard work of conference talks, seminars, and publications over time, discussed and cited by others in a way that actually extends or amends current theory.
In a sense, I realize I am at a big disadvantage here. This fight is lopsided. As a result of Lynds' self-promotion, there are now mass-media articles on the web that have parroted the initial press release claims about Lynds. He did a splendid job at buttressing his image this way. But the real opinion of physicists does not come out in press releases. It gets passed around in the scuttlebutt of conferences, seminars, hallways outside departmental secretaries' offices. This is how I know what Lynds' reputation is. It's a no-brainer in that sense. Actually he isn't a big topic of conversation. Most physicists have forgotten the whole thing by now as just so much media hype. But when it was a topic, and when it still comes up, the position as I've elaborated is, I would assert, is the mainstream one. But as I mentioned, physicists almost never sit down and issue press releases and write web articles about such things (except as I'm doing now). It does little good in the face of the media's desire for a "Young Einstein" and they would rather talk about their own work. As I've mentioned, this advantage Lynds has here is part of the great "leveling" between science and crackpotism that seems to flourish on the web.
Nevertheless it is not necessary to take my word for it. The controversy about Lynds as I have described it is also widely discussed on bulletin boards and other web sites [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. and this good French article in translation: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.automatesintelligents.com/labo/2003/septembre/lynds.html]
You will indeed some comments sympathetic to Lynds on these pages, but many also expressing the point of view I have elaborated. Even linking to one such site, however, was unnacceptble to the anonymous editor, who instead wikified "genius" in the introduction. If Lynds is as great as he and his promoter(s) (if he has any besides himself) claim he is, then he can take easily these lumps about the media controversy, as any real physicist would. If his physics is nontrivial and valid, then even if the entire mass media came to believe that he is a fraud, then his physics woud nevertheless find voice in others and stand the test of time. Real physicists don't need meta-rebutal home pages defending the very method of their work. If his physics really describes nature in a meaningful way, it can stand on its own. The attempted exclusion of this material about the controvery as I've described it is, I would assert, a sign of deep weakness on the part of Lynds and the biggest clue to his real nature.
One note: the anonymous editor has a tendency of escalation. The current puff version was retaliation after an attempt to introduce a more neutral POV. The anonymous editor has now stated his desire to see the article in more in favor of Lynds.
As for supplying specific names of physicists who would support me, I can certainly do that, although it would be a violation of privacy to supply their contact information here. But it doesn't matter because the names would not mean anything to the anonymous contributor, because they are simply hard-working real physicists who don't care about media fame but who the day-in day-out work of advancing the theory of mechanics over the years and decades of their lives.
On the other hand, I am a physicist and published author in the very subfield that Lynds purports to be in. It's not something I promote a lot on Wikipedia because of the amateur nature of this site, and my preference is to avoid working on article in my field (also I think physicists have a bad reputation here). But in this case I think it's germane. My own work has appeared in Foundations of Physics Although I would not in no way claim that my opinion alone is sufficient to decide truth in this matter about Lynds' physics/philosophy, I will assert that it is sufficient to establish that a controversy indeed exists. But as I mentioned, there are also plenty of opinions expressed on the web about this. If you filter out the media hype propogated by Lynds' initial press release, this controversy as I've elaborated it emerges very clearly.
I'll mention too my strong suspicion that it is Lynds himself who perhaps is the anonymous contributor who is performing these very reversions. In that sense, this page as it stands may well be a vanity page, a part of Lynds ongoing publicity campaign to proclaim himself a great physicist based on one minor article. To be honest, this is what gets my dander up. As a physicist, I don't really care about Lynds. I am actually sort of amused and pleased at the publicity it brought to a journal I very much like. Physics itself will not be harmed by Lynds: it will shake him off like a dog shakes off a dead flea and he will soon go from being a laughingstock to being completely forgotten. Physics is indeed harmed by falsified evidence, or steadfast belief in erroneous theory, but not by anything like this. On the other hand, as a Wikipedian I find it abhorrent that Wikipedia is, as I would assert, being gamed as part of Lynds' media manipulation to promote himself far beyond the scope of his small contribution, one which hardly anyone would have noticed or read had it not been for the media circus he himself created. But whether or not it is Lynds himself reverting my edits doesn't really matter: the article as it stands now, mostly written by the anonymous contributor, is a puff piece for Lynds.
