Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Primer on some of the subjects of this RfArb

Here is a primer of the basic ideas that Ian POV-pushes about (from most out-there to most mainstream)

  • Electric universe (concept) -- A harebrained idea that dismisses almost all of astrophysics outright in favor of an electrical engineer's wet dream about the way the universe is.
  • Intrinsic redshift -- Pie-in-the-sky fantasy (that violated Occam's razor, by the way) of certain non-mainstream cosmology proponents who claim that there is another way redshifts happen other than that which is seen on redshift. Why do they want to do this? Because the Hubble Law matches the expanding universe which, for sundry reasons, they don't like.
  • Tired light -- proposed as an alternative in the early days of cosmology, it has popped up from time-to-time only to be knocked down by many different cosmologists. Most famously, Peebles showed that tired light could not account for many of the features observed in our universe and often tired light is mentioned as a pedagogical exercise in what a falsified idea looks like in astrophysics. There are an extreme few who keep trying, and there are those hoping to make their prominence greater on Wikipedia.
  • Plasma cosmology -- A very underdeveloped idea that is based in part on Hannes Alfvén's ambiplasma conjecture (but now markedly different), it was revived by a few researchers and today takes the form mainly as a direct assault on the Big Bang without many straightforward predictions of its own. The subject is ignored by most cosmologists and generally poorly considered because of a lack of rigor compared to the standard cosmological paradigm. Eric Lerner, a private researcher from New Jersey who dropped out of grad school is perhaps the most visible internet proponent of this idea (and also edits at Wikipedia).
  • nonstandard cosmologies -- the history of cosmology has a dominant conflict between the steady state theory and big bang theory. There still persist a small number of holdouts who support nonstandard cosmologies. There are generally more non-experts who adhere to such things than experts. I recently began rewriting this article from a historical perspective with the hopes of creating an article that was less likely to be spammed by original research
  • Halton Arp -- respected observational astronomer who likes to look for oddball associations and weird objects. This obsession has led him to create a catalog that is still used by astronomers today. However, it has also caused him to become a pathological skeptic toward all things in the standard deviation, including standard cosmology, explanations of quasars, black holes, etc. He's most famous for proposing that intrinsic redshifts are associated strongly with quasars that he believes are spit out of the cores of AGN. Very few others take this suggestion seriously. Being out in the tails of the distribution, Arp is fond of pushing the envelope ever towards the fringe. He tends to be championed, therefore, by the usual suspects and is overrepresented at Wikipedia as a result.
  • Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.
  • Wolf Effect -- An actual effect in optics that the researchers thought might resolve the quasar controversies of the 1970s (now resolved in a completely different way) by actually being the intrinsic redshift non-mainstream researchers were hoping for. However, the research has surpassed what the Wolf Effect people proposed as a mechanism for quasar redshifts. The practical difficulties of getting the coincidences required to produce a Wolf Effect means that it is a curio in physical optics -- an important one but certainly not worthy of more than passing mention on a decent, reliable, verifiable, and NPOV treatment of redshift.

[placed here by ScienceApologist on 19:26, 17 October 2006; author not indicated. Harald88 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] On User:Rednblu's evidence

The single edit User:Rednblu uses to illustrate his point is an edit to intrinsic redshift not redshift quantization where the edit belongs. The edit was removed not because I disagreed with the papers but because it belongs on the redshift quantization page (where it is in fact discussed). I pointed this out to User:Rednblu but he didn't seem to understand. --ScienceApologist 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that a typical bandwagon has formed on which the uninformed policy hounds and the pseudoscience-supporters love to jump. The problem is that their advocacy is not backed up with evidence or intelligent consideration of fact. Basically, upon being caught in an incorrect evaluation of an edit, User:Rednblu makes up his position out-of-thin air. It is clear from his non-analytical post that User:Rednblu has not read the papers in question, yet feels qualified to say what they discuss. While I study cosmology on a day-to-day basis, User:Rednblu and the anon think it reasonable to attack this from a basic standpoint of ignorance and lack of research, and then have the audactiy to claim that I am editting from a POV! It's the basic problem that Wikipedia:Expert Retention is being designed to address. This kind of unmitigated, unqualified, and unintelligent harassment based on policy-Wikilawyering and absurd lack of research does lead to the most qualified editors at Wikipedia throwing their hands up and leaving. It's this kind of amateurish defense that I find most distressing about Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I begin with a quote from Russell at 388. Russell specifically titles his paper: Further evidence for intrinsic redshifts in normal spiral galaxies, rather than ... redshift quantization .... Russell at 388 says:

  • It is important to note that the evidence for intrinsic redshifts in spiral galaxies can be evaluated independent of cosmological models. It has been suggested by Arp (1988) that large intrinsic redshifts require a non-expanding universe. However Bell (2002, 2004) has argued that intrinsic redshifts are superimposed upon expansion of the universe. The evidence discussed in this paper is compatible with either interpretation.

Generally, it seems to me that the scholars Russell, Arp, Bell & McDiarmid are talking about the empirical evidence for intrinsic redshift which they all seem to agree they have not quite explained yet. There are over ten years of discussions of the empirical data on "intrinsic redshift" no matter what the 1) explanation or conclusions about whether the "intrinsic redshift" 2) disproves the Big Bang.

So, how could you cut the Bell & McDiarmid citation from intrinsic redshift to redshift quantization over the vehement protests of a lot of people?

I would say there should be a NPOV rule against that edit.

Why do you insist that the Bell & McDiarmid citation could not be on two different Wikipedia pages at the same time? It does not make sense to me. --Rednblu 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

David Russell is not a reliable source per being basically an amateur internet denizen and high school science teacher from Universe Today message board (dgruss) who has managed to publish a third-rate analysis of publically available data that is quaint but not to the level of what is suggested by Arp and others who discuss intrinsic redshift. However, this sort of evaluation is lost on most of the pseudoscience POV-pushers as it is lost on you, being an amateur looking from the outside in.
The Bell & McDiarmid paper is about their particular theoretical form, but its principle analysis is of redshift quantization. It belongs on the redshift quantization, or if we wish to discuss it on the intrinsic redshift page, it needs to be clarified in the article. Simply including it as a resource to an article that doesn't mention it is unreasonable.
So the big issue is that you did not do the research necessary to back-up your assertion. Yet, as typical of your more-holier-than-thou attitude, you fail to admit this. I say this with as much genorosity as I can muster, but I do find your position to be very arrogant.
--ScienceApologist 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I acknowledge your generosity of spirit even engaging with this--
I am not even saying that you are wrong.
Notwithstanding your being right in what you say, for the good of Wikipedia and NPOV, I am saying there should be a law prohibiting this edit.
For example, the three 2005 publications on "intrinsic redshift" in the journal of Astrophysics and Space Science should provide a safe harbor for protecting that NPOV from being ripped out by this edit--Oswego Free Academy, as you note, notwithstanding.
I am sure we would both agree which side has the power and money. But the challenge here on Wikipedia is "representing significant views fairly and without bias"--which is quite different from selecting whom to cite in an NSF grant proposal. And I understand that the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV invites any of us quick-thinking game players to rip out the NPOV that we think is insignificant and passé. That is why I say that there should be an explicit NPOV law that prohibits this edit. In the interests of NPOV, I would want you to stop me if I did that edit.
And that is just my opinion, I agree. --Rednblu 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The biggest issue I have with your didactism above is your insistence that these references are somehow "significant views". I don't think you realize how bizarre it is to consider David Russell as somehow having a "significant view". The basic problem with these articles is that they ignore the "significance" of the windmills at which they are attempting to tilt. To be perfectly honest, a truly NPOV treatment of these subjects would involve spamming them with tutorials about modern cosmology in every single article: swamping the material with standard explanations until it is shown to have the insignificance it enjoys in the field. That would be the most honest way to deal with these insignificant points. However, there is carefully constructed prose in NPOV that prohibits such a realization (for better or worse). This is the accomodationist spirit of Wikipedia, that we only accept direct and not indirect criticism of minority opinions on their own pages. There is no carte blanche for the minority to have ownership of certain pet articles. It is fully appropriate for me and other editors to resist the efforts by project (if not article) POV-pushers to build superstructures that either unwittingly or intentionally attempt to make is seem like there is a significance beyond the marginalization of these subjects. --ScienceApologist 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good analysis, my friend. And along that line, I think the whole controversy here is over what "significant views" means. If I may follow the inquiry you suggest for a bit, I would say that the whole Wikipedia community--not a localized battle of editors--should establish the standard for what "significant views" means. Maybe there should be a constantly updated Wikipedia poll on what every active editor in Wikipedia thinks "significant views" means. And if the result of that ConstantlyUpdatedWikipediaPoll would be that "significant views" means publication quality for next month's PhysRev, then I would not complain.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for there to be a statement of some rule as to what "significant views" means so that you and I would not have to keep beating back the barbarians that insert "insignificant views"? But the difficulty, it seems to me, would be for the rule on what "significant views" means to be established by some consensus mechanism that Wikipedia editors would generally consider to be "legitimate" and "acceptable."
Would you agree that the entirety of this controversy here comes down to standards for what "significant views" means? --Rednblu 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Determining significance is important, but I think that we are going to have to look at expert retetention as the key to this determination. It is very difficult to place an objective standard on the proceses of what makes an idea significant. It has to be beyond simple publication quality or journal inclusion because there are different publications for different purposes and insignificant papers are published all the time. A really out-there speculative publication about an alternative to inflation may be publishable on PhysRev, but it may not (and probably won't) rise to the notability required for any coverage in Wikipedia whatsoever. User:Sdedeo was the first Wikipedian to point this out, so let's call it the Dedeo Inequality: just because something is published doesn't mean that it is significant. This is, again, a problem we have at Wikipedia: as the content gets more and more savvy we're going to have to abandon the first checks we do to determine the type of treatment something deserves. While looking to see whether something is publishable in PhysRev is a good bellwether for cranks, it is a terrible bellwether for how to edit a summative article that's supposed to represent the best approximation of the current understanding of a subject. It is only the first step that is publishing, but once a paper is published that doesn't mean it is suddenly significant. What makes something significant is an attribute akin to the touchy-feely editorial spirit of Wikipedia's consensus; we have an article on the subject: scientific consensus. Determining scientific consensus and significance is simply not done through publication; it's done through being aware of the best standards and practices of the field as well as having your finger on the pulse of the new research. This is a job for experts, not amateurs. We actually need to have expert editorial control in order to determine what is significant and what is insignificant: and we need to have experts that represent the mainstream and not the fringe otherwise Wikipedia will end up with a skewed portrayal of what this consensus is. We don't live in an ideal world, so we can only approximate what the consensus is about these issues, but it is important that we try to do this. We need to or Wikipedia will end up a terrible resource. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Redshift Anomaly

By ScienceApologist about a year ago...

"As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. "--ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

SA's evaluation of Rednblu's comment is not rigorous. He claims that his opinion is reflective of the facts. He says that quantized redshift does not belong in intrinsic redshift. Quantized redshift is evidence of intrinsic redshift, and does in fact belong in intrinsic redshift. Intrinsic redshift is crucial to the big bang theory in that IF there is intrinsic redshift THEN Doppler redshift is questionable. Doppler redshift was just an assumption because at the time it was conceived because there were no other explanations. Hubble honestly said the cause was unknown, i.e., an intrincis redshift. It's the only explanation they could come up with. In other words, according to them. there is no such thing as intrinsic redshift. Quantized redshift, if true, proves there is indeed an intrinsic redshift.

A favored approach of SA is to claim the material belongs in some other section or article. Is it good policy if somethng is out of place, throw it away?? The above paragraph is an example of how adept SA is at twisting the facts around to suit him. All (meaningful) views should go into the article, not just those that SA deems appropriate.

If Joshua Schroeder does in fact work at the Institute of Cosmology, will he lose his job if the big bang theory is shown to be false? Judging from his earlier posts, he apparently edits on company time, and therefore is being paid to edit. If his Institute depends on the big bang theory for sustinance, then does SA edit to save his job? If that is the case, then the problem of "vested interest" arises.

Tommy Mandel 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point-by-point refutation of Ian Tresman's evidence

This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views as either (a) Insignificant or non-notable, or worse (b) Pseudoscience. This results in the unbalanced "pushing" of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV).

I will remind the readers of this page that Wikipedia had a debate over WP:SPOV. The resolution was, in my estimation, that points-of-view that were not scientific could be described as such according to their own relevance and handled with the appropriate treatment. Articles about pseudoscientific subjects are written to explain the idea and to explain the criticism. Articles about scientific subjects often exclude or minimize the pseudoscientific perspective per undue weight. These two sections of WP:NPOV are what encourage editors who want to conform Wikipedia to the highest comparable standards (e.g. Brittanica) insist upon when pseudoscience supporters like Ian try to manipulate and push their POV.

I agree that there is no place in science article (a) for pseudoscience (b) for any kind of information described in a pseudoscientific manner, ie. failing WP:RS (c) that the mainstream view should be described as such.

Ian very carefully here declares he is not for "pseudoscience". However, what he fails to mention is that fringe minority opinions also generally do not belong in science articles unless the articles are specifically about the fringe opinion per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I note that editors claiming in their original Statement that I push or promote pseudoscience in scientific articles, include (a) ScienceApologist [1] (b) FeloniousMonk [2] [3] [4] (c) Guettarda [5] (d) Joke137 [6] The onus is on them to (a) present evidence from reliable sources (not their opinions), that the subject I am writing about is recognised as pseudoscience (b) Diffs showing that I am "pushing" it as defined in POV pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view".)

I have included in my evidence a primer on the subjects Ian edits about. They range from the pseudoscientific (Electric Universe) to the misapplied mainstream (Wolf Effect).

  • Examples of misrepresentation of minority scientific views as pseudoscience (without reliable sources)
  • Eric Lerner

The controversy over Eric Lerner is well described on the evidence page. What is clear is that this particular researcher is not well-received by the scientific community. During a debate at Princeton University in the early 1990s, Eric had trouble interpretting or knowing what an "error bar" was. The inability for Eric to engage in rigorous research is documented on his page in the section on reception of his work. Sean Carroll put it best when he described the fact that Eric doesn't really understand general relativity (a necessary starting point for discussing cosmology). There are also issues about Eric's self-promotional activities. He stands to make money if people think he is legitimate and stands to lose money if people think he isn't worth the risk of investment in his outside-the-mainstream ideas.

Plasma cosmology is poorly considered and basically ignored by the mainstream scientific community. Rocky Kolb pointed out in the 1990s that the work done by plasma cosmology researchers amounts to looking for patterns by eye and matching them to physically unrelated astrophysical phenomena -- akin to looking at swirling in your toilet and concluding that this explains the swirling of spiral galaxies. Very borderline stuff.

Real pseudoscientists like to make absurd analogies such as comparing a galaxy to the spiraling water moving down a toilet. BTW, swirling water down a toilet is the big bang perspective, alternative cosmologies believe the the swirling is UP & OUT, not DOWN & IN. Tommy Mandel 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Typical of Tommysun, this comment is so ignorant of the issues as to be almost impossible to respond to. For some reason Tommysun has an enormous chip on his shoulder regarding the Big Bang. Maybe he thinks that it is what is standing in the way of science accepting his favorite flight-of-fancy regarding crop circles. I'm not sure what it is, but it's definitely an uneducated and poorly-considered amalgamation of opinion, shoddy research, and innuendo that detracts from discussions regarding the content of the encyclopedia. I try to avoid discussions with him as much as possible for these reasons. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to sit here and tell you how wrong you are about me, nor am I going to let you get away with slander. but I will let the quantum mind listserv moderator speak for me. I have many more like this if you are interested. I submit this one because I just found it while googling around,

"Thomas Mandel shares his learned reflections on Isacson's work with cellular automata, and the surprising patterns to be found in nature."

I wrote then; "Greetings; In response to Joel Isaacson's letter of 30 December 2000, I would like to offer the following comments. Joel believes that his discovery of fundamental pattern in the codings of Cellular Automata may be important. He observes:...

(I won't bore you with the details but it has to do with a dialectical progression leading to the Baryon Octet.) [9]


Actually I got an enormous chip on my shoulder regarding plasma. People have a right to believe what they want to believe, so it doesn't bother me that big bang people believe in a big bang. What bothers me is when I read the plasma article and, if it were to be believed, plasma cosmology is a discredited, ignored, outdated theory not worthy of further investigation. But that is due to be corrected, suddenly I find that the article is owned by members of the big bang support group, SA, Art, Joke. I asked dozens of times why they are editing the plasma cosmology article? I don't know what crop circles got to do with this, the scientific consensus there is that they do not know how a board can increase the crystalline structure of clay taken from inside the circles when the normal process takes extreme pressures/heat/time to change the atomic order. ScienceApologist's description of my work sounds like what DarkFred used to say about me, only DarkFreed was not educated. Tommy Mandel 04:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Most famous for being disproven by Peebles. Those researchers who work on it are generally ignored. Wikipedia should be honest about this.

Foul. Interesting how you take a early conjecture that didn't work out and suppose that all subsequent conjectures also did not work out.

Wikipedia should be honest about those too.


  • Examples of discrediting, or ad hominems against individuals, (without reliable sources). WP:LIVING tells us that "poorly sourced controversial material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages" (WP:NPA does not apply to non-editors, though WP:LIVING implies it should?)

This is an example of Ian's wikilawyering at its best. For a long time Ian thought that describing the work of people pejoratively was unacceptable because of WP:NPA. However, when numerous administrators told him NPA was meant for other users, Ian repositioned his accusations to the tune of WP:LIVING. Unfortunately, for Ian, none of the points he lists apply to this.

