Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's razor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein's razor

Einstein's razor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article appears to be only original research. All quotes and sources provided require an healthy application of WP:SYNTH to conclude that "Einstein's razor" is a new notion any different from Occam's razor. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retain Superficial analysis. This is hardly original research. None of the editor's works are cited. The first citation is to a Professor Mohan Delampady with 17 years of publications in Probability and Statistics including the book cited here. Note Delampady's using it to distinguish between the "boundary between simplicity and complexity", not just degrees of "simplicity".DLH (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Original research/synthesis regarding a non-notable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Einstein's razor is used in at least three different cited publications as well as by a number of web sites, none of which are by the editor of this article. This "Original research" attribution is groundless.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete This appears to be a neologism, used primarily by proponents of intelligent design. A google search returns 143 hits the first of which is from the more or less defunct PCID of the pro-ID ISCID. The remaining hits are primarily forum posts discussing it. A few of the hits seem to be actual uses but at present this remains very much a minor neologism. The article consists primarily of original research, throwing together a few examples of people who have used the term, some of which are blogs or fora posts which have had their nature disguised by being referred to in a way that sounds like a scientific citation (see for example the source labeled "Tracy Lightcap (2006)" which links to this blog entry).

JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The major published articles use it to distinguish their argument from Occam's razor. Citing One PCID article out of the three publications is hardly a "Majority" by any stretch of the imagination.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only 1 google scholar hit to a non-notable paper which explicitly uses the term as a neologism. [1]. The intelligent design issue could make the article more notable: that is as a variation on Occam's razor used by proponents of ID. As it stands however the article doesn't seem to address anything not addressed by Occam's razor. No need to multiply causes articles.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First publication is to a book on probability and statistics

• Delete Ironically, there's a fairly well-known anecdote about Einstein and shaving cream first revealed in a 1964 magazine article about his habits by one of his contemporaries. Mandsford (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no justification given.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per points raised by JoshuaZ, and nomination. Sources appear to be non notable, though Bruce Katz is notable as a jazz musician. ... dave souza, talk 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Poor scholarship does not justify argument - wrong Bruce Katz. See: Bruce Katz

Bruce Katz, Ph.D. (University of Illinois) Adjunct Professor. Speech communication and computer science; artificial intelligence. Dr. Katz received his B.A. in Philosophy from Duke University in 1981 and his Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998 he was a lecturer in Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sussex in the U.K. While at Sussex Dr. Katz taught a variety of courses including Knowledge Representation and Cognitive Science, and headed the Masters Program in Knowledge-Based systems. He also conducted research on the perception of beauty in man and machine and published numerous papers on this topic.

Dr. Katz specializes in Artificial Intelligence, and appears well qualified to speak on the subject.(Especially compared to the detractors here.)DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism/OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

Comment - No reason given other than the lemming factor. See the cited authors' discussion of the differences / clarifications as to why they use "Einstein's razor" rather than "Occam's razor".DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Occam's razor as per nominator. The term does seem to be used so a redirect may be helpful but it appears to be a mere redubbing of Occam's razor rather than anything new. Simple explanations for Science are a concept that predates Einstein. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - More than "simple", the authors use it to distinguish the tendency to attribute to "Occam's razor" explanations which are TOO simple. Thus the extension to Einstein's razor to emphasize this important difference.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Retain -- An easy solution to many Wikipedia disputes is as follows: (1) retain the disputed item or a brief description of the disputed item (e.g., “Einstein’s Razor”); (2) briefly describe the dispute (e.g., some people believe that “Einstein’s Razor” is not a common term); and (3) link to Wikipedia discussion pages and external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated (another solution to some Wikipedia disputes is to put an item in a “trivia” section). The Wickedpedian solutions to disputes — long edit wars and arbitrary censorship by Wickedpedian control-freak administrators — are unworkable and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.125 (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment DLH, please note that after you make your initial "vote" known (Keep, delete, merge), any subsequent comment should be labelled "comment" in order to prevent confusion when the administrator is determining what the consensus was. I've gone ahead and struck through the word "Retain" on all comments after the initial one, although the rest of each comment will remain. I'm assuming that the 63.215 url is also yours, but I'll ask that you simply confirm that and strike through or remove the heading that says "retain". No real harm done, you're new here, but it never hurts to remind everyone that no matter how many comments you make, only one of those is labelled as a "vote". Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mandsford. PS the 63.215 url is not mine, so I remove the strike thruDLH (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete as per nomination.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It seems quite odd that I've never run across that term in any of the physics, astrophysics or physical cosmology texts I've ever read. This leads me to believe that the neologism charge is qute true, as is the assertion that the term is non-notable. Also, if it's "really" a corollary to Occam, it should rightly be called Einstein's corollary. (Think Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary). Hence, it's not merely a neologism, but a rather bad one at that. If it deserves any mention at all, it would be as a section in Occam's Razor. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if DLH realises that Einstein, was talking about mathematical formulae, about which he and all physicists believe that the most elegant formula (which is really what Einstein is saying) is that which is as simple as possible without losing any of its explanatory force?•Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - For reasons given in nomination, but also because DLH (talk) is simply using this entry to flog his POV on Intelligent Design. I.e., it's a case of WP:SOAP. Over on Uncommon Descent, he's casting this as some sort of ongoing persecution by Wikipedia against ID (of course, there's evidence of this POV to be found here, but this is pretty blatant) and attempting to recruit votes from fellow ID proponents. The URL is here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-citing-pcid-justify-censorship/