Should there be an article about Lynds? Surely. Should it mention the themes in his work, and that John Wheeler said it was "bold". Sure. Why not? If he said those words, then fine. (although I will mention again that I know Wheeler personally from our days at UT. He is retired from active physics work, writing about spiritual themes and giving regular lectures to undergraduates. He likes encouraging the efforts of young minds, to the quaint point of giving out pennies after his talks to those who ask "interesting questions". I wonder very much how Lynds' paper wound up in Wheeler's hands to begin with. I notice this is never mentioned.).
But should the article also mention the controversy regarding his possible manipulation of the media, and the belief that he himself may well have manufactured his own fame through the Internet? It is my belief as both a physicist and a Wikipedian that the article must do so if it is to be anything close to a neutral article. The passion with which the anonymous editor is fighting this suggests he/she knows that bringing up this issue in the article is the one thing that might help cause the mass media to turn against Lynds and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
As I said, the mass media loves the "kid who makes a breakthrough and stuns the eggheads" storyline. It plays into the folk belief that "all that education" isn't really necessary and that physicists are an overproud lot. But more than that, perhaps, the mass media hates being gamed, and that's the fine line Lynds is treading. As long as the Wikipedia article ignores the controversy as I've described it, it is, I would assert, playing lap dog to his PR interests. This controversy as I've described is arguably the real newsworthiness of Lynds and should be discussed in depth in the article. I am not asking for the removal of all of the pro-Lynds material, but simply an elaboration of this very important issue regarding Lynds to balance out the PR from his promoters. I'm fully prepared to see this through, unlike the last round of controversy in January when I was new to Wikipedia and didn't have my editor-voice yet. Yes, I have a POV, but I would assert that it is a POV that must be in the article if the article is to be considered at all neutral.
Ironically, it would have helped the stature of my own work if Lynds had been for real, since it would have boosted the status of the journal in which much of my work has been published. In a way, by doing this, I am helping injure the prestige of a publication organ I dearly love, and the editors of which I respect deeply. But for good or bad, my nature as Wikipedian is too strong now to let this site by played for a PR tool.
In summary, the core controversy is not about whether Lynds is wrong or right, but about the methods by which he came to be well-known in the first place, and whether or not he himself has manufactured his own fame, with the Wikipedia article itself being a key part of that artifice.
[edit] A plan for compromise
But I am willing to compromise. Here's what I propose to remove the neutrality dispute notice. I will accept either of the following (with the additional stipulations below):
- A rollback to my own version [8] as of January 26, before the anonymous editor(s) rewrote the article in its current form, with the additional stipulation that factual erros such as "articles" be amended (there is only one article that has been published: the rest are preprints and do not count).
or
- with the additional stipulation of an external link I added later
The additional stipulations regarding either of these versions is that
- the factual error regarding articles must be corrected. Unless the situtation has materially changed, Lynds has published a single physics article. Preprints submitted for publication do not count.
- an additional external link to: Peter Lynds and Zeno's Paradox by Stephen Lee (it actually says some kinds things about Lynds and his work)
In return I am willing to let stand the part about Lynds "being praised by some of the world's leading scientists" (which I would dispute as being quite POV itself), as well as the spurious reference to Einstein the neutral context as it stands now (alleged comments of referees are not usually worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia).
If this is not acceptable to anonymous editor, and the dispute stands, then I would very much like to see the larger Wikipedia community brought into this. A little sunshine would do this whole thing some good. A Wikipedia:Request for comments would bring a lot more welcome eyes of other established editors on this, including many with a keen interest in physics. Many would no doubt have stronger opinions than I do regarding Lynds being a media fraud in the sense I have outlined above and would be much less willing to compromise than I would.
Of course, all articles evolve, but I will regard any subsequent atttempt to turn the article back into a puff-piece for Lynds as a violation of any agreement reached here.
If no agreement is reached, then I am prepared to let the dispute stand indefinitely, or to begin editing it to be more NPOV. As you can see, I have a lot to say about this and I wouldn't hesistate at all going into great detail about this in the article. But I would rather keep the article short, and as I said, I am very willing to compromise.
Respectful submitted. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