Not a problem in removing something that is basically shameless self-promotion (see WP:AUTO) and basically unreferenced. That's not poorly sourced controversial material: that's removal of material! WP:LIVING doesn't cover that.

(b) Discrediting "theories" by calling then "ideas" [12]

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.

(c) Replacing positive reviews with negative ones [13]

For good reason. The positive review of Lerner with the exception of Van Allen were by nonscientists. I replaced them with reviews by scientists. It makes sense to do this because Lerner is talking about a scientific subject.

*Dr. László Körtvélyessy, Removing academic credentials "physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences." [14], changing his speciality to "self described"[15]

Gave this one up a long time ago. Basically, it's nearly impossible to determine independently what Körtvélyessy's credentials are as he is sequestered in Hungary and isn't actively pushing his stuff out on the world anymore. Independent verification of this person is nearly impossible. Nobody cares about him except for himself.

  • Ricardo Carezani, Labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Ricardo Carezani as well-known Woo-Woos" [16]

These two are notorious for their half-baked ideas and the amateur anti-banger's fondness for promoting of their tired light suggestions. I'm sorry that people who are outside the mainstream doing shoddy research are not held in high regard by most scientists. However, I've never editted any article to say that these scientists are woo-woos. I just offered my opinion on the matter.

Interesting, didn't Ian claim I was a pathological skeptic? I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

(Libelous comments removed by Tommysun)Tommy Mandel 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by this accusation with the evidence I outlined.

  • not to "be a dick" [19]

I still wish he would abide by this. Nevertheless...

I am "very incompetent in this regard",[20]

Yep, Ian is pretty incompetent when it comes to evaluating physics. He's very good at using search engines though.

I am an "avowed Velikovskian"[21]

Well, as he is a member of a catastrophism society and a publisher of their work, it's pretty hard to say otherwise.

I am a "nonscientist layman" [22]

Ian hasn't denied this.

I am an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" [23]

Actually true.

I actually have a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, and a Masters degree in Computer Sciences; while they are over 20 years old, I'm not unfamiliar with the academia.

I'm glad Ian is not unfamiliar with the academy and has a Bachelor's degree in chemistry. Ian is unfamiliar with scientific discourse in the subjects he edits, obviously and is not a professional scientist or academic. Too bad he doesn't edit chemistry or computer science articles, eh? This is important: Ian is not a bad contributor to Wikipedia. In fact, many of his images are very nice and I'm glad that he has helped out. However, his choice of how to be an editor causes a lot of problems. If he would stick to the subjects he's trained in, this might bode well for his Wikipedian experience. There is a reason that experts edit the articles they are expert in and not other articles. It may be time for Wikipedia to acknowledge this.

Articles needed to be rewritten or deleted from time to time. This article is much better than it was before. I stand by my rewriting and the AfD which is always about getting community consensus, and unless is tendentiously repetitive is never a problematic thing to do.

This is true. I've read the book. However, I abandonded this issue quite some time ago.

Verified and true.

There are fringe science and pseudoscience suggestions in "Plasma Universe". It's as simple as that.

*Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science", [30]

True, but difficult to verify as most cosmologists ignore/are unaware of the subjects today. Anyway, we came to an excellent compromise on this topic to deal with the subject from the historical rather than contemporary perspective. Much improved treatment, I'd say.

  • Dusty plasma: Mis-association with "electric universe" and bias against "Plasma universe" book. See section "Inappropriate" [31]

Dusty plasmas are a subject studied by mostly by people who have never heard of the Plasma Universe. It is inappropriate to include a Perrat daydream in the list of references, but I'm not really involved in this one.

  • Examples of use of the Weasel word phrase "The (mainstream) scientific community"[32], when there is no reliable source supporting this view, nor indicating the proportion of the scientific community that is even familiar with a subject.

Described in the primer. Consensus is culled from papers on redshift correlations, not on the papers Ian likes to research.

Pseudoscience may be a bit harsh, but isn't too far off. It is generally considered that Alfvén's cosmology is falsified by most people who study cosmology and know about it.

This is a difficult one. Most of the pseudosciences are ignored by scientific groups and so these facts are nearly impossible to verify. Ian's criticism is premature at best and definitely inappropriately motivated.

  • Examples of POV-pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."), in this case the mainstream scientific point of view.
  • Redshift: Removal of alternative redshift theories, [41], even from "See also" links, [42] (Only redshift-like optical phenomenon are included)

Deservedly so-removed per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Only MOND alternative is well-known and notable.

  • Examples of mis-using Undue weight against significant minority scientific views.
  • Redshift, Near exclusion of Wolf effect (a type of redshift, see article for notability and references) [44] [45], [46], yet, the original paper on the Wolf Effect is cited over 100 times.[47], Prof. Daniel James confirms there have been over 100 papers on the topic [48]

Absolutely appropriate. The suggestion that the Wolf Effect caused the intrinsic redshift in quasars is not taken seriously any more because intrinsic redshift isn't taken seriously. A real effect, a curiousity, but not worthy of much discussion on an article written seriously about redshift.

  • Examples of over-riding information from reliable sources without providing own sources (ie. unsubstantiated opinion):
  • Wolf effect: ScienceApologist (writing as Joshuaschroeder) personally disagrees that the Wolf effect is a redshift, and provides no verification.[49] [50] [51], yet, sources describe the Wolf Effect as (A) "a new redshift mechanism" (See article, first sentence), (B) "Doppler like" (ie. like a Doppler redshift, see article, first quote). (C) As a "redshift"... confirmed by author-come-Wiki-editor (Dfvjames) Prof. Dan James,[52] author of several peer reviewed papers on the subject,[53] (D) As a "Redshift" (see article refs [54]) by the person who predicted and effect, Prof. Emil Wolf [55] (E) By other peer reviewed researchers see article refs [56])

Well described in the primer. The Wolf Effect occurs, but it doesn't occur like other redshifts. It is fundamentally different. We had an RfC, mediation, and many other discussion over this and now our article describes it better than pratically any other source I know on the subject.

  • Wolf effect: Removing an image based on a peer-reviewed illustration,[57]) claiming: (a) Image removed claimed "because it is inaccurate"[58] (b) Claimed in violation of WP:V [59], or (c) "Claimed the image is included is a bad one"[60] (d) Put up for deletion, without explanation, [61]

The image is a bit misleading because it de-emphasizes the difference between the effect and the Doppler redshift. However, I am not too upset by it because the text explains the problems well.

  • Examples of biased editing, and not providing reliable sources on request:
  • Timeline of cosmology, this edit [62] (a) removes two entries that are both verifiable, but described as "inaccurate" (b) changes one entry to read "now-discounted concept". This is biased because there are no other entries on the page described as "now-discounted" (even though there are others), and several requests for a reliable source confirming (i) the original inaccuracies (ii) confirming the discounted theory, have not been forthcoming. See Talk section "Discounted Ambiplasma theory"

What's amazing about this characterization is that Ian was seriously claiming that ambiplasma, an idea that any introductory text in cosmology that mentions the subject can verify as being currently discounted, was not discounted! This is one of the more absurd assertions Ian has made in his time here.

*Wolf effect, in the section "Wolf effect and Quasars", this edit [63] removes a quote taken from a reliable source (beginning: ".. the observed spectral shifts may be due to other causes has been a subject of intense controversy .. "), and replaces it with a speculative version (in the introduction, ".. apparently a reference to the controversies"), that has no citations, and presents a mainstream view as fact.

Problem with using out-of-date quotes. There is no intense controversy anymore.

  • Redshift: I requested a source for a statement which I believe to be contrived,[64], but I contend that the reference provided (to three books, no page numbers, nor quotes),[65] is too vague. However, after several requests [66] for a specific quote, none are forthcoming, and I've provided my own specific quotes which are ignored.

The source is provided and conforms to the standards currently being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal. This is basically sour grapes.

  • Examples of suppression, and double standards, all in Redshift quantization:
  • Suppression of peer reviewed material: Removal of quote claimed not to be peer reviewed,[67], removal of positive parts of peer reviewed quote,[68], removal of peer reviewed positive quote (see "Hodge concluded .."), [69]

The article is much more accurate and neutral than it was before. Trying to pepper redshift quantization with insistences of the few that it proves intrinsic redshifts is an example of POV-pushing.

*Double standards: Inclusion of material from self-published sources on Creationism, Geocentrism,[70]

This is verifiable fact and is the place where, conceivably, most people who are aware of this will have heard about this.

*... and consequently drawing conclusions after suppression of papers above, see "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence.." (because the two papers providing evidence have been removed), and "consequently most cosmologists dispute .." [71] (which one or two papers do not support).

The papers are not "surpressed", the (barely) active dialogue which is overtly negative towards two research groups is decidedly opposed to this interpretation. Trying to push just the papers published by these groups is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I've added my own emphases:
  • "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..."(Undue_weight)

Many of Ian's most favorite sources are less than reliable because they are fringe or competely removed from the scientific community.

  • "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"(Fairness_of_tone)

Every hypothesis is treated equally in science. Since science is about the process of falsifiability, it is proper and right to show where theories are falsified. This isn't about describing a 50/50 political debate, it's about describing WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and fringe science in terms of the mainstream.

  • "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"(NPOV on minority views)

This is what I am trying to do.

So why are some editors trying to exclude minority views?

WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

--ScienceApologist 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang is the real pseudoscience

I am glad that pseudoscience was brought to my attention.

And sanity in science, according to Korzybski, the general semanticist, is observing first and abstracting second. Unsane science, he says, is to abstract first, then observe. The big bang theory is based on assumptions, abstractions, which observations are then fitted to.

I don't believe that the term pseudoscience applies here as it intended. Pseudoscience is a claim to be science but not using the scientific method. Technically it is an opinion masquerading as fact. Plasma cosmology may or may not be fraught with errors, but being wrong does not make it pseudoscientific. That fact that an error was found fulfills the scientific requirement.

To label it as pseudoscientific is what a clever pseudoscientist would do.

I contend that it is the Big Bang theory that is pseudoscientific. It is based on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect, and it is only an opinion that this assumed velocity component indicates expansion.(which Hubble did not share, but SA says that is irelevant) And it is also an assumption that expansion in reverse must mean it expanded from a point in the past. And it is an assumption that the beginning had to begin at this point in time and space. These assumptions are the abstractions, then come the observations selected to fit.

But observations didn't fit, and in order to make them fit, the Universe had to be everywhere to start. So how do you get from a point to everywhere? Inflation, not of matter, but of space. Inflation is an abstraction to make the theory fit the observations. (Interestingly, the boudary between Inflation of the physical world as we know it is plasma.) But instead of developing the plasma aspect, the remainder of big bang cosmology is based on gravitational effects. And because it based on gravity, the anomalous galaxy rotation speeds give rise to a strange yet unseen Dark Matter. And the tremendous outflowing matter from galaxies gave rise to a unseen Black hole, which in the popular press is proved whenever there is outflowing matter. And the expanding Universe gives rise to Dark Energy. Not only abstractions, but dark, black, invisible abstracting.

Seems to me that these are the kinds of things real pseudoscientists claim...Creation from nothing, Inflation faster that anything, expansion via invisible Dark Energy.

Tom Van Flandern? I wonder if you really can dis Tom Van Flandern as you do above. It seems to me that you are the unsane one here, given your abstract then observe position, I have found Tom to be very sensible,[[72]] far more sensible than you SA. Can't you get sued for what you said about Tom, SA? I know, you had me blocked twice for threatening you legally, so I am not threatening you again, but if this were the real world you would be sued.

At any rate, I tangled with Tom, something about how so much of science is a lie, which, unfortunately, I found to be true far too often.

I had written: "And it is really sad that I have to add, "please tell the truth" ... lies cover the truth up"

And this was Tom's reply:

In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals.
Communication between mature adults, at least about intellectual matters, is supposed to maintain respect for the opinions of others, even though you may realize that in the real world people have interests that sometimes compete with their interest in pure truth. They may have been raised with religious beliefs. They may have a job in the field and their income depends on support for certain paradigms. They may need to curry favor with other influential people.
But you can save your breath and energy unless you just enjoy tilting at windmills. The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life. -|Tom|-"

I don't know what to say. Everyone says it is much better to be a nice guy. But does that work when only one party is being nice? I don't know, in the animal world, they go for the jugular vein right away. and in a sense, that is what Joshua Schroeder does. Witness his dismissal of Tom Van Flandern by generalizations without any specific evidence. Dismissal, hardly , he was going for the jugular vein. Maybe it is the mature adults part...

Joshua Schroeder, did I spell your name right, are you being paid by your Institute of Cosmology for editing here? What are your working hours? Just curious...

Tommy Mandel 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to stop by my office hours and chat, that would be fine. We do live in the same city, after all. Send me an e-mail and we'll arrange it. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

The arbitrators are unlikey to rule on content issues, such as whether the Big Bang happened or not. They are much more likely to deal with editor's behavior problems (if any) so a refocusing of the evidence page and some fresh evidence of behavior, rather than content problems, will probably be helpful. Thatcher131 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If content is not allowed, then conclusions based on content also should not be allowed. Tommy Mandel 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, essentially ArbCom reach conclusions based on behaviour and they avoid making judgements about content. They could for example indicate that someone is pushing a POV and edit warring, however they wouldn't indicate that a theory wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Addhoc 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment on the confusion between "pseudoscience" and minority POV

On the Evidence page I noticed the remark:

how can these users coherently oppose "pseudoscience" on Wikipedia when they clearly do not understand what it is, and have no apparent interest in being properly educated regarding it?

Coincidentily I am just now confronted with the following persistent misunderstanding by ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk. On the Pseudoscience project page I recently noticed a confusion between fringe science (= minority scientific POV) and pseudoscience (= fake science) that I had overlooked and which goes as follows:

For NPOV compliance, there are several guidelines that must be respected: [...] * Clearly and prominently note points of disagreement between the pseudoscientific theory and mainstream science. * Cite sources, and clearly acknowledge mainstream reputability or disreputability of sources cited.

The instruction first of all misunderstands the scope of "NPOV compliance", but more seriously, it contrasts pseudoscience with mainstream science and implants the suggestion that mainstream is either "correct" or even "NPOV". Of course, as also the Wikipedia article explains, in reality pseudoscience is at odds with the scientific method, and thus to be contrasted with science instead of with a POV, even if the most popular POV.

My recent edit [73] "(some improvements: more neutral formulation and scrap "mainstream" which confuses fringe science with pseudoscience)" was reverted by ScienceApologist as well as FeloniousMonk who amazingly gave as motivation: "rv for non-neutral language Wikiprojects are not for one-sided advocacy". For the current discussion, see [74]

I won't need to stress that such misunderstandings and mix-ups on an instruction page cannot but cause problems elsewhere. ScienceApologists insistance on keeping that misleading text as it is may be taken as indirect evidence of misapplication of WP:NPOV. Harald88 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on mutual fact suppressions

On both sides criticism is expressed that the other side suppresses notable facts (see for example Bubba73 and Rednblu). Indeed I also was now and then in the clinch with ScienceApostle because I found certain peer reviewed opinions notable enough for inclusion in an article about the same subject while he disagreed and attempted to delete them [75].

The examples by Bubba73 and Rednblu taken together seem to indicate that editors should in general be a little more tolerant of inclusions of facts by others.

Interestingly, ScienceApostle and I agree that a good way is to put a less important POV or side issue on a separate page, with a simple link from the main article - if I remember well, something of the kind was even his proposal, and such an approach may solve part of the editing disputes that are still going on if it is at least a guideline.

However, ScienceApostle went as far as deleting verifiable WP:V statements and replacing them by unverified statements in order to even suppress traces of minority POV's from articles, such as here: [76], see also [77]. Such edits go against making a reliable and informative encyclopedia.

IMO it would be helpful for reducing such counterproductive disputes by improving the guidelines on how to make articles better verifiable as well as how to avoid unnecessary fact suppression [78].

In summary, overall I think with Rednblu that ScienceApostle is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but his editing (as well as that of some others) is often needlessly destructive while he appeals to what he claims to be policy. I hope that this arbitration can help to clarify this important issue. Harald88 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep in mind

The topic of this RFA is the actions of the named editors.

This RFA will not decide, or attempt to decide, which (if any) cosmology theories are pseudoscientific.

What matters is:

  • Were edits, or editors, disruptive?
  • Are sources reliable?

Arguments that one cosmology or another is pseudoscience, are irrelevant.

--EngineerScotty 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

Asmodeus says that "Sure, there's no logical connection between truth and academic credentials". That simply isn't true; there is a logical connection between an environment that encourages and demands study, that provides time for study, that provides a well-stocked library in many cases numbering more than a million books and continuing to collect the latest research, that provides money for trips to study on location or tools need to do studies, and finding the truth. Academia also attracts the most intelligent and most curious.

Mathematics can be done with notepad and paper in the spare time; and yet it's still true that very few mathematicians are separate from academia, and even Srinivasa Ramanujan tried to join academia to work with fellow minds. People working on mathematics without connections to academia are notorious for ignoring or despising long-known results, and producing garbage or trivia. I can't imagine how biological or astronomic studies could be done by someone without access to the laboratories that academia or at least academic credentials provide access to.