Pertinent quote for those who'd rather not follow the link:

"Does citing PCID and ISCID justify deleting “Einstein’s razor” because it is “pro-ID”? If you think this is anti-ID discrimination and against academic freedom and free speech, then please provide supporting comments to retain this article at:..."

Most pertinent:

"Please comment on whether you think “Einstein’s razor” is indeed just a “neologism”, or if it provides a useful differentiation from Occam’s razor. e.g.,
1) Is neo-Darwinian evolution with “random mutation” and “natural selection” an example of providing the “simplest” scientific hypothesis per Occam’s razor?
2) Or is that an improper use of Occam’s razor?
3) Or is “RM + NS” “too simple” and in need of a better theory per Einstein’s razor?"

So, basically, DLH (talk) just wants to use this as a platform for discussing the application of "Einstein's Razor" to the current scientific consensus regarding evolution in order to demonstrate its purported failure to satisfy the criterion of the "razor". The issue of whether or not "Einstein's Razor" is a valid term is totally subordinate to that goal.

Didymos (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If the term was actually widely used by Intelligent design proponents that would be a reason for keeping the article. As it stands the very best case that could be made for it would be a paragraph in Occam's razor. If DLH (talk) can recast the article in terms of a concept widely used or discussed or just otherwise notable within the ID movement then it would be worth retaining. After all Wikipedia can accomdate articles on concepts that are confused or incoherent so long as they are notable and it can be verified that people actually make use of those concepts. Currently the article doesn't do that and it just a bunch of "huh?"... Nick Connolly (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK, it looks like that anonymous retain vote from 63.215.27.125 above belongs to one Larry_Fafarman, who has been indefinitely banned for sock-puppetry and sundry other offenses. It's a straight cut-and-paste of his comment here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-citing-pcid-justify-censorship/#comment-188534

Also of note is that two of his suspected sock puppets also have IP addresses in the 63.215.27.* block. Sheesh.

Anyway, not really sure of what the procedure is for stuff like this, so any instruction is welcome.

Didymos (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, and assorted Comments I do not believe that this material belongs in an article with this title, since this appears to be WP promoting something under a title that is not standard usage. The material from this article should be folded into the Occam's Razor article, as appropriate.--Filll (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and move any useful content to Occam's Razor. Hobartimus (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Retain If we're going to disqualify neologisms, better put the Denialism article on the hit list next. (Just look at the dates.) By the article's definition, the term "Einstein's Razor" is a play of words off the term "Occam's Razor," made due to some perceived scientific inadequacy of the latter. If in addition to the cited works, ID theorists are starting to use the term -- on blogs or wherever else -- that argues for the article's inclusion, not exclusion. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? ô¿ô (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Re: "All quotes and sources provided require an healthy application of WP:SYNTH to conclude that 'Einstein's razor' is a new notion any different from Occam's razor."

WP:SYNTH disallows original research (not synonymous duplication) via A (sourced) + B (sourced) = C (original conclusion). I'd like to see it demonstrated how the article does so, rather than just asserted. I don't see it. Or how the terms are synonymous either. ô¿ô (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia:Notability, and after reading more above and googling for myself, I'm changing my vote to a weak retain. While the term appears to denote a discrete concept, it has caught on only in a limited way. I'm also changing DLH's struck through "Retains" to "Comments." Those strike-throughs are making my eyes hurt. Plus Mandsford missed two of them. ô¿ô (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.