Yes, academia sometimes pressures those within it to conform to orthodox opinions, and results have been known to come from those excluded from academia. But that same force also frequently excludes people who would disregard any degree of evidence and follow whatever ideas their biases, hopes, illusions or insanities would give them. Without some form of academic truth, there would be little way for anyone to seperate the kooks and the outdated theories from actual theories plausible in the light of today's evidence.--Prosfilaes 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hi, Prosfilaes. By "logical connection", I mean a necessary connection such that high levels of expertise are always associated with academic credentials. No such connection exists. And as you forthrightly admit, "academia pressures those within it to conform to orthodox opinions." This means that mistakes and oversights can propagate throughout academia by coercion. Accordingly, academics are not always fit to judge whether any particular idea or theory is "garbage or trivia".
By the way, are you an academic? That might help explain your professed inability to imagine that "biological or astronomic studies could be done by someone without access to the laboratories that academia or at least academic credentials provide access to." In fact, many new and interesting astronomical objects have been discovered by amateurs, and theoretical biology can be done by anyone with access to experimental data. One can own a good telescope, and access publicly funded experimental data, without benefit of academic credentials.
Similarly, saying that "very few mathematicians are separate from academia" is to make an unverified statistical assertion. The same is true of any statement to the effect that nonmembership in academia is causally (as opposed to statistically) related to bad mathematics. As long as textbooks and other sources of knowledge are available to the general public, members of the public are free to acquire and extend the knowledge contained therein.
You assert that academia provides an environment "that encourages and demands study, that provides time for study, that provides a well-stocked library in many cases numbering more than a million books and continuing to collect the latest research, that provides money for trips to study on location or tools need to do studies, and finding the truth. Academia also attracts the most intelligent and most curious."
Academia only provides these things for people who can stomach its general modus operandi, and even more importantly, have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay its fees. Trust me, there are countless intelligent, knowledgable people out there who fail to meet one or both of these criteria. To insist that serious ideas become notable and verifiable only after appearing in the chatter of those who can meet both of these criteria would be to commit a grave injustice against the vast majority of bright, inquisitive people.
The message for Wikipedia is obvious: because the link between academia and knowledge has nothing to do with logical or causal necessity, but is clearly circumstantial in nature, academic credentials and opinions cannot be rationally enshrined as parameters of notability or verifiability, particularly by an encyclopedia which claims to be tapping into the knowledge of the general public. Asmodeus 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The importance of academia isn't an absolute, granted. Rubbish frequently comes out of academia (though in the sciences, academia is rather good at detection and correction); and new discoveries often come from outside it (though the primary non-academic vehicle is industry, and academia and industry frequently cooperate these days). It is rare, however, for the lone theorist working outside of academia to produce theories of value--I've encountered (and endured) many cranks in my life who thought their envelope-scratchings to be profound, and academia's utter disregard for them to be proof positive of academia's maliase or corruption. In reality, such cranks were promoting ideas which were studied and (usually) discarded by academia years ago. More to the point for Wikipedia: it is sufficiently rare for scientific discoveries to come from outside of either academia or industry, that Wikipedia is more than justified in ignoring claims from scientists who operate outside either sphere. At least in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
To put it another way. Lone scientists have, over the past century, failed to produce. Consistently. The academy and all its apparatus, OTOH, has consistently produced useful results. Thus, Wikipedia is correct to ignore lone scientists, absent evidence to the contrary. Self-publication is not evidence to the contrary.
Unfair? Perhaps. But we're writing an encyclopedia here. If you have a clever idea that you think merits attention from others, go prove it. Here is not the place to do so.
--EngineerScotty 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: Hi, EngineerScotty. You say "it is sufficiently rare for scientific discoveries to come from outside of either academia or industry, that Wikipedia is more than justified in ignoring claims from scientists who operate outside either sphere."
The problem with that statement is more than obvious to any non-academic: it's an unverified statement of academic opinion. Even if it could be verified (without appealing to Fallacy 1), there is an appreciable likelihood that the supposed rarity of nonacademic discoveries owes to the fact that academia has managed to arrogate all of the available public attention for such discoveries, thus (in effect) diverting attention and notability away from the discoveries of non-academics.
Uh, no. You don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. In the context of Wikipedia, the onus is always on the supporter of a claim to prove that the claim is verifiable and relevant. Academia has repeatedly demonstrated that it can produce results. So has industry. Outside of those two, who else has? Wikipedia doesn't have to prove that among the legions of failed dreamers, crackpots, and other assorted self-appointed geniuses, there exists nothing useful. Those who come from the field of dreamers, etc. need to demonstrate that their stuff is noteworthy before it gets included in Wikipedia.


Since this unjust situation effectively hamstrings the "lone scientists" of whom you seem so contemptuous, it isn't quite fair to claim that these scientists haven't made significant contributions, or aren't intellectually capable of contributing to the body of scientific knowledge if given the chance. All you can really say is that you and your friends are attempting to deny them that opportunity, e.g., right here in Wikipedia.
Exactly. It isn't fair--but guess what? Tough shit. It ain't Wikipedia's problem. We do not exist so that failed dreamers, crackpots, and other self-appointed geniuses finally have a forum to publish their theories in a forum alongside the same academics and industrial types who have been busily "suppressing" the works of FD/C/SAGs. We exist to report on the state of the field as is known to reliable sources. And if a particular failed dreamer, crackpot, or self-appointed genius doesn't merit attention elsewhere, he/she doesn't merit attention here. This is long-standing policy.
Now, Plasma cosmology has enough adherents that it probably merits mention in Wikipedia; though not at the same level of other hypotheses which are more highly regarded.
By the way, if you think that this isn't the case, then the burden is on you to prove that there is in fact a necessary logical or causal connection between academia and truth and/or intellectual ability. The smart money is overwhelmingly against you on that. Asmodeus 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've never asserted that there is a connection between academia and truth or intellectual ability. I've merely asserted that there is a connection between academia and industry, and achievement of significant scientific results. Virtually all of the scientific advancements have come from one of these two--I suppose I should throw in government/military research programs as well, to the extent that those are separate from academia and industry. If you wish to advance the case that "lone gunmen" are a reliable source for scientific knowledge, you need to prove it. And demonstrating it for one lone gunman doesn't demonstrate it for the whole lot.
Unfair? Certainly. But again, tough. We don't exist to right great wrongs; and we don't exist to provide a forum for those who don't merit attention in other forums.
That's just the way Wikipedia works, and should work.
--EngineerScotty 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the burden on him is not to prove that there's a logical or casual connection. All we need is a statistical connection. Again, Ramanujan is the great example of a non-academic mathematican, and he was (a) welcomed with open arms to Cambridge, and (b) went to Cambridge. It's easy to make conspiracy theories about academia, but you've provided no evidence to indicate that this is going on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place to put original research. If you've original research, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. I see no way that the average person, the average genius even, can be expected to weigh an book on a subject they are unfamiliar with, which is why peer-review is so important.--Prosfilaes 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You say that there are few mathematicians outside of academia is "an unverified statistical assertion", which strikes me as as an evasive way to avoid disagreeing with it. The reason I brought up Ramanujan is because he is known as the one exception in modern times as to mathematicans coming from academia. (As Enginner Scotty says, there's quite a bit of interesting work coming from industry, but it's virtually all from people with degrees and a lot of it feeds back into the academic journals, many of which are heavily subscribed to by industry.)
I seriously doubt that the price of college is an issue for many in the first world. Anyone with the intelligence who was semi-diligent in pre-college education can get grants to pay for most to all of college in the US, and those who slacked off in high school, or didn't have the test scores, can get school loans to cover college. This is the anti-socalist US; I believe most of Europe will completely cover most student costs (e.g. Dutch universities. The people who have to work two jobs to feed their family may not have that chance, but they likely don't have the time to do independent research.
There may be countless intelligent, knowledgable people out there, but the number of people willing to sit down and do intensive intellectual study is much fewer. Academia makes it their job, which tends to work. I know a number of intelligent, knowledgable people, but I don't know a single one that does serious study outside of an academic environment, besides possibly me. They spend their time on TV, or games, or movies, or family, or the Internet.--Prosfilaes 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hello again, fellas. I take it that you're among the small but vocal minority which complains that Wikipedia's most serious problem is a vast legion of cranks, quacks and crackpots trying to use it to foist their insane ideas on an unwitting public. My response: for obvious reasons, "insane ideas" tend to lack notability. The vast majority of them have no citations in the mass media or in scholarly journals. Therefore, they already can't get into Wikipedia, and it is unnecessary to wail and gnash one's teeth over it.

Among other problems, yes. Most serious problem? Probably not; constant POV-pushing by political operatives, and spotty coverage in general, are probably worse. But Wikipedia does attract cranks--as did Usenet and many other open fora before. Note I am not making any conclusions in this matter regarding the instant arbitration case; as I'm not an expert in either physics or astronomy, I'm not qualified to speak on this subject. --EngineerScotty 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about the determination or modification of policy (which is what this RfArb is about). Again, if you want to modify Wikipedia policy so that only academics can deem an idea notable, and only academic journals are accepted for purposes of verification, then you need to explain why. To do that, you need to demonstrate a logical or causal connection between academic credentials, truth, and intellectual excellence. Otherwise, all you have is a statistical, circumstantial connection to which exceptions may in fact occur.

RfArb is primarily about the determination and modification of user behavior. It is a judicial and not a legislative body. It does not set policy; policy comes from the community (per WP:POLICY) or from the Wikimedia Foundation and its officers.
And regarding "modifying" policy, you might go check out WP:ATT; a major modification of the sourcing policy which is under discussion. But, at any rate, Wikipedia policy is what it's users say it is, and currently policy says that things must be attributed to reliable sources. Self-published sources are seldom considered reliable; peer-reviewed journals virtually always are. That's current policy and practice here; not something new that I or anyone else wants to ram through.

Any sound, rational policy makes room for exceptions. Otherwise, exceptions can cause it to fail. That's why it's a good idea for Wikipedia to use reputable mass media sources for verification and proof of notability, as it currently purports to do. But unfortunately, some of the editors trusted to implement this policy haven't yet managed to get with the program. Instead, they attack anything that hasn't yet appeared in academic journals as "non-notable", apparently believing either that academia has all the answers, or that even if it doesn't, nobody will ever know the difference. That's a very interesting thesis, and it no doubt merits debate. But it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, deserve to be enshrined as policy.

I'm unaware of any non-academic, reputable mass-media sources which are at issue, at least in this present arbitration. Nobody seems to be arguing that plasma cosmology is non-notable and shouldn't merit mention in Wikipedia; rather, the argument concerns how it should be presented in relation to other cosmologies, in particular Big Bang, which seems to enjoy the most support among mainstream scientists.

Now let's talk about this statement: "Anyone with intelligence who is semi-diligent in pre-college education can get grants to pay for most to all of college in the US, and those who slacked off in high school, or didn't have the test scores, can get school loans to cover college." Unfortunately, the grants available to most students are barely a drop in the bucket against the total cost of a college education, high test scores notwithstanding. And as far as student loans are concerned, why on earth should any intelligent, self-motivated person incur a mountain of debt to get a higher education, when he or she can simply buy or borrow a few good textbooks and master their contents at home?

The issue isn't mastering content. The issue is performing research. Ignoring things like math, logic, or philosophy--which are largely intellectual pursuits which can be done in one's head--cutting edge research in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc. requires laboratory resources which simply aren't found in your kitchen or garage. The places such resources are found are universities, industrial research labs, and other large institutions which can afford these sorts of things. Even someone like Eric Lerner, who is a serious scientists, has trouble gaining access to these things.
In math or CS, significant results have been achieved outside the normal channels--but it eventually gets published in, or at least referred to by, reliable sources. Academia isn't inherently hostile to research done outside its auspicies; it merely finds that most of it isn't worth much.

The answer, of course, is just this: one goes for the degree because one wants to make money. But this leads to a couple of obvious questions: (1) What does anyone's desire to make money have to do with the worth, notability, and verifiability of anybody else's intellectual productions? (2) Why is a small but highly vocal subset of Wikipedians trying to make sure that no theory or idea qualifies as notable or verifiable without being published in the restricted, profit-oriented academic journals used by academics to hold onto their publish-or-perish jobs, qualify for academic promotions, and win honoraria for which only academics are eligible?

There are many reasons to pursue a degree besides money. Access to academic research facilities are one thing. Again, it may seem unfair, but a university is well within its rights to demand that your name end with "Ph. D", or be enrolled there as a student, before it lets you use its research facilities.

Here's a reality check regarding academic credentials: they don't mean what they used to. Not only have they been massively devalued by the vast number of mediocre intellects to whom they've been indiscriminately awarded, but there are now many PhD's who make their livings selling ads, driving limos, and flipping burgers, bitter over having wasted years of their lives and vast sums of their money on what now looks to them like a glorified pyramid scheme. This trend makes advanced degrees an increasingly shaky investment, and under those circumstances, it is simply ridiculous to maintain that notability should be strictly reserved for the ideas of people reckless enough to purchase them.

Whatever. Notability is often achieved by working in industry, and industrial research programs are often less picky about degrees. They do, however, demand to see results. Someone who sits and home and tells people how clever they are, but has no results to show for it, isn't likely to find a research position in industry, either.

There's no doubt that there are many smart people in academia. However, it is equally true that there are many smart people outside of academia. The notion that every single one of them is too busy watching TV and playing games to be capable of profound original thought is not only one of the goofiest ideas I've ever heard, but its utterance is something of which no self-respecting academic would ever be guilty. Asmodeus 08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the rub. Occasionally, people outside academia do come up with interesting results. But. It gets published. Or referred to. People who produce truly interesting results don't need to come to Wikipedia whining about how unfair the edifice of academia is. Their work is mentioned in Wikipedia without their participation. The inventor of the wiki also is credited with (among others) a software engineering methodology known as extreme programming. All of the initial development of this paradigm was done on a wiki, among an informal group of non-academic programmers. However, academia and industry both took notice, and now XP is a subject of much formal study. There is no doubt that XP is notable; as it is described in published reliable sources independent of its creators.
Subjects which are only described in self-published materials, however, are original research and do not merit publication here. Again, this is longstanding policy, and not something that we're trying to invent as part of this RFArb.
--EngineerScotty 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: I agree with most of what you write, with a few exceptions. I'll allow that technically, the ArbCom does not set policy; however, it determines the proper interpretation of policy, and its determinations are cited right along with policy by editors and administrators trying to justify their actions in a wide variety of related situations. So it's clearly to everybody's advantage to make sure that the ArbCom is well-enough informed to make robust decisions that apply over the full range of contexts in which they will be cited. In particular, participants in an RfA can bring up other situations which, while differing somewhat from the case under consideration, resemble it enough to be of help in clarifying relevant issues or revealing troublesome patterns of behavior.
As it happens, I know of at least one other situation in which some of those involved in this RfA denied that reputable mass-media sources can confer notability on a theory or idea. Specifically, they claimed that only mainstream academic journals are sufficiently reputable and relevant to make a certain philosophical theory notable, in the process asserting that ideas which have not appeared in what they consider to be the right journals should not be the topics of Wikipedia articles. (They also misclassified the theory as "pseudoscience" and tried to claim that it was mentioned by the mass media only because of its author's high IQ.) This, of course, is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and what it establishes is this: when certain people involved in this RfA want to get rid of an idea they haven't heard of, don't like, or don't fully understand, they don't let Wikipedia policy stand in their way. Instead, they interpret policy in a tortured manner that distorts it beyond recognition and causes it to fail. Since these people have bent or broken the rules in the past, it is possible that they've done so here as well.
You say that except for abstraction-intensive fields like math, logic, and philosophy, the issue isn't mastering content, but performing research. I'll agree that if one is an experimentalist in a field of empirical science, one is likely to need regular access to expensive equipment under academic or corporate control. But given that research is an interplay of theory and observation, there's still room for theory. Sometimes theory outpaces experiment, and the labs play catch-up; sometimes it's the other way around, and it's the experimentalists who publish their results and wait around for the theorists. These lags may be embarrassing, but they make it very clear that theorists don't need constant access to lab equipment. Thus, while universities may be within their rights to demand university credentials of experimentalists using their facilities, they have no right to make demands of any unaffiliated theorist working to explain the data thereby generated. It's open season on the data, and if any non-academic theorist can defy the odds and get some media attention for his work, then that's it...it's notable, and academia can only read or watch it and weep...or not, as it likes.
You assert that people who produce truly interesting results don't need to complain in Wikipedia about the unfairness of academia, because if their work is truly interesting, it automatically becomes notable. If only that were always true! In fact, history shows that academia sometimes misses a beat or two, letting a great idea collect dust for many years before accidentally stumbling across it again and wondering how they all avoided trippiing over it in the dark (Galois theory, for example). Part of the problem is that academia is in many ways a closed shop, and like any exclusive club, it is capable of utterly ignoring what goes on in the outside world. That's great for professional academics; it lets them immerse themselves in their own work with minimal distraction. But what it doesn't let them do is trivialize the ideas of non-academics merely by ignoring them. That would be having their cake and eating it too, right along with everybody else's.
Thus, while Wikipedia should obviously value the contributions of academics, it should not fall into the trap of assuming that there's some sort of causal relationship between good ideas and academic credentials, or notability and academic journals. There's certainly a correlation, but exceptions can and do occur. Wikipedia can't afford to let its experts treat it as nothing more than an academic digest; it must allow for exceptions to the academic rulebook, and discourage those who try to prevent it from doing so. If this makes some of our "pseudoscience"-hating experts want to leave, then so be it - with all due respect, they should stop bellyaching and leave. Better experts, more open-minded and respectful of Wikipedia policy, will surely take their places, and some of them will no doubt come from academia. Asmodeus 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Galois theory was never discovered by the nonacademic world. And the reason why Galois theory wasn't discovered by the academic world for so long is because Galois was dead. Galois or Mendel would never have complained about not getting academic attention; had they been in a position to complain, and had the desire to do so, they could have got academic attention. De Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes, roughly contemporaneous, lists circle-squarers, "had written a book about the signs of the zodiac which all the philosophers in London could not answer," or who believed that "the only bodies of our system are the earth, the sun, and the moon; all the others being illusions, caused by reflection of the sun and moon from the ice of the polar regions." All these got academic attention, at least enough for de Morgan to notice and write about them. --Prosfilaes 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The point, of course, is not that Galois theory was discovered by the non-academic world (to which Galois never got a chance to present it); the point is that it was discovered by a non-academic, who then duly submitted it to the French Academy of Sciences, which then proceeded to lose track of it. Even if one makes excuses for the individual academics involved in this unbelievable snafu, the bottom line is that academia initially failed to recognize Galois theory for what it is, and in fact managed to circular-file it for decades.
While the history of academia offers other illuminating examples of organized stupidity, one glaring example is enough to establish that (1) academics aren't always the ones who find the answers, and (2) sometimes academics don't even recognize the answers when the answers are conveniently fed to them on a silver platter. Evidently, they're too busy doing their own thing in an ivory-tower kind of way. That's why academia can't be trusted as the exclusive final authority on human intellectual progress, and why Wikipedia, and humanity at large, can't afford to pretend otherwise. Asmodeus 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
And how is that supposed to work? If another Galois turns up (must happen every couple hundred years, after all), Wikipedia is supposed to identify him, establish his notability (i.e., the correctness of his theory, because on what other grounds would he be notable?), and proclaim his accomplishments to the world? And all that without doing original research or taking a point of view??? Maybe the popular press is a more reliable arbiter of the correctness of a methematical theorem than the academic world? --Art Carlson 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As I say, if one defies the odds and gets mass media attention for his work, then that's it - the work is notable. For the purposes of Wikipedia, its correctness is unimportant; Wikipedia does not make validity judgments (in fact, I was repeatedly reminded of this when I effortlessly disposed of misguided CTMU critiques during the CTMU AfD).
In principle, nothing prevents the popular press from occasionally being a more reliable arbiter of the noteworthiness of a new idea than the academic world, particularly where the academic world has unwittingly ignored it, or where the innovator lacks academic credentials and thus faces certain bureaucratic obstacles in getting academic recognition for his work. While a mainstream academic journal may occasionally break down and cede a page or two to a non-academic, it is highly unlikely to do so for a non-academic who claims to have solved too important a problem; after all, there are a lot of cranks out there, and that's what they tend to do.
But of course, we need to remember that this does not preclude the solution of major problems by non-academics. As the sad example of Galois clearly shows, that's exactly what sometimes happens. Asmodeus 15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys (Asmodeus and Prosfilaes) are way too wordy. What were you talking about, anyway?
  • Correctness is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Academic recognition of an idea is a sufficient criterion.
  • Significant media attention is a sufficient criterion.
  • If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, then the response - or lack of response - of the academic community should be reported.
Do either of you disagree with any of these points, or are we just chatting? --Art Carlson 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not either of the two you mentioned, but I do not think the slippery slope of the last contention should be codified: "Lack of response (to some aspect of a notable entry) is notable". IMO, that's a Pandora's box, bordering on WP:BEANS, opening up all kinds of backdoors into jigs and jags of articles. Unless of course, that lack of response in and of itself has been noted in the literature in a reliable source.("XYZ notes in ABC that concept QUUX has not been ....")
--QTJ 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I also wasn't involved in this lengthy discussion but I agree on Art's points.
With some hesitation even the last point: Nowadays with electronic tools it's very easy for non-specialists (thus IMO not original research) to quickly check if there were any reactions. Thus also absence of notable reactions could be stated as a matter-of-fact. Not really a slippery slope, but similar to allowing for claims like 23+56=79 without sourcing. Harald88 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Haha! Talk about synchronicity! I just added an entry to my "You Know You Need Time Away from Wikipedia When..." list that might shed some light onto that bit of creative arithmetic. -- QTJ 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
One major problem with Art's last criterion is that we appear to have a number of users who, while professing expertise in the subject matter of an explicitly philosophical article, are perfectly capable of misclassifying it as "pseudoscience" and then citing its purported lack of mention in academic science journals, in which it does not in fact belong, as proof of their absurd contentions regarding its level of notability. Asmodeus 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I have taken some time to read through the related threads and contentious issues, Asmodeus. A proper taxonomy is, indeed, necessary, if one is going to balance one's arguments for or against. As my own expertise is most certainly not in formal philosophy, theory of knowledge, theory of science, in any cogent debate I would have to recuse myself from comment citing my own ignorance of the deep issues. That said (since this is not a cogent debate page, and has a spirit of some informality about it), prima facie, such an article appears to me to fall into epistemology, with a very wide berth given to knowledge in the spirit of Cogito ergo sum, that is: knowledge-tied-to-existence-per se. I have exposed my own ignorance of the deepness of it all by making such a layman's classification, I am certain. However, that said, even having some deeper understanding than many might in the topic area, if I am still unable to do it correct taxonomy -- that tells me something (besides the clear fact that I am a self-professed tyro on the matter). -- QTJ 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the CTMU article, its original categorization was correct. It was explicitly classified as philosophy and metaphysics, neither of which relies on the scientific method, and neither of which thus qualifies as "science" or "pseudoscience". Therefore, the article was inappropriately attacked by the anti-pseudoscience crowd, including ScienceApologist, Pjacobi, and others.
A proper understanding of the categorization requires a little background. The term metaphysics is now interpreted in various ways, but was originally defined to contain three related disciplines: ontology, epistemology, and cosmology. While cosmology is now considered an empirical science and has thus seemingly been divorced from ontology and epistemology, this is misleading, for as relativity and quantum mechanics seem to imply, ontology and epistemology still bear strongly on the fundamental nature of the cosmos. The operative distinction is this: whereas physical cosmology is about comparing and classifying observed large-scale structures and discussing the physical processes by which they may have originated or evolved, philosophical cosmology remains true to the original meaning of the term and thus deals primarily with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the cosmos, including the logical entailments of the observation process itself.
The editors who misclassified the CTMU as "science" or "pseudoscience" were either ignorant of this distinction, or attempting to deceive. In neither case did they have any business attacking the CTMU article, to which this distinction is basic. That being established, I note that plasma cosmology, to which ontology and epistemology are not primary, is more physical in nature. Nevertheless, we need to consider the motives and qualifications of those accusing any particular plasma cosmologist of "pseudoscience". Given that the accusers have erred or deceived before, they may well be doing so again. Asmodeus 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the cites on CTMU referred to it as science, as someone pointed out. That's the basis for which the editors were and should have been working on.--Prosfilaes 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's simply not true. In all of its publicity, and in its Wikipedia article, the CTMU was explicitly presented as philosophy. The problem, of course, was that it was deliberately misrepresented as "pseudoscience" in order to enlist support for its deletion among a certain militant sector of the Wikipedia population. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before making this kind of misleading statement. Asmodeus 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia: anyone can cite 1 as being 2, if they so feel, and who knows how long such misclassifications will stick? The price of edit-this-page is constant diligence. Further to this, see: User:QTJ/Wikipedia_Humor. It quite rigorously (using the latest pseudomatematical methodologies just made up) demonstrates this rhetorically, almost. Maybe. Well, it did 10 seconds ago. -- QTJ 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(returning to margin)

Wow! That's the closest thing to an intelligent and focussed discussion I've seen in a dog's age! I take it no one objects to the first three theses I listed, and no one would object to the fourth if it read simply

  • If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, and there is a verifiable response from the academic community, then that response should be reported.

That means we are debating what to do ...

  • If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, and there is no verifiable response from the academic community, then ...?

QTJ expressed concern that the lack of something is hard to verify. Harald88 suggested that it is indeed possible to verify the lack of a published response from academia by means of an (electronic) literature search. Finally Asmodeus is concerned with misuse and unenforceability of the principle, but, as far as I can tell, does not object to the principle as an ideal. Do you think we can agree that a statement along the lines of "While idea X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no papers either supporting or criticizing the theory have appeared in the scientific literature." is a verifiable, NPOV, and useful assertion in such a case? --Art Carlson 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On its face, that wording is certainly getting close, on some NPOV continuum. Might I suggest: "While idea X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no papers third-party responses either supporting or criticizing the theory [depends on the field which word goes here] have appeared in the scientific relevant literature." -- QTJ 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That sure goes to show you how awful writing can get when you try to make one-size-fits-all boilerplate. You don't really want to use the phrase "third-party responses", accurate though it may be, in any real-live articles do you? Any particular article will choose a formulation that best fits its own circumstances. Plasma cosmology, for instance, says "Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community." and references, not a literature search, but an open letter.[1] As a more generic suggestion, we could say,
  • If an idea in the realm of the natural sciences gets in because of media attention, and there is no verifiable response from the relevant academic community, then a statement along the lines of "While X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no peer-reviewed papers either supporting or criticizing the idea (concept/theory/observation) have appeared in the scientific literature." is not forbidden by any policy and may be appropriate for inclusion in the article.
Make your own adjustments for philosophy, history, economics, or any other discipline, as long as it is academic, so that a response from a relevant academic community is possible. --Art Carlson 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"While X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no peer-reviewed papers either supporting or criticizing the idea (concept/theory/observation) have appeared in the scientific literature." Indeed, in my opinion, that works for an idea/concept/theory/observation in the physical sciences. Or even more succinctly (in the physical sciences: "While this theory has received considerable treatment in the popular media so as to warrant inclusion due to its notability, it does not appear to have undergone published peer-review." Any physical scientist reading that could then elect to draw his or her own "conclusions" -- without slanting having occurred. (Oh no -- did I just open a can of worms with that wording?) -- QTJ 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I note in other subcommunities, article tags as seen here: Perl 6. This points to a case of something being under construction as a topic-at-large, subject to review and change. Note the wording in that tag? "This article or section contains information about computer software currently in development. The content may change dramatically as the software development progresses." Perl 6 is under development and the content there may change dramatically as a result of system changes -- but is still notable. In the software field, there are other ways to describe "software underdevelopment that may change dramatically." Note the different flavors and slanting: "smoke-and-mirrors" --> "vaporware" --> "proof-of-concept" --> "suck-and-see" (this one might be less ubiquitous, but I've heard it used in this context) --> "dog-and-pony-show-ware" --> "under development" --> "in alpha" --> "internal use only" --> "beta" --> "version 0" --> "next version" --> "planned release". You get the idea. There end-user-proofing. Perhaps an examination as to why the software subculture on Wikipedia was able to come up with a neutral alert "under development" and "may change dramatically" rather than use something that was prejudicial? Just a thought. -- QTJ 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about giving more weight to nonacademic sources then they deserve. As a general rule, it's verifiable that they overstate and misstate the significance of academic research published in journals. Even if I believe that important research was being published outside of journals, I see no reason to believe that mass media reports would be reliable sources for the matter.--Prosfilaes 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
...and I'm concerned about people who unwittingly equate "deservingness" with academia, and "significance" with academic journals. Many people who hold to this bogus equation aren't even aware that they're engaged in circular reasoning! (By the way, in some cases, the mass media have reported on a theory or idea without referring to academic journals at all...and justifiably so.) Asmodeus 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not circular reasoning. I've looked at the results of academia, and the results of lone inventors, and came to conclusions. Just because you disagree with my conclusions, doesn't mean they're circular reasoning.--Prosfilaes 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Possible Cautions in re: Misclassification

This section starts from this diff, not just due to right-margin-drift, but because it's a seperate concern from Academia header.

Asmodeus said (in part, per the diff):

The operative distinction is this: whereas physical cosmology is about comparing and classifying observed large-scale structures and discussing the physical processes by which they may have originated or evolved, philosophical cosmology remains true to the original meaning of the term and thus deals primarily with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the cosmos, including the logical entailments of the observation process itself.

Indeed. Although I do not have the patience to compile the diff's required to substantiate similar concerns (they're on the evidence page, strewn about), I think Asmodeus' concerns have some merit. Take this randomly selected construction, from Logic and Philsophy (Tidman & Kahane, 9th ed.): (x)(y)Fxy \cong (y)(x)Fxy (Pardon my LATEX, I don't know the code for the three bar congruency symbol.) That's part of a formalized philosophical treatment, and that's the kind of thing that the untrained eye might call a hard science. While some branches of philosophy (even those concerned with language) do indeed strive towards formal approaches, others don't. (For instance, rhetoric, with its notion of persuasion.) A formal math proof is not about persuading the reader into believing a theorem: QED means Thus it was demonstrated -- that is, thus it is demonstrably absolutely true (in a two-valued truth system that admits not modalities).

A persuasive methodology (some might call qualitative) does not pretend to be mathematically rigorous, except perhaps by the demonstration of statistical χ2 methods or preponderance of evidence and or degree of statistical certainty (that admits for outliers). To prove something using empirical methods is not to prove something using formal mathematical methods. One can prove the existence of a canonical Type 0 language in grammar theory, but to actually parade it (the language itself) for inspection requires a very large margin. The call to prove it exists means different things in different branches of research and study.

That boring preamble behind us -- to misclassify an ontological/epistemological model as a hard science and hold it to the requirements of an empirical science (for instance, to require it to make a falsifiable prediction) is Popperism taken to the umpteenth degree of absurdity (IMO). The standards of proof in various fields differ. Therefore, the standards of refutation and review also differ. (For instance, the 2 sentences that precede this parenthetical statement are an attempt at persuasion, and may fall or not fall to a logical fallacy in a rhetorical model -- where one is quite well allowed to be convincing and win an argument without being rigorously mathematically true or false in one's assertions. I have made two assertions. Even the "evidence" page under discussion here presents a different type of evidence than one would consider valid in maths or a court of law.)

Who gets to classify? It's critical -- since how a model is classified determines to a very large degree how a model is criticized. Something that does not present itself as an empirical scientific model ought not be subjected to criteria of NPOV that only apply to empirical models, but rather to criteria of NPOV that apply to its particular branch of human knowledge.

I'm shaddup now. --QTJ 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point, but a math proof is about persuading the reader. While around 1900, Hilbert and Russell tried to set up mathematics as a completely formal system, few mathematicians work on mathematical proofs that could be checked by computer. Most proofs skim over things that should be obvious ("We professional mathematicians [...] say things like 'by a slight variant of Theorem 3.7 in the paper of Ignatz' or 'using the general approach of Hilbert ...'.", A Mathematician's Survival Guide, Steven G. Krantz) and what's acceptable here is defined by whether the readers buy it or not.--Prosfilaes 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, note quite shaddup now. Here's the above in the Queen's English:

I assert that Wikipedians ought not classify as pseudoscience any model that is not a science, and define as pseudoscience any model with the outward appearance of empirical science that does not hold to the precepts of what is and what is not the empirical scientific method. Any model that does not self-proclaim to be an empirical science is not a candidate for classification as a pseudoscience just as 1 is not a candidate for being 2, as 1 does not self-proclaim itself to be 2, but rather, to be 1.

.

(And to qualify as having self-proclaimed to be empirical science would require that the proclamation have been in a reliable source, not anecdotal or conjectural.)

Let the games begin. --QTJ 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on tommysun

I just wanted to leave a brief note to ask the arbitrators to give Art LaPella's evidence serious consideration. Tommysun, although I have no doubt that he is well-meaning, seems incapable of listening to what other editors have to say and continually hammers home the same points (such as the chestnut "the universe is 99% plasma and the big bang doesn't even take account of it") without considering our responses. Other editors, even those sympathetic to his views, cannot abide his editing and his behavior on talk pages. His contribution has been a tiresome drain on the project. It has been this way from the start and has not shown any evidence of improvement despite many efforts to direct him. –Joke 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that his knowledge of physics has not improved (e.g. plasma explained very nicely by re-ionization). He also referred me here when I reverted a large section of contested material he added to Crop circles unilaterially and with no citations, for alleged 'pseudoscientific viewpoint as to the reputability of knowledgeable scientists' (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_of_pseudoscience.2Fpseudoskepticism). He is also fond of quoting a book by someone named Heselhoff (see Talk:Crop circle), who only appears in Google in Tommysun's talk pages. He has not provided a citation for this work, or of his other sources. I only learned of this editor when he posted the offending text to Crop circle and then made the above accusation, as I didn't want to get drawn into the shouting on the talk page. Michaelbusch 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: 'Heselhoff' was a mis-spelling of Eltjo Haselhoff, who is not a reliable reference. Tommysun also likes to rely on personal attacks, because most of his reasoning in recent posts for his being correct is my lack of knowledge of physics. Michaelbusch 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide diffs for these supposed personal attacks? Addhoc 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:Crop circle: [[79]], [[80]] and User talk:Tommysun: [[81]], [[82]]. I would not usually be bothered by these statements, given that this is Wikipedia, but they form part of a pattern (i.e. Joke's statement above). I have dissected all of his statements Talk:Crop circle and all of his references have been discredited, so his logic relies on my not being able to review any physics. That is somewhat insulting to me, but more importantly, it shows a person who seems to lack the ability to restrain himself or to compromise. Michaelbusch 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
None of these diffs show personal attacks, I would suggest you have a look at WP:PA for clarification. Addhoc 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I confused WP:PA personal attack with Ad hominem arguments. Michaelbusch 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Joke from Tommysun

Hi Joke. I am not a person who is directed, sorrry if I disappointed you. You might want to visit my talk page [83] to get the inside view of how I deal with other editors. Please keep in mind that I am not a Wikipedian, I an a reader of your encyclopedia who happens to know a little bit, and that little bit that I do know tells me that a whole lot of what is in Wikipedia is just the opinion of some editor. Besides, it is obvious if the opinion comes from the writer. For example, when I came here a year ago, the introduction to plasma cosmology stated that plasma is "free flowing electrons" At that time I knew better. I didn't know then why that definition was stated that way. Now I know better...

It wasn't I who first noticed that the big bang derived from Einstein's Theory of Gravitation leaves out electric and magnetic forces. It used to be a hunch I had, now confirmed. The theory of gravitation (General Relativity) does not take into account electromagnetic forces (Plasma). Sure, the big bang acknowledges a state prior to reheating in which matter is a plasma, but after recombination, it is all gravity again. I wonder, I made one heck of a lot of objective statements during this aritration hearing, and the only rebuttal I know of is a comment about my 99.something% plasma figure.

Oh I get it now, what used to be 99. something % plasma is now Dark Energy, and plasma, compared to this Dark energy and the rest is only four percent. Neat trick. However, is expansion the only evidence for this Dark Energy? Tommy Mandel 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me see. What is the quickest, easiest way I could find a summary of the evidence for dark energy. I know! I'll try Wikipedia: Dark energy#Evidence for dark energy. --Art Carlson 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas vs. People - Possible Fork?

I may be out in left field here, but it seems to me as I review evidence, assertions, and so on, there are two issues here:

  • Asserted attempts to discredit living people using their biographies (if they happen to have one on WP) as the playing field.
  • Asserted attempts to slant articles one way or the other for POV.

One is the manipulation of ideas, the other of people's lives as seen to the general public. My thinking is that some who are seen to slant the bios are less prone to slant the ideas, and vice versa. I am not sure at this point that a unilateral approach is possible. Is there such thing as an arbitration fork? People and ideas (here people meaning BLPs) are getting all muddied in the same tub, IMO, and the tenor of guidelines for each is quite different (for reasons mentioned in WP:BLP). -- QTJ 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to consider as many different issues as I have time and energy for. However, this case probably presents more issues than can be dealt with by our process. Fred Bauder 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
My hat off to the center-forces of these things. Your efforts in this regarded do not go unappreciated. Easy to see and point out things, not so easy to {{sofixit}}. -- QTJ 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
From the presented evidence I got just the inverse impression. As shown in the evidence section (and as is well known from newsgroups) there is a direct link by association. A cheap but efficient tactic to discredit a person's ideas (when they are disliked), is to attempt to discredit the person. When someone's credibility has been put in doubt, the dismissal of that person's theories is more easily achievable. Harald88 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The cost of that "tactic" is that while "efficient" -- it erodes the very precepts this particular issue revolves around. Attacking the people (via their bios to discredit them, as asserted), also attacks science. Scientists in general try to avoid attacks on the person. Slanting of biographies has potential to harm the people concerned -- not just their amorphous and intangible "credibility". So, while the cost to do it is low for the editor, it's high for the bio subject, and high for scientific decorum in general, IMO. -- QTJ 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree of course. Just wanted to point out that the two issues are sometimes related, and why this is especially the case with biographies of authors of contested theories. Harald88 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As an example of how subtle it can be (and not really WP:BEANS, since a form of this has already been asserted on the evidence page), compare:
Jane Generic claims to be a Fellow of the [Insert Respected Society Here].
Jane Generic was elected a Fellow of the [IRSH].
Jane Generic is a Fellow of the [IRSH].
See the subtle slant on each? Claims tends towards the subtle mental response "Claims? What, is she or isn't she?" It subtly hints someone doesn't believer her claim to fellowship. Was elected tends towards ah, accepted by her peers. And is -- well that all depends on what the meaning of is is.
So, what if no reliable source lists JG as a Fellow of [IRSH]? How can Jane prove she is indeed? Is it enough that someone call up and ask? (That's original research.) Can she send in her notice of election to an editor (published only on a sheet of paper -- not notable reliable source). Can she .... You get the idea. It is possible to eliminate her membership in ONE society and focus on the one that DOES get listed in a RS, thereby gaming the system to make her appear to be only accepted by ONE type of society.
Gaming the system is one thing. Gaming the system using people's public profile as the playing field, another. Such pseudoskepticism does not do the public face of science any favors: it's downright prejudicial against it -- if in any way the results of such playing around with people's bios are seen to be how reliable sourcing is supposed to work.
-- QTJ 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My ArbCom evidence suggests that certain editors attempt to slant both controversial people and controversial ideas in a pseudoskeptical manner. Controversial scientists become lone fringe scientists or worse, and controversial theories become discredited ideas or concepts, rejected by the whole scientific community. Makes you wonder how their peer reviewed papers were published... ah yes, those refereed journals are marginal, with questionable standards. --Iantresman 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I noted the evidence, and realize it's not necessarily so much the either/or I suggest with the vice versa above and may indeed be an and (or even a neither in the big picture, but I'm not the judge, the jury, or the executioner here and don't pretend to be). I do note, however, that some have focused on the ideas, others on the bios. But I think my understanding of all the evidence presented is skewed by lack of time to fully grok the fullest sense of what's up with all this. I try to remember to have a sense of humor about life these days, having waxed quixotic in my younger days to the determinant of my windmill tipping lance. (Back in the days of yore, when electronic communication was just me and 1 million of my close personal friends, we used to say, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the vagaries of the medium.") -- QTJ 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But something does need to be said about the quality of journals. The average person probably doesn't know that "Nature" and "Science" are highly respected publications, whereas if there's a Physics (journal), it's a minor journal. Is the Illinois Journal of Science a fairly important journal, a decent but minor journal, a mere house organ of University of Ill. publications not worth publishing elsewhere, or published by a crank who gets a few friends to look over submissions? I don't know, and neither will most of our readers. There are marginal journals with questionable standards, and it would be unfair to readers to present articles published in them as if they were published in "Nature" or "Science".--Prosfilaes 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who's going to decide whether the Illinois Journal of Science is "worthy" or not? Certainly not an unaccountable, unverifiable, anonymous Wikipedia editor. At least by citing a journal, a reader can find out more if they wish. Hannes Alfvén said that his "papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals"[84], and he went on to win the Nobel prize. --Iantresman 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Now why would Ian bring up dear old dead Hannes at this juncture? Is it because Hannes Alfvén quotations are a totally out-of-the-blue unrelated point and non-sequitors are his way fo confusing issues?. Why would Ian mischaracterize the timeline of the Alfvén quote he included? Alfvén said this AFTER he won the Nobel prize (indicating, perhaps that he had "jumped the shark") not, as Ian insinuates, before. Why would Ian think this flight-of-fancy is relevant at all since Wikipedia's role is not to right the (perceived) wrongs of society? Could it be because he wants to see the minority opinions he loves so dearly and advocates actively on the internet to be trumpeted in Wikipedia? Why oh why?
This is why it is so difficult to work with Ian: many of his talk contributions are so fraught with baiting and tendetious comments that it makes it almost impossible to assume good faith. I try hard, but Ian tests my patience quite a bit.
--ScienceApologist 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If Alfven said it after winning the Nobel Prize, then that makes it even more significant...it reflects hindsight, and is not mere sour grapes from some disgruntled "crank" pissed off at the journals. [By the way, if "Wikipedia's role is not to right the (perceived) wrongs of society", it is also not to commit and propagate wrongs of its own. One might want to remember this before once again taking as gospel any false accusations he might hear regarding the topic of a Wikipedia article, and then confusedly attacking both it and its author.] Asmodeus 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
More baiting from the peanut gallery. Do I need to remind Asmodeus that CTMU was deleted? Do I need to remind Asmodeus that CTMU is not peer-reviewed and its only claim to fame is that it was discussed in the popular media? Do I need to remind Asmodeus that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and promotion of Langan's musings are rightly excluded from this work? This is more baiting and more non-sequitors. It's borderline harassment. --ScienceApologist 17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Not quite "the peanut gallery", I'm afraid - more like somebody who has watched you and your "anti-pseudoscience" crew in action, was extensively harassed by you, and sees the need for Wikipedia to curtail your abuses. Incidentally, according to Wikipedia policy, the popular media qualify as reputable sources, so if you want to exclude "Langan's musings" from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia also needs to exclude the "musings" of everyone else whose ideas have been discussed in the popular media (in contradistinction to some lily-white subset of academic journals). Asmodeus 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That's why CTMU is not an article. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The CTMU "is not an article" because you and your cronies twisted and distorted that aspect of Wikipedia policy which makes it notable, i.e., the part which says quite clearly that reputable sources in the mass media qualify for purposes of verification. You've caused a big problem for Wikipedia in this respect. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is not the last such problem that you will cause if left entirely to your own devices. That's why I'm here - not because I'm trying to restore the CTMU article, which you unjustifiably attacked and deleted, but because I, along with many others, regard you and your cronies as a major problem for this encyclopedia. I'm not kidding about that, and I'm not going to desist. Something needs to be done about you, and I'm going to do my own small part to make sure that this happens (using only the proper official channels, of course). Asmodeus 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It might help if you didn't look so much like you had an axe to grind. When you start talking about "you and your cronies twisted and distorted", you're at least approaching WP:NPA, and you're not impressing me and suspect many other people with your calm rationality. Let the CTMU article be water under the bridge and keep to the issues, and it will be a lot more impressive.--Prosfilaes 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I see where you're coming from. However, it's a natural fact that ScienceApologist and [insert your preferred term here, e.g., "friends"] bent (and thereby distorted) the rules of Wikipedia in their deletional attack on an informative and well-written article on a notable theory that they erroneously tagged as "pseudoscience". That's simply what happened, and there isn't any rational argument to the contrary. If mentioning this fact is "grinding an axe", then mea culpa; on the other hand, since this fact is characteristic of SA's problematic "anti-pseudoscience" behavior here at Wikipedia, it is highly relevant to this RfA, and pointing it out is hardly a violation of WP:NPA. As far as the CTMU is concerned...well, that's what SA and company were attacking when they bent the rules, and that's why it's getting mentioned (as opposed to being treated as "water under the bridge"). I hope you understand. Asmodeus 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been saying all this all along and all it got me was getting blocked for saying that if this were the real world, SA would be sued/arrested/banished. I complain to the police and they arrest me... It is not water under the bridge with me, can't you smell it? Tommy Mandel 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to such phrases as "baiting" and "peanut gallery" and "borderline harassment" with "harassment" as the edit summary, it's aggravated, when one considers those in the context of a response about the comment about the Nobel recipient, which was neutral in tone while conveying a pertinent point, IMO. Where does the "buck stop"? In a perfect world, I've never responded to taunts such as those. In the imperfect world, indeed, I have lost my cool. Publicly, under my own name. One of the systemic flaws of all anonymized communities is that they take away the cost of many things, or shift it drastically. For instance, in a biography, the cost of slanting goes away from the person who does the slanting edit, and transfers it to the subject of the biography itself. The biography's subject pays for the alteration, not the person doing the alteration. One might say the person doing the alteration pays: in the form of the kind of arbitration that is currently being witnessed -- however -- the cost of mitigating that is simply to vanish and come back under a new moniker: the subject of such a modified biography, however, pays intangibly and tangibly without such recourse. If I lose my cool or do something untoward here, having elected to use my meatspace identity to do it, I pay the cost personally. The economics of competitive and non-competitive games, and all that, you know, rely on certain assumptions. Anonymity-without-accountability screws up those economic models -- and there's probably a Nobel in Economics (to get back to Nobel prizes) for anyone willing to do that all up in formal Greek and Germanic higher order lettering. -- QTJ 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Alfvéns' 1988 quote is after his won the Nobel Prize in 1970, and refers to his papers that were not accepted by the leading US journals before (and probably after) he won the Nobel Prize. --Iantresman 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And what has this to do with Wikipedia? --ScienceApologist 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A reader can always find out more if they want. There's no need for Wikipedia to exist for a reader to find out more if they want. And the jabs about "an unaccountable, unverifiable, anonymous Wikipedia editor" are a little pointless; that's the nature of Wikipedia. We need to give readers some context as to the strength of the claim even if they are incapable of judging the science itself. We would expect that same Wikipedia editor to understand the value of the Nobel Prize, to the point that it would probably go in the introduction; why can't we expect them to appropriately understand the relative value of the journals?--Prosfilaes 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[Jump to left hand side] "...X's musings..." ScienceApologist, I realize this is not a formally submitted paper (your comment above, that is), but you do realize that a habit that must be reinforced within oneself as a scientist is the separation of Person and Idea (the title of this subsection). Loaded words like "musings" have connotations, and in juxtaposition to the name of the person putting forth those idea, one muddies the waters between those lines, IMO. In computer science, when one does this: As shown by [Bloggs 1992]... one does it not in reference to Bloggs the person, but a particular set of published results that Bloggs just happens to have compiled. It's a convention that happens to use the name of the person, but does not refer to the person; it refers to a particular set of results. By juxtaposing "X" and "musings" in the manner you have in the above sentence, however, the distinction becomes one of immense cloudiness, and science is not a cloudy endeavor. Your moniker suggests that you (the person) have a strong mission to uphold the tenets of the scientific method and culture (apologetics is a cultural, often rhetorical, rather than formally methodological method, after all). I refer you to GLeng's statement in evidence: "These are well meaning, but IMO they are pseodoskeptics whose activities in defence of science are, instead, harmful to it, and intensely harmful to WP." The risk one entails when one muddies the waters between person are numerous, but I believe GLeng said it best in that statement.

As to WP not being a soapbox -- exactly right. Is not apologetics itself a form of soapboxing? Indeed, the very statements I am making now are "soapboxing" for the courtesy afforded not by the scientific method, but the scientific demeanor. There are so many matras, so little time. So many of those mantras that they have been reduced to WP:XYZ pages.

Sometimes one cannot win for losing. -- QTJ 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We all soapbox in discussions about Wikipedia, but the point about Wikipedia not being a soapbox applies mostly to the articles themselves. The point of Wikipedia not being a soapbox is that articles shouldn't be "promotional" but rather should be informative with respect to the information generally accepted in the mainstream as important to know. Langan is not a scientist nor is CTMU a scientific proposal, though it was dressed up as such in the article which is with us no longer. There is no reason for us to take Langan's pet theories seriously here at Wikipedia. There is no reason for us to have articles about his flights-of-fancy. Moderate amounts of fame do not entitle one to have a corner of Wikipedia roped off for publication/promotion of one's own original research, however high one's IQ may be. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a few minor corrections, if you don't mind. (1) Once an idea has been mentioned by several major sources in the mass media, it's notable, and Wikipedia takes it seriously enough to support an article on it ("flight of fancy" or not). That's a matter of policy. (2) Given the notability of their topics, the authors of Wikipedia articles are encouraged to consult primary sources for information. This is not "original research", but "source-based research", and it's perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. (3) Once again, the CTMU was not "dressed up" as a "scientific proposal" in its Wikipedia article, but was explicitly introduced as philosophy. Only somebody who didn't read the original article, or who has trouble with the science-philosophy distinction, could be confused about that. Asmodeus 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you're wrong on point 1) because the community consensus was to not include a needlessly long-winded article on CTMU. Saying something is a "matter of policy" is ridiculous because Wikipedia doesn't run like a government based on policy: it is a community built on consensus. You're also wrong on point 2) It is in many ways preferable to rely on secondary sources instead of primary sources because of the summary style of the encyclopedia. You are also wrong on point 3) inasmuch as CTMU was claiming to be about subjects that are considered scientific, it was being dressed up by editors such as yourself as scientific fact. I'll point out that CTMU was also not accepted for publication in respected philosophy journals either, and Langan's amateur status means that his ideas are unlikely candidates for future inclusion here. I'm sorry you're so confused on these matters, but I wish you the best of luck in your tilting at the windmills. --ScienceApologist 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on now, ScienceApologist. The "consensus" of which you sanctimoniously write was not representative of the community at large, but only of a militant segment of the community which was actively recruited by means of deception. [1, 2] Descriptive (as opposed to interpretative) use of primary sources is explicity allowed by WP:OR. And if you perceived the CTMU as a proposed example of science rather than philosophy, which is how it was explicitly presented, then that merely confirms what I've been saying about your evident confusion regarding the meaning of "pseudoscience".
Let's go into that in a bit more detail. You seem to hold some combination of the following beliefs: (1) There is no distinction between a theory of science and a theory about science. (2) If a theory says anything at all about the observable universe, even by way of interpreting a scientific theory, then it implicitly purports to be science (i.e., science has a monopoly on the observable universe and everything which bears on it). (3) Even an exclusively deductive theory which nowhere relies on the scientific method, and which explicitly calls itself philosophical, is being "presented as science" (provided that it anywhere contains the word "science", or says anything that might bear on the observable universe). All three of these beliefs are erroneous.
I'm willing to allow that your basic intentions may be good. After all, science is important and worth defending. All I'm asking is that you stop mindlessly attacking ideas you don't understand on erroneous premises you can't justify. Obviously, that kind of unreasoning behavior has a far greater potential to damage Wikipedia than to help it. Lord knows, there are plenty of legitimate targets out there for those who have the knowledge to identify them. Why not step back, take a deep breath, look long and hard at your personal beliefs and behaviors, and try to do a better job of upholding the scientific values you hold so dear? It's never too late to turn over a new leaf. Asmodeus 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen, if CTMU were just a theory about how science worked, it wouldn't make grandiose claims about being a Theory of Everything which is a scientific subject. The problem was that there were huge sections of the article that commented on scientific theories and presented interpretations as plain fact when they were in fact contrary to mainstream scientifists' opinions on the matter. That makes CTMU a pseudoscience, but this in-and-of-itself was not the reason I supported its deletion. Pseudoscience can be a legitimate topic on Wikipedia and be afforded its own article, however ideas promoted by single individuals which have little to no outside commentary and whose only promotion comes from mention (not explication) in the mainstream media fail notability for inclusion as separate articles. CTMU is dealt with appropriate to its notability in the Langan article now and this basically is the end of the story. Sour grapes make people complain and pucker their faces, but they don't make the grapes any less sour. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Theory of Everything is impossible in the scientific sense simply because in order to verify it, something would have to be verified and something cannot be everything. The so called Theroy of Everything is in reality a philosophical problem/solution. To believe that science can author a Universal principle is incorrect. There would be no way to test it scientifically. This does not mean, as some have taken it to mean, that because there is no scientific theory of everything therefore there is no principle of everything. To believe that is not science. Tommy Mandel 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really believe that the phrase "theory of everything" refers exclusively to science despite the philosophical origins of such key ingredients as physics, cosmology and atomic theory, then I can only suggest that you look here. On the other hand, if the phrase is "grandiose", and science owns the phrase, then that makes science grandiose. So I guess that "grandiose" isn't such a bad word after all, is it? And if science is "grandiose" in that respect, then any comprehensive theory about science is that much more entitled to grandiosity, isn't it? If the shoe fits...
But let's move on. You state that "there were huge sections of the article that commented on scientific theories and presented interpretations as plain fact when they were in fact contrary to mainstream scientifists' opinions on the matter." That's absolute hogwash, and I'm pretty sure that you know it (if not, then please feel free to justify your statement). You also state that ideas "whose only promotion comes from mention (not explication) in the mainstream media fail notability for inclusion as separate articles." That's inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, which allows that verifiable mass media sources suffice to establish notability. (As you also know, the CTMU was to some extent "explicated" by Popular Science and various other secondary mass-media sources in which it was mentioned, and there exist several primary sources which permit its further explication without violating WP:NOR.)
That's what I mean when I talk about the damaging effects of your beliefs and behaviors on Wikipedia - you don't understand the meanings of scientific terms and phrases, you deliberately misrepresent the contents of Wikipedia articles whose topics you don't like, and you engage in the calculated distortion of Wikipedia policy. Don't you understand that this is wrong? Again, in the interests of Wikipedia and its readership, I'm asking you to step back, honestly reassess your beliefs and behavior, and undertake a little self-rehabilitation.
Can't you at least give it a shot? Asmodeus 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. The discussion about CTMU was over months ago as far as I'm concerned. You had your opportunity to make your case and the community has spoken. That's it. I'm not going to go away softly into the night. Just because you have a warped opinion about my understanding of scientific terms and phrases doesn't mean that you can ask me to leave the project any more than my assurance that you have no understanding of scientific terms and phrases means that I can ask you to leave the project. You're going to have to live with this, but if you continue to harass and contravene the basic standards of civility, good faith, and other principles of community membership, then I have no doubt you will find yourself sanctioned in the future. So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish! --ScienceApologist 13:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that your part of the community has spoken long and loudly indeed. But as you're well aware, it didn't and doesn't speak for the community at large. As a growing number of contributors have learned, once an article gets bum-steered into your little holler in the backhills of Wikipedia, it's in for a lynching plain and simple, and the larger community has nothing to say about it. If, as you claim, those who liked the CTMU article had a chance to say their piece, neither you nor the closing administrator heard or understood a word they said. In fact, the closing administrator wrongly ignored all kinds of serious irregularities and rubber-stamped your discombobulated verdict in spite of the policy which says that deletion should not occur in the absence of a clear consensus, which was of course precluded by not only the irregularities in question, but your crystal-clear taxonomic confusion. Now, don't get me wrong - if it turns out that Wikipedia can't see the need to do something about your misguided zealotry, then I'll be the first to admit that you and your partisans are exactly what it deserves. But until this is proven once and for all - and in my opinion, you're entirely too confident of such an outcome - please forgive me if I continue to regard your attitude and behavior as something that this encyclopedia would be much better off without. Asmodeus 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What I think this encyclopedia would be better off without is so many editors who can't let things go. Sometimes the consensus goes for you, and sometimes the consensus goes against you, and sometimes it feels like the other side is getting their way despite the nonsense they're spouting. Instead of complaining about it, let it go. If necessary, take a break and go work on something different, articles on one of your hobbies or something non-Wikipedia altogether. It really doesn't help to keep bringing it up two months later.--Prosfilaes 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Prosfilaes, but the way to solve problems is not to "let them go". One must hold onto them at least long enough to solve them. That's what we're trying to do in this RfA...solve problems. According to one side, the main problem to be solved is a horde of "pseudoscience supporters" who wouldn't know real science if it bit them in the rear. According to the other side, the main problem is a well-entrenched enclave of hyperorthodox control freaks who loudly claim to know all about pseudoscience, but actually have no idea what pseudoscience really is, or how to distinguish it from science, philosophy, and mathematics. The "pseudoscience supporters" are said to be detrimental to Wikipedia because they introduce questionable material; the anti-pseudoscience fanatics are detrimental because, as Wikipedia history clearly shows, they mindlessly delete material that unequivocally belongs here, thus depriving readers of access to it. So far, most of the noise surrounding this general issue has been made by the "anti-pseudoscience" crowd. I merely wish to point out that the noise they make is not necessarily proportional to the soundness of their case, and propose that Wikipedia policy be clarified in such a way that they find it more difficult to abuse the system. Again, I hope you understand. Asmodeus 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Throughout life, there are many things one can't solve. Just as importantly, those problems which one decides to tackle need to be challenged in the right time and place. Fred Bauder has already said that this is not the place to overturn the CTMU deletion. I fail to see the relevance of that AfD; the anti-pseudoscience fanatics, as you so derogatively term them, have no power of deletion. The AfD page is patrolled by a large group of varied people who apparently didn't rally to your cause. Summerizing it as one (slightly notable) man's theory that had some limited discussion in popular magazines and TV leaves me to think I would have voted "Merge to author", independent of any pseudoscience issues. Discussing things that are on topic is likely to be much more helpful than trying to fight this AfD again.
Furthermore, ScienceApologist looks to be getting a repermand for using phrases that strike me as much milder and less personal than "hyperorthodox control freaks". In fact, it starts pushing me towards putting a WP:NPA template on your talk page (oh threats of threats). Can you please try and be a little more civil?--Prosfilaes 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, please try to inform yourself of the facts before expressing an opinion. (1) Nobody here has asked anybody to "overturn" the CTMU decision. (2) The CTMU AfD was not decided by those who "patrol the AfD pages", but by people who were specifically recruited at WikiProject Pseudoscience by the main AfD instigator, who knowingly misrepresented the CTMU to them as "pseudoscience". Very few of these people had the presence of mind to critically examine this misrepresentation before joining the attack. This irregularity alone should have precluded administrative endorsement of the skewed deletion vote. (3) The phrase "hyperorthodox control freaks" is not as derogatory as you might think; in fact, it legitimately describes a class of people according to their intellectual and behavioral tendencies, for which substantial evidence is herein presented. Furthermore, the phrase was attached to the name of no specific person. Kindly refrain from trying to help your own partisans in this RfA by misrepresenting well-justified descriptive statements as "civility violations" when they clearly are not. That's a form of "gaming the system", and it violates Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for your cooperation. Asmodeus 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So you acknowledge that there's no point in continuing the argument here, but continue to complain about the closing of the vote? The word "freak" is inherantly derogatory, and to the extent that the phrase "control freak" can be used neutrally, it describes a specific type of person that (a) would be very rare on Wikipedia, which is hard to control, (b) be extremely hard to diagnose with just contact through Wikipedia, and (c) certainly does not apply to any significant percentage of the group you were applying it to. It was directed at a group of people that certainly includes some specific people we all know. You do not have my coöperation, because you need to calm down, let things go, and stop attacking people.--Prosfilaes 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to find your accusations a bit tiresome. Please try to come to grips with the following fact: in this RfA, the "anti-pseudoscience" editing behavior of ScienceApologist and certain others is subject to scrutiny. Accordingly, I've brought to light what I know of it, and will continue to do so irrespective of your opinion. Regarding your conflation of the distinct terms "freak" and "control freak", they mean very different things; while a "freak" is a misshapen or abnormally formed organism, a "control freak" is merely a person who has an obsessive need to exert minute control. Since there are many control freaks here at Wikipedia - people who sit on their pet articles and jealously guard every punctuation mark, people with a burning need to purge Wikipedia of every last bit of "pseudoscience", even people who feel a compulsion to limit the free expression of those with whom they disagree - I don't need to apologize for using the phrase, particularly in describing the resentment that control freaks tend to inspire in others. So why not take a little of your own advice, let it go, and turn that frown upside down? Thanks, Asmodeus 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I'll recuse myself from further comment or offering anything into evidence or pursuing this discussion, since (as mentioned on the evidence page) that particular person is a friend of mine, and although it's entirely possible for me to internally maintain objectivity, the appearance of such will vanish to infinitesimal in the face of expressions such as "flights-of-fancy". That said, good luck with the arbitration. -- QTJ 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for rollback

I've rollbacked an IP contribution [85] as my connection timed on the attempt to do a normal revert. The IP didn't sign an included two signed entries which may or may not be forged. --Pjacobi 20:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Addhoc in the capacity of advocate for Tommysun

Firstly, I'm not going to provide evidence on the project page, largely because the accusations against Tommysun appear to be fairly trivial. In my honest opinion the none of the evidence provided regarding any of the editors would be sufficient to sustain a RfC. The principal charges of POV pushing on both sides don't appear to be supported by sufficient diffs to establish a pattern of meaningful disruption.

Regarding the views expressed, I would comment the pseudoscience debate is heavily polarized. The 'skeptics' attempt to interpret WP:NPOV#Undue weight in such a manner they are only required to give coverage to the most established theory. On the opposing side, editors attempt to stretch WP:NPOV#Undue weight in such a way that minor theories would be given virtually equal coverage. For experienced editors to suggest that either side represents WP:NPOV is slightly disappointing. Addhoc 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost. Those of us trying to describe some minority peer-reviewed scientific theories do not expect mainstream articles to give equal coverage; that would be POV pushing. But I do not expect no coverage; that is also POV pushing. The diffs in my evidence show that 'skeptics" are attempting to remove all coverage of some minority scientific views. --Iantresman 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asmodeus and CTMU discussion

A brief qualification, if I may. The "skeptics" are not only attempting to remove all coverage of some minority scientific views which conflict or compete with those of the mainstream, but even to eliminate higher-level syntheses which do not conflict or compete in any way with established physical theories, but merely deal with the relationships among those theories in a logical, model-theoretic context. Worse yet, they are perfectly willing to misrepresent content and misapply Wikipedia policy in effecting their preferred brand of censorship, and have succeeded in attracting to their cause certain administrators who obligingly tie the hands of their opponents. In short, they are on an irrational crusade that is being eagerly supported by a devoted group of followers who possess administrative status.
With regard to the success of the Wikipedia project, it would be difficult to overstate this problem. Individual minority or "fringe" theories have their respective supporters, but don't usually share them; the supporters of one minority theory typically don't support those of another in times of trouble. "Anti-pseudoscience skeptics", on the other hand, enjoy the divide-and-conquer advantages accruing to a dedicated, broad-ranging cabal whose members and sympathizers have become so entrenched in the power structure that they need no longer bother to justify their moblike behavior. Wherever they go, their administrative flunkies follow them and "get their backs". And to add insult to injury, any who defect are plaintively mourned with all the hip-hop pathos of gangstas mourning a homeboy shot to pieces during a schoolyard drive-by.
From a systemic viewpoint, the activities of these pseudoskeptics can be compared to an autoimmune disorder in which free-ranging packs of killer cells attack the body of Wikipedia without constraint or reprisal. If Wikipedia fails to do something about this problem, its diverse minorities will simply abandon it, letting it degenerate to a trivial collection of textbook excerpts valued by virtually no one but students allergic to their school libraries. Take heed. Asmodeus 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

letting it degenerate to a trivial collection of textbook excerpts valued by virtually no one but students allergic to their school libraries. --> Obviously you're missing the point of library allergy. The cumbersome nature of cross-referencing in a library is apparent to anyone who has ever spent time collecting dozens or hundreds of sources. There are no hyperlinks, there are no search algorithms in the stacks, and there are no back buttons. Maybe you wouldn't like Wikipedia as a condensed version of a library, but that's what an encyclopedia is normally defined as. --ScienceApologist 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyperlinked encyclopedias are already available on disk or by subscription on the web. That's just as well, because Wikipedia will never command the respect accorded to (e.g.) the Encyclopedia Britannica; too many of its "experts" are anonymous, unaccountable, and just plain don't know what they're talking about. Therefore, if Wikipedia is ever to become a "better Britannica", it will have to define "better" in an appropriate way. In the opinions of some, especially the "deletionists" and "anti-pseudoscience skeptics", better means "even more reliable, exclusionary, and orthodox". But unfortunately, by the nature of Wikipedia, that can't happen. Therefore, "better" should be taken to mean "more comprehensive and inclusive (but still not too unreliable)", which is something that Wikipedia actually has a chance of pulling off. That way, Wikipedia can continue to be of use to members of the general public, journalists, and researchers, and not merely to students trying to convince their instructors that they've done their (mainstream, standardized) homework. Asmodeus 19:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting opinion about what Wikipedia should be. You are more than welcome to it. However, there are plenty of people who do not share this opinion (including myself) and we are not likely to be convinced simply on your say-so, nor are we going to go off softly into the night. --ScienceApologist 21:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to ask ourselves what are we trying to do? SA wants an authoritative text. Literally a textbook. But that is not all I want. I want a source that will inform me of all the unusual.strange/unknown,mysterious,cranky stuff,fringe,brand new. because I use that in my own general research program. Scientific research is like playing a detective. What I am looking for is all sides of the story, from all perspectives. Ideally anyway, because like everyone else I have my favorites. Like everyone else, I look for what I want to see, and ignore what I don't want to see. And what I cherish most of all is information I never saw before, like Hubble's opinion, quantized redshifts, phantom DNA. symbiogenesis, and of course Hyperspace. Oh, and that scalar field. I want a source that will not only tell me all about crop circles, but also about reorganization of clay that has been found. If you wnat a mission for science, you ought to look at the crop circle article and edit in the scientific perspective, which, because it is not in accordance with the popiular mainstream view, is nearly impossible to add to the article.

I can see your point ScienceApologist, In my own work I have tried to create a primer and have long thought how necessary it was to ferret out the truth, and to present it is a rigorous way. While I had no restrictions whatsoever in my case, it still was very difficult to do competantly, so I understand how frustrating it must be when you are forced to deal with ill informed editors.

On the other hand I would expect from this encyclopedia a compedium of all information, as it occured. I would not appreciate you or your friends filtering out that kind of information for me. Especially if it is in deference to some favored position you may hold. I may not hold the same position, and it would severely handicap my research.

Soooo why not tag an article as "scientifically verified" or something like that, "rigorus science article"..."This article meets the requirements of a scientifically approved article in that all stated facts are from verifiable reputable and rigorous scientific sources," Then an article would have to prove itself. It could be evaluated on the order of this arbitration, albeit on a smaller scale. It would also be held to a higher standard Tommy Mandel 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we could form a science committee and SA could be a member. The SciCom would determine if an article is scientifically rigorous, and then label it as such. Articles would have to earn this designation, would have to go through SA, and SA would be so busy that he would not have the time to mess around with subjects such as philosophy. Tommy Mandel 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


This bifurcation of goals is really a false dichotomy. There is no reason why Wikipedia can't include "all the unusual.strange/unknown,mysterious,cranky stuff" and be authorative on the subjects that are authoritative. --ScienceApologist 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

...except your kind of behavior, which (as you put it) will never "go softly into the night". Not to beat a dead horse, but although the CTMU article belonged in Wikipedia - it was on a notable topic that lies well beyond your capacity for refutation, which is one very important reason why it got serious mention in numerous heavyweight mass media sources whose editors were plainly convinced of its noteworthiness - you and your partisans, including and abetted by biased administrators like Pjacobi and (closing administrator) Xoloz, swarmed and deleted it on a bewildering variety of asinine pretexts which essentially boil down to your clear resentment of the well-verified fact that its author's intelligence quotient threatens to make those of certain others around here look relatively unremarkable.
In other words, although you evidently found it "unusual/strange/unknown/mysterious/cranky", you also deemed it subject to "authoritative" critique by the people who trained and pay you, namely, academia, which (not uncoincidentally) falsely claims to have a natural monopoly on all of the legitimate, noteworthy intellectual productions of highly intelligent people. Unfortunately, because the CTMU is highly original, these academics are as yet insufficiently knowledgable to meaningfully critique it, and with a few minor but extremely noisy exceptions, have wisely chosen to keep their yaps shut about it until that changes.
This shouldn't have been a problem, since Popular Science, ABC, the BBC, the London Times, etc., are all highly reputable sources, and they all took verifiable notice of the CTMU without regard for the opinion of academia, which, when all is said and done, is a closed, discriminatory, financially-motivated club whose credentials have no logical, causal connection to knowledge and intellectual ability. But you made it a problem, and have since made it abundantly clear that this is a problem with which Wikipedia is permanently stuck.
So the dichotomy isn't "false". It's real, and you're right in the middle of it. Asmodeus 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:FORK about avoiding POV-forking. CTMU was a POV-fork of Langan. It is only notable with respect to his notability and isn't independent of him. No media outlet ever did a story on CTMU, they did stories on Langan. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That's false; the mass media clearly did stories on both. In reality, there are very few important monographic theories not irreversibly associated with the names and circumstances of their authors. Even if it doesn't start out that way, it inevitably ends that way. Regarding the CTMU being "only Langan's POV", that's true only to the extent that any monographic theory reflects the "POV" of its author. This doesn't stop such theories from being notable, and it doesn't stop the CTMU either. (By the way, logic and mathematics are not "POV", unless you can prove that a given purported instance is so aberrant, and flies so wildly in the face of established logicomathematical knowledge, that POV is a necessary distinguishing factor. Your fellow academics have been unable to do that, so they wisely haven't tried...at least, under their real names, in the light of day. Would you like to try it?) Asmodeus 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That is beating a dead horse. Having a hugely high intelligence is like being extraordinarily tall or extraordinarily fat; it's good for a bit of fame, and might get you a job in the sideshow, but without actually putting it to use, that's about all it's worth. To suggest that the CTMU was ignored and removed from Wikipedia because they were intimidated by the author's IQ is an obscene violation of WP:AGF and is completely absurd to boot. Most people aren't that childish and petty, and if they are, then you're being willfully blind to assume that most people on your side aren't equally childish and petty.
I still fail to see how you can call something that's completely free for most people in Western Europe and merely subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars in the US, a lot of specifically ear-marked for the poor, financially-motivated.--Prosfilaes 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen to me, please. (1) I'm not interested in being lectured on Wikipedia policy by somebody who says that the IQ of a Wikipedia bio subject "might get (him) a job in (a) sideshow". That's a low-down, mean-spirited comment for which you should be ashamed of yourself. (2) We're not talking about the pettiness of "most people"; we're talking about the behavior of a very small but militant subset of Wikipedians who have bared their motivations to scrutiny here. (3) College educations are not free (at least here in the US), and the "option" of going over a hundred G's into debt for one is not enough to change or soften that. Some people wisely decide not to take out loans of that size when there's a substantial possibility that they won't be able to pay them back, but will instead be burdened by them for life, and academia obviously has no right to make such demands of them. Besides, it's irrelevant. Now good day. Asmodeus 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) It's not a low-down, mean-spirited comment to demean the degrees of people who spent years in study and finally proved to someone else that they have the ability to generate new, useful information, but it is one to point out that having an extraordinary inate ability is really only worth something if you do something with it? It's one thing to be very tall, but it's yet another to practice at basketball until you're actually a good basketball player.
(2) I'm getting the impression that you think they eat small kittens, too. All the adjectives you pile on them don't add up to a realistic motivation; they add up to the way someone with distinct mental problems views the world, with every one who disagrees with him or her being stupid and irrational and conspiring against you.
(3) Well, the US is not the end all and be all of the world. I managed to get my bachleors completely paid for by grants, so it is sometimes free even in the US. And colleges provide a service that employes highly paid people and uses a lot of expensive property, so they have the right to charge comperable fees.--Prosfilaes 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't yet understand that there's something very wrong with idealizing a system which makes its paying adherents believe that all they need to do is go through the motions of "earning" a bachelor's degree, or for that matter a PhD, and that this somehow puts them in a position to pass judgment on a psychometrically verified genius who defied all the odds and got his (complex but arguably valid) ideas recognized by a number of sterling mass media sources, then with all due respect, you're beyond any possibility of reasonable discourse. In itself, that doesn't concern me. What does concern me is your evident willingness to waste my time, which I wish you would stop doing. Asmodeus 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because you're a genius, doesn't mean you're right. John Nash was a genius; he also believed it was his picture on the cover of Time when it was actually the Pope. Intelligent people frequently fail when they start to think they can ignore everyone else because they're so incredibly bright.
If someone disagrees with your denigration of the academic system, they are beyond any possibility of reasonable discourse? That's pretty close-minded.
People in mass media aren't geniuses, either. If you aren't intelligent enough to recognize that something is wrong or bad, you aren't intelligent enough to recognize when it is right or good. It seems a little self-serving to hold up mass-media recommendations, from "sterling" sources (what makes them sterling?), and denigrate academic responses, especially as most of the mass-media was trained in academia.
I'm not wasting your time; you're choosing to respond. If you believe it's not worth your time, then stop responding.--Prosfilaes 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) The proper criterion isn't "right"; it's "notable". (2) Nobody "denigrated" the academic system. It was merely pointed out that there is no logical connection between academic credentials and notable theorization, and that to assume otherwise is irrational. (3) Reputable sources in the mass media are recognized by Wikipedia as reputable sources, period. They don't have to be "right", or to pass judgment on whether something is "good" or "bad". It suffices that they seriously mention or discuss it. (4) You are most certainly wasting my time, because you're addressing me while misrepresenting my statements, thus demanding a corrective response. Please desist. Asmodeus 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is a waste of time all around. If either of you have something to say that is relevant to this case, say it succintly and then shut up. This is not the place for a free-for-all of academics vs. free-thinkers. --Art Carlson 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, but it's not up to you to decide what's relevant here. I'm talking about an article that was attacked and deleted by a crew including ScienceApologist and Pjacobi on several pretexts, including that it was "pseudoscience", and that only academics could render it notable. That was asinine, and the fact that SA and PJ were effortlessly suckered into participating in that travesty helps explain their editing behavior in this case, which happens to be the focus of this RfA. On the other hand, if you can show that the editing behavior of SA and PJ has nothing whatsoever to do with their misconceptions regarding "pseudoscience", or their unduly high regard for academic opinion, please do so. (Of course you can't, because these things evidently have quite a bit to do with their editing behavior.) Asmodeus 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And why do you have such an interest in promoting this? Is it because you are Christopher Michael Langan? CH seemed to think so. I'm beginning to believe likewise. If so, there are some very real autobiography issues here. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your language. I'm not "promoting" anything, just reporting on my personal experiences with your questionable editing behavior. As for your suspicions regarding my identity, they have no place here. Firstly, attempting to divulge personal information regarding your fellow editors violates Wikipedia policy (see WP:HARRASSMENT, specifically regarding the posting of personal information); secondly, unless you can show that I made extensive edits to some article in violation of NPOV, you're out of line to even be wandering into this area. It's simply diversionary. That's what I mean about your editorial behavior...it's bad to the bone, right here, right now. But as I say, it's never too late to turn over a new leaf. Asmodeus 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but now you're begging the question. JBKramer 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The question is not what motivated me to report here on my experiences with ScienceApologist, or for that matter what motivated me during the CTMU fiasco. I'm not an "involved party" in this RfA, and my RL identity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The question is whether my comments are relevant to the "anti-pseudoscience" editing behavior of ScienceApologist and his associates (in this case and other similar cases). I say that they obviously are, and I've already explained the reasons at length. Asmodeus 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok, but you can see how if you were, and not saying you are, one of the principals of the theories that you are defending, that might change the way some of us would look at the situation, no? So you're not a principal, right? JBKramer 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "defending a theory" here, and the "situations" about which I'm writing are matters of record. I've never edited any Wikipedia article in violation of NPOV. ScienceApologist, on the other hand...now, that's another matter entirely. Asmodeus 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I believe you, but I haven't read or cared about the CTMU brewhaha whatever. Are you a principal of the theory? JBKramer 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were Langan, I'd no doubt appreciate your interest in the CTMU (if that's in fact what it is). But the CTMU is irrelevant here, and its article is gone. So if you don't mind, I'd prefer to focus on the specific behavioral issues brought to light in this RfA, particularly regarding the behavior of the involved parties. Thanks, Asmodeus 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you a principal of the theory or not? JBKramer 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
None of your business, JB (sorry if that sounds harsh, but you asked for it). However, if you can show how such information is directly relevant to this RfA, I might reconsider. Asmodeus 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pattern of behavior. Eric Lerner edited his own article and that of the theories he was a principal of to make them more flattering and to give them weight. You have done the same to the CTMU. If you are a principal of that theory, it demonstrates that articles about theories with individuals closely related to said theories require extra vigiliance. JBKramer 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Horseshit, JB. I've done no significant editing on either the Langan bio or the CTMU article (when it existed). If you wouldn't mind, please do your homework before popping off. And do try to remember: my behavior patterns aren't the ones under scrutiny here. Thanks, Asmodeus 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL. They are now. JBKramer 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they still aren't, at least until I'm added to this RfA as an involved party. And since you've asked me to remain civil - I'm not quite sure why - I'm going to ask you to stop harassing me, as you're clearly doing here. Your attack is malicious, unsupported, and irrelevant, another calculated attempt at diversion. (As far as I'm concerned, you and ScienceApologist have done an excellent job today of illustrating the kind of underhanded but basically irrational behavior I've been talking about. In fact, if I were sure you wouldn't take it literally, I'd tell you to keep up the good work.) Asmodeus 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this --"::A brief qualification, if I may. The "skeptics" are not only attempting to remove all coverage of some minority scientific views which conflict or compete with those of the mainstream, but even to eliminate higher-level syntheses which do not conflict or compete in any way with established physical theories, but merely deal with the relationships among those theories in a logical, model-theoretic context. Worse yet, they are perfectly willing to misrepresent content and misapply Wikipedia policy in effecting their preferred brand of censorship, and have succeeded in attracting to their cause certain administrators who obligingly tie the hands of their opponents. In short, they are on an irrational crusade that is being eagerly supported by a devoted group of followers who possess administrative status.

What is CTMU? Tommy Mandel 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

CTMU link. Yuchhh! Looks like something you'd love! It's a timely reminder why Wikipedia needs some kind of science apologist. Art LaPella 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making an important point for me, Art. The fact is, Wikipedia doesn't need a ScienceApologist, or an Art LaPella, or for that matter anyone else whose critical ability is limited to "eew, yuchhh! in preference to insight and neutrality. Does anyone here believe for a second that if the CTMU AfD were to happen again, or that if anything else that Art doesn't grok were to come under fire, he wouldn't jump right into the middle of it with just such a shining pearl of wisdom as he has shared with us here? Of course he would, and that's a very large part of what's wrong with Wikipedia...editors who don't let bias and ignorance stop their mouths from running whenever they get a chance to attack something outside the walls of their mental boxes, regardless of its notability or verifiable sourcing. Asmodeus 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
And it needs someone who will harp on the deleting of an article on a subject that at best barely passes notability? A subject proglomated by one individual with a few passing references in popular media? Frankly, I'm sure that Art LaPella's critical ability is well up to giving a critique of the article, but he doesn't feel it's the time or place. Wikipedia does not claim that just because a theory is notable, that it's useful, interesting or valid, or that users have to like it.--Prosfilaes 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, you've really got to hand it to Wikipedia! Only on Wikipedia can an anonymous "virtual expert" with no real-world credibility self-righteously accuse a topic of "barely passing notability" after it was (1) authored by somebody reputed to be among the world's most intelligent people, (2) introduced to the public by ABC News, Popular Science, the BBC, the London Times, and so on, (3) explained at length in a 56-page primary resource, and (4) explained at yet greater length in a widely-sold book published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and which presently gets over 15,000 specific hits on google. (Well, OK, this sort of nonsense happens in other Internet fora as well, but only here at Wikipedia can such "experts" delete the ideas they hold in irrational contempt.) It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "power to the people" (except that these experts often hold garden-variety members of the public in contempt as well, attributing intellectual significance exclusively to the weighty ideas of well-credentialed academic elites).
By the way, as far as Art LaPella's critical ability is concerned, I've already seen all that I, or for that matter anyone else, needs to see of it. But thanks for your opinion anyway. Asmodeus 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Coming from another (vocally) anonymous person with no real-world credibility, that's a little absurd. Once again, real world notability is much more likely to derive from a degree than from intelligence, however measured; I've never seen a wanted ad of any sort specifying intelligence, nor any discussion of an idea's value based on the author's intelligence. A 56 page document hardly qualifies for at length, nor does this document qualify for clarity; it is in fact written rather obscurely. It's hard to verify (4) without mentioning the name of the book, and Google hits are rather variable and hard to interpret without looking carefully at how it was used and how it was coming up.
We don't delete ideas; we choose not to cover them on our website. Your contempt for garden-variety members of the public seems pretty clear; you've shown for contempt for anyone who dares disagree with you or CTMU, and you have espoused a characteristic that's largely inherited and largely not amenable to personal development as the most important thing, far above anything those who have merely devoted their lives to study can achieve. "This theory is important because its creator is intelligent" is no better than "this theory is important because its creator is white", or "its creator is male".--Prosfilaes 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite right, I'm afraid. First, real-world notability in the intellectual sphere is almost certain to derive from high intelligence; degrees are merely secondary and circumstantial. That's why the authors of great ideas are referred to as "geniuses" rather than "PhD's"; these terms label sets which are nontrivially disjoint, and great ideas are far more strongly correlated with raw intellectual ability than with secondary trappings thereof. That is, if we go all the way back through the best thinkers of the Renaissance and the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians to the invention of the wheel, we find that virtually all of the truly great ideas come from those who possessed extreme intellectual ability - "high IQ" - but not the relatively modern appurtenance known as a "college degree". Secondly, your comments on the notability of the CTMU are simply ridiculous...the CTMU is what it clearly is, and Wikipedia's notability criteria go no farther. Thirdly, you and your partisans in this RfA are not the owners of this website; you are (in a sense) among the owners, but you comprise a small minority which is unrepresentative of Wikipedia at large. Your main distinguishing characteristics appear to be that (1) you profess a (sometimes irrational) hatred of "pseudoscience"; (2) you lack the ghost of an idea what that term means; (3) you are easily manipulated by (similarly unqualified) people who knowingly misrepresent the contents of Wikipedia articles; and (4) you are disquietingly prone to attack ideas you don't understand, even if you have to fabricate the grounds for doing so and employ dastardly tactics to get your way. So please, enough already. Asmodeus 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that they had "high IQ", since that's terribly modern concept? How do you know that they possessed extreme intellectual ability? We know next to nothing about most of the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians. We know absolutely nothing about the inventor of the wheel. Even if we accept that good ideas come from highly intelligent people doesn't mean that bad ideas don't also come from highly intelligent people, or that highly intelligent people are likely (as opposed to merely more likely) to have good ideas.
[It's true by definition and deduction. The ability to recognize and solve problems is called "intelligence"; great ideas are acknowledged as "great" because they solve important problems that have not been well-solved (or sometimes even recognized); ergo, the authors of great ideas are said to display "high intelligence". That being understood, IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence; it overemphasizes some factors while underemphasizing others, e.g., creativity. It's also true that people unfairly regarded as unintelligent can turn out to be highly intelligent when the chips are down. But where you're wrong is in assuming that intelligence owes anything to academia. Intelligence is present in the human mind, whereas academia is just a modern social construct. The claim that academia has a natural monopoly on great ideas is thus transparent self-promotion on the part of academics. Academia sometimes provides intelligence with what it needs to function efficiently, but on the whole, what it gives with one hand, it takes with the other.]
So how do we know that the author of the CTMU is extraordinarily intelligent? To argue that the author of the CTMU is highly intelligent, like the Greek philosophers and mathematicians, requires that we settle on one definition of intelligent; in fact, they are impossible to compare since in one case we have tests and personal affidavits, and the other we have only results. The fact that you can't listen to the point I was making (which did not mention academia) and respond directly to that point is frustrating; the ability to listen to other people and respond to their points and incorporate them to improve your own work and thoughts is an important one taught by academia.
If you think this lesson would be a good one for you to learn, then you have my permission to go plead for another grant of free money or take out a hefty bank loan so that you can go back to academia and learn it. (As nearly as I can determine, you haven't learned it yet.)
Your argument is in fact circular; arguing that they were highly intelligent because they produced great works leads trivially to those who produce great works are highly intelligent.
Yes, that's largely how intelligence is defined - as the potential to generate the solutions to hard problems. If, on the other hand, you'd rather dispense with this definition and present a general step-by-step recipe for the creation of great works, then knock yourself out. (I assume that the role of academia will be grand and glorious indeed!)
And again, where's your evidence that Lagan has an extraordinarily high such potential?
The ancient Greeks were almost certainly not highly intelligent in an IQ sense. They were part of a small population, that appeared as a producer of important works and then disappeared within a few short centuries. Similarly, the Russians started producing important works about two and a half centuries ago. In a modern IQ sense, it's absurd that the average IQ in Russia changed in a short period of time. The key difference in those areas are not anything that's been shown to change IQ; they were purely cultural. I would hypothesize that in Russia one of the key changes was Peter the Great's building of universities.--Prosfilaes 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Intelligence is defined as a potential. The actualization of that potential can be influenced by social and cultural factors.
If we are to study the people in your set besides the completely unknown wheel inventor, we notice that they are all white males from the upper classes. Should we include that as a reason why an idea is notable, because it came from an upper class white male?
[You don't know where the author of the CTMU comes from, or where I come from.]
Surely it's illogical to look back to the wheel inventor and ask whether he had a college degree. If we look back to the last century, what notable thinkers didn't? In modern times, how frequently has the association between notable thinker and college education failed? Somehow I think you will dodge this straightforward question with more illogic and vitrol.
[Trust me, the inventor of the wheel had no degree. One major reason why the notability-credentials correlation seldom seems to fail these days may well be that those with credentials want it that way because it's greatly to their economic and social advantage, and because they increasingly have the power to make it look that way. Don't be afraid to see the obvious.]
That's an undisprovable hypothesis and hence is completely useless. You can explain anything with a coverup. The only reason we haven't seen evidence of alien life is because the aliens are secretly running things and they want to stay hidden. Don't be afraid to see the obvious.--Prosfilaes 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's provable by deduction. There were no colleges (in the modern sense) when the wheel was invented. Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that the inventor of the wheel didn't have a college degree, and thus that a college degree was not causally implicated in the invention of the wheel. Aliens have nothing to do with it (even if they are hiding in your closet).
So the fact that the inventor of the wheel didn't have a college degree proves that academics are engaging in a cover-up? That makes no sense.--Prosfilaes 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You claim that this unnamed book has a high Google count; when I point out that we can't verify that without a name, and that a high Google count taken alone means little, you dismiss my comments as "simply ridiculous". I think that stands on its own.
[You can use google, can't you? CTMU: 17000 hits. "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe": 15,300 hits. "Uncommon Dissent" (referenced in Langan's bio): 18,300 hits. And we're not talking about hit counts alone; we're talking about ABC, the BBC, Popular Science, the London Times, and more. The CTMU is flat-out notable and that's it. The problem is that some Wikipedians, e.g. ScienceApologist and his supporters, are sufficiently biased or dishonest to deny it even when it is plainly shown to them.]
Apparently you can't. CTMU is a four letter acronym and Google counting is darn near worthless on it. "Uncommon Dissent" isn't a book on the CTMU; it's a book on intelligent design, and got hits because of that. I don't think it alone adds a whole lot to the CTMU's notability. The expanded acronym got quite a few hits, but many of them supported the argument that it's notable only as a part of Lagan's notability, and none that I saw were really notable sites in and of themselves. (And the word crackpot came up more than few times.) The CTMU is not flat-out notable like, say, plasma cosmology. It's at best marginally notable.--Prosfilaes 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Clearly, your opinion on notability is far weightier than any number of mentions in mainstream periodicals and network television broadcasts, not to mention the recognition of reliable mass media sources by Wikipedia. But regarding your sneaky attempt to call Mr. Langan a "crackpot", I suggest that you save it for the mens' (or ladies') room wall. Here at Wikipedia, it violates WP:NPA and WP:LIVING. (I've already indicated that I regard this exchange as a waste of my time; now I'm beginning to find you offensive.)
Actually, no, it doesn't violate WP:NPA; that only applies to attacking contributors. I was merely reporting a fact, that many of the websites you counted for notability considered it unimportant.
Once again, you lump a bunch of people into a group and paint them with the same paintbrush, in a highly inaccurate and negative manner. It bears no response.--Prosfilaes 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[The people in question painted themselves into the corner they now occupy. If it hurts you to acknowledge this, then feel free to stop arguing about it.]
I've said little to nothing on pseudoscience at this arbitration, and even given everything I've said on Wikipedia, claiming I don't have a ghost of an idea of what it means is absurd. That's such a huge claim that it needs a large body of evidence to back it up, and I doubt that more than a couple of the people you tarred with that paintbrush having given you anywhere near that much evidence.--Prosfilaes 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, how can I put this so that you'll understand? Neither are you an involved party in this arbitration, nor have you offered any relevant evidence that I can see. You are merely an anonymous, highly argumentative person with a very positive outlook on academia, who for some strange reason won't leave me alone. I don't find your slurs attractive, your attitude collegial, or your arguments sound. So would you mind terribly if I were to ask you to go argue at somebody else for a while? Asmodeus 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How can I explain this so you can understand? You weren't an involved party, and your only evidence was continued ranting about an AfD that was off-topic, which really isn't evidence, so you're not really on any higher ground there. I'm not anonymous; I'm merely operating under a pseudonym and my real name is easily findable with a search engine. I find it totally bizzare that you find the reason I don't go away strange; do you normally find that arguing with people and trying to get the last word gets people to quit arguing with you?--Prosfilaes 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Yuchhh" could be expanded to "The philosophy of science won't be usefully reduced to computer code until robots successfully replace policemen, business managers and lovers. CTMU sounds like something a philosopher of science would write under the influence of a controlled substance. This criticism doesn't address notability." As for your contempt for academia, you'll find a similar comment on my own talk page and I'm not an academic - indeed, CTMU sounds like academia at its worst, something that couldn't possibly be funded by anything other than taxes. There, isn't that a more effective criticism than ScienceApologist's "basic ignorance" quote? Art LaPella 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Art. Unfortunately, your comment doesn't make much sense to me. Having stared at it for a couple of minutes now, I can only infer the possibility that you may have a certain amount of personal experience with controlled substances (how better to predict their effects on the mentation of a philospher of science?). I guess that what I really want to say is this: I still don't find your criticism especially effective or even coherent. However, it may please you to learn that I do find your snide, sneering style of self-expression just as annoying as you no doubt intend it to be, and that may be something after all. (By the way, please don't mistakenly take this as an invitation to say anything else.) Asmodeus 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If others feel that way I'll back off, but a major focus of this arbitration is about how to handle guys like Asmodeus. The most easily testable claim above is that I'm not "coherent". Does anyone else have trouble understanding (not to be confused with agreeing with) my previous post? Art LaPella 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that way too Art. I am tired with you continuing insults without any specifics expressing only generalizations which are always degrading. I am tired of you speaking for SA as if you are his spokesman. I am tired of you missing the point of what I am saying and then going off on a tangent about something irrelevant, as if to distract us, such as your opinion of CTMU, which I can't find out about because you and your friends decided that it is not worthy for Wikipedia. And believe me, If I were interested in researching CMTU I would use google and only after I understood what it is about I might look at Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommy Mandel (talk • contribs).
But not even Tommy expressed trouble understanding the post that Asmodeus called not coherent. So what do you know, it must have been coherent after all. Calling it not coherent was apparently as inaccurate as Tommy calling me SA's spokesman after I just took a shot or two at him. In that case, readers should discount information from both sources. Art LaPella 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operating Principle of the Universe

I have a question related to the discussion above. If I invent a notation form, and submit it to a peer reviewed science journal, can I write an article on it after acceptance, or do I have to wait until the publication date? Tommy Mandel 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a notation form? The answer is that Wikipedia demands publication so that it is checkable by other editors. Until a work is reasonably available to other editors, it can't be used as the source of an article. Another issue is that if you invent something, you really shouldn't be the one writing the article on it. Wait until if and when someone else decides to write an article on it. There are thousands of articles in esteemed journals that never get articles in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 13:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps by "a notation form", Tommysun meant a formal notation? -- QTJ 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, to the notion of people being too "close" to their own work/projects/et cetera, even when those become notable ... I think as they stand that current guidelines tend to encourage the throwing of the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I understand their intent (as hashed over by the community consensus in the formulation of the guidelines), but I'm not entirely sure they respond well to the scholarly demeanor. It's part of building that that goes into doing the literature search of writing any thesis or dissertation, for instance. Scholars are trained and practised in the art of standing back from their own work as they learn to see their efforts in relation to the Big Picture of their discipline. They must look at even those ideas that may contradict their own findings. This is partly achieved by standing back from the people and looking only at the results. This emotional distance that one develops even from one's own results is just part of the growth cycle of a scholarly researcher. One becomes skeptical even of one's own findings. Every theorem-in-progress becomes a thing to be doubted to its core until every possible angle has been explored to destroy one's own result. Do this enough times, and one even might reach a point where one hopes to be able to overturn one's own findings, but before making it public. Of course I cannot speak for the academy complete, but you get the idea. The current COI guidelines presuppose an emotional attachment or marriage to one's own ideas. It just hasn't been my experience (note the qualifier there) that this is the case with scholars. While they will explain their results to the best of the common language and methodology of their field, they just aren't married to them so tightly that they can't stand back from them.
Of course, I realize that history is full of counterexamples of scholars and researchers who have not been so detached. However, part of the process of "building scholars" is the process of humiliation. By this I don't mean "public flogging" but the process of learning humility about one's own capacities as a scientist. Or as Niels Bohr put it so pithily: "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field." Scholars simply try to make their mistakes in private. -- QTJ 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Watching Eric Lerner and ScienceApologist go at it, I'm not sure I believe that. I think particularly the creation of articles about your own work should be discouraged; if even a few people have a excessive belief in the notability of their own work, that'll mean a lot of articles on minor things that will probably go obsolete and unfixed quickly. The haste inherant in Tommy's question is particularly scary; it's one thing to write an article on a research program over years, it's quite another to do so on one paper, especially before there's any chance to get feedback from a wider community.--Prosfilaes 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I donno. Trying to offer a balanced perspective. Standard disclaimers, feet in mouth, trained driver on closed course, your mileage may vary, offer not available in Peoria disclaimers apply, to be sure. My perspective very well may be skewed, as I have happily existed outside the "academic community" while at the same time have been cited within that same community more than a few times -- I may tend to see the academy with a very different set of experiential blinders than others. While a paper I received back from refereeing had some referee comments that were about as palatable as caustic soda, there were offered, I am sure, in the spirit of brotherly love. (Well, all but one jab that seemed rather personal.) The distance one maintains from one's own work, of course, is relative to how often one has forced oneself consciously to do it. It's very, very hard to write a thorough review of the state of the art in one's field without being "humiliated" in the sense that one sees just how right "on the shoulders of giants" is. Maybe I'm a "half-full" rather than "half-empty" kinda chap. Who knows? Anyway -- nuff said on that from me. -- QTJ 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A notational form is a diagramatic form used as a notation. Let's see, 34 (thirty four) years of research, having read five hundred books, a bibliography longer than the journal article itself, presented twice to an international Society, a couple self-published booklets, acceptance by a UIC professor (knot theory) the one to inform me of Peirce, Frege and Spencer-Brown's attempts to create a universal notation, which, after all was said and done, is the only thing I can claim as having invented. I call it Tetronic Notation. Turns out the principle the notation is derived from, what I originally thought I discovered, forms the basis of almost every major thought system. "Well, at least I am right..." I didn't mean to start anything with my premature announcement, it's just that someone told me that if I had an opinion, get it published in a peer reviewed journal and I could cite it. Tommy Mandel 21:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it may be helpful if the distinctions between philosophy and science are made clear here. While I have found a reference to this in the literature, it is based on my own personal original research. I concluded that philosophy is the study of general principles while science is the study of specific applications. The dividing line between them is the principle of verification. Take for example the Phytagorean Theorem. In it's general form of A*+B*=C* it cannot be verified. To verify it, specific quantities must be introduced such as 3*+4*=5*. However, it is no longer general in this scientific form. This is precisely why a so called Theory of Everything cannot be a scientific formulation, it would have to include specifics and specifics cannot be general. Tommy Mandel 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The Pythagorean Theorem has been verified in the general form of A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That's simple math, proved many times. Scientifically, general forms are perfectly acceptable; "energy can neither be created nor destroyed", for example. In a physical sense, an equation like 3 miles an hour plus 4 miles an hour (almost exactly) equals 7 miles an hour is no better, since we only show that that holds true once; we have no proof that the speed of light won't change tomorrow and make relativistic effects relevant at that speed, or that all the laws of nature won't become null and void tomorrow.--Prosfilaes 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Tommy, if in "A*+B*=C*" you mean for the * to indicate squares, and that is for a right triangle, with C being the hypotenuse, that was proven in general about 2,500 years ago. Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


And a person who doesn't know that shouldn't be editing WP articles dealing with science or math. Bubba73 (talk), 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are over 75 different proofs for the phythagorean theorem. Theorem = proved. My intent was to show the difference between a letter which has no particular meaning and a number which is very specific. Most of the 75 proofs depend on using a specific method such as squares along the sides. I believed, wrongly, that there was no proof which used only the letters A,B and C. I believed that they by themselves were too general to be proved. I am told that there is indeed a proof using only the letters. So my example is not such a great example after all. I will have to think of another one to make my point that philosophy is about principles and science is about aplications of those principles Tommy Mandel 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, which is about a claimed distortion of the knowledge, I don't understand why it is considered here bad form to edit one's own production? If I were looking for information on a subject I certainly would welcome any contribution from the original author so I could know what he means. I can only trust secondary sources to report accurately what the author intended. Let's say I invented something totally new and original, could anyone else claim to be knowledgeable about it? I wonder if the requirement for a verifiable source should take precedence over the subject matter? To such a degree that if there is no source, there is no subject matter. That doesn't sound right/logical/consistant to me, remember the original goal was to provide the information, it is a secondary supporting goal to verify accuracy. Certainly it cannot be argued that all information, verified or not, should go into the encyclopedia, on the contrary it can be argued that all information in Wikipedia can be verified, but I question the exclusion of information which cannot be verified according to some strict standard. Isn't "the standard" a guideline to protect us rather than the way to tell the truth? Tommy Mandel 01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form to edit one's own production because it's hard to write NPOV text on your own personal material, and many people have written text that isn't NPOV and taken offense when people have changed it.
Abusus non tollit usum. That you wouldn't be able to write NPOV text on your own material doesn't necessarily apply to others. You should learn to speak only for yourself on such matters. Furthermore, those on whose material articles are written must have the latitude to correct errors and remove slurs...that's only right, and only fair.
That was a paraphrase of WP:COI. Wikipedia is very unusual in letting random people edit; I see no inherant right to edit the material at all. I've listened to enough partisans to know that people too close to the issue will not see errors in their own case, and will hear slurs in even neutral statements.--Prosfilaes 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, please learn to speak only for yourself on such matters.
I wasn't speaking only for myself; I was paraphrasing general Wikipedia policy. Stop giving me orders.--Prosfilaes 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Information that cannot be verified is impossible to distinguish from noise--in this case, hoaxs, fraud, spam, vandalism, etc. If it's terribly interesting, it will probably be the source of writing on the subject that makes it verifiable.--Prosfilaes 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
...at which point all of that verifiability - e.g., ABC, the BBC, Popular Science, the Times, and so on - may be dismissed and the article deleted anyway, because ScienceApologist and his friends, with the unquestioning support of people like Prosfilaes here, have ridiculously classified it as "pseudoscience", failed to understand it, found that they disagree with it, decided to pursue whatever philosophical campaign they're currently on, et cetera, et cetera. (But of course, that's "irrelevant" here, isn't it?) Asmodeus 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought you didn't want to argue with me? One problem with editing your material is that you don't have the distance to recognize what's notable or not; it's all of the highest importance to you. Moreover, shit happens, and if you spend enough time on Wikipedia or any community, really, there will come times when you are in a discussion about an article, and clearly and obviously right, and then somehow consensus goes against you, and the article gets deleted, gets renamed, merged, ripped to shreds or changed to be biased. Then you've got to be able to walk away from it.--Prosfilaes 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't make faux-authoritative statements that apply to me, and I'll be happy to ignore you. And don't use "you" when what you really mean is "I, me". If you need "distance" to gauge notability, that's fine. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't define notability on "distance", and you therefore need to deal with the objective notability criteria that Wikipedia specifies. Please stop inserting your subjective needs and judgments here as though they're on an objective footing...they clearly aren't. Asmodeus 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop making faux-authoritative statements about Wikipedia does and does not do. Wikipedia does not have policy on notability; it merely has guidelines that are frequently inherantly subjective and are almost always applied subjectively.--Prosfilaes 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But if that were true, then Wikipedia wouldn't really be worth a damn. Antipathy, subjective bias, and irrational personal belief could prevail over any amount of verifiable fact as inclusionary and exclusionary criteria without recourse or redress. Given certain other aspects of human nature, that would make Wikipedia nothing but a misinformative time sink.
Nevertheless, I'll allow that you might have something approaching a point. If so - if that's really the way it is - then I suspect that some people like it that way, and that it's a large part of what makes them feel at home here. But for many of those who don't, it's simply not that easy to walk away in disgust. Why not? Because in effect, Wikipedia holds some part of them for ransom. They're tied down here by the necessity of ensuring that opinionated, anonymous members of the wikiproletariat don't mangle their ideas and reputations beyond all recognition. Those are the ones who have the most substantial stake in Wikipedia - the people whose names and ideas actually comprise its content, and who have the most to lose if Wikipedia is inaccurately edited. That's why they need and deserve a say here.
Everyone has a natural right not to be unjustly maligned or misrepresented, and this clearly supersedes the "right" of the ideological crusaders, philosophical axe-grinders, and amorphous how-do-we-feel-today crowd to gnaw away at their lives, ideas, and reputations like a queenless termite colony. This applies not only to what Wikipedia includes, but what it excludes, insofar as excluding one otherwise-notable idea in favor of countervailing ideas amounts to its trivialization. Therefore, people like Langan and Lerner have at least as much of a natural, ethical right to be here, and to have a say here, as you do. Please try to remember this as you continue to pontificate on the nature of Wikipedia. Asmodeus 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You have exactly two "rights." Forking and leaving. Everything else is a privlidge. JBKramer 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Kindly stick to the issues and don't presume to tell me my "rights". You're a blatant violator of Wikipedia policy whose personal opinions don't interest me. Thanks, Asmodeus 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks are never acceptable - do not engage in them. Comment on the content, not the contributor. JBKramer 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Asmodeus 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Pseudoscience_Evidence_d85e.html"