Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holonomic brain theory

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 08:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holonomic brain theory

Not notable. Please see this. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep: The insights into neuropsychology as defined by the holonomic brain theory, deriving from the collaboration between the well known and respected Karl Pribram and David Bohm, are quite noteworthy. Ombudsman 06:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  

It's good form to identify yourself as the author when voting on an articles VfD. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. "Holonomic brain theory" reads like crankery to me, but it seems like slightly notable crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent nonsense. Ben-w 10:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:patent nonsense, as it stands, has to be unintelligible. Odd as this article is, it is definitely intelligible. -Splash 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep' -- I'd recommend anyone who thinks this should be deleted read Pribram's work for themselves. This stuff is not mainstream, but Pilbram is no fool. See http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html for outlines of research by Paul Pietsch, Indiana. I have a Bachelor Degree in Psych, and have just completed a PhD in Psych. This is a more coherent theory of mind than most I've encountered. It's just crazy enough to be correct :-) Stephenhumphry 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC). - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC))
• Weak keep, it gets about 150 non-mirror Google hits and they do seem to have something to say about it. THat's very few hits though (most bands would go at that level), hence my weakness. -Splash 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crackpottery, and 150 google hits indicates non-notability. Quale 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now on the question of keep or delete; however, since most of the votes, whether keep or delete, are mentioning that this is not mainstream science, I'd like to ask that a look be taken at all the pages that have been linked to it. Is it really appropriate to link everything involving the brain to a non-prominent, non-mainstream theory of how the brain might work? There's a theory that Sir Francis Bacon was the author of every play attributed to Shakespeare -- that's probably a more prominent theory than the holonomic brain theory, but do we link Francis Bacon from every article about a Shakespeare play? I don't see any, actually. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point -- it should not be linked to by such a range of pages. Also, I agree with JamesBurns tht it should be cleaned up -- and hopefully improved significantly by someone. The Pribram quote is not cited. It is a reasonable quote but needs to be given a better context to explain anything to anyone in such a short article. The overview is ordinary at best. Stephenhumphry 04:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Counterpoint: Dogma is spam. Moreover, systems theory insights are necessary for counter-balancing anti-intellectual expert worship groupthink. Ombudsman 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So, we are all too educated stupid to understand holonomic brain theory, is that your rationale for keeping and promoting the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman, believe me I am with you for the most part -- I'm a big fan of the Santa Fe Institute and of Stuart Kauffman and various others who have adopted interdisciplinary approaches. I detest dogma. See my upddate of Implicate and Explicate Order re: presuppositions prevelant in science. However, being for an interdisciplinary philosophy doesn't justify linking in and of itself - there needs to be a good reason. That good reason should be clear in the sources (i.e. clarify why a theory is relevant to other things if you think it is). Taken to the extreme, you can't have random links between things without any apparent justificaiton at all. Assume that's what you're referring to (?). Whatta you thing? Cheers Stephenhumphry 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing wrong with scientific theories on wikipedia. -- Judson 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Crackpot theory with some notability. JamesBurns 02:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable crackpottery. Bambaiah 10:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable crackpot Salsb 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• (Comment:) On notoriety, note the hits for [:Karl Pribram]. Holonomic brain is what Karl Pribram is most known for as far as I'm aware. Also, note the term holographic brain is actually used more often. If Karl Pribram's article is not being contested, I'm a bit lost as to why this article is (other than subjective reactions evident in "crackpottery" comments) Stephenhumphry 04:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's been listed reflexively, after being mentioned as an excuse for recent tagging of Moral compass, which was blindsided with the tag by Antaeus without a glimmer of discussion. Antaeus has also tagged Elliott Valenstein and Thought police in the same manner, apparently targeting only that which does not conform with his POV while tolerating vandalism that he approves, in keeping with his deletionsist, mergist, anti-forking philosophy. Ombudsman 06:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC) .. Thanks Stephenhumphry 06:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, Om. You're going to use this VfD as an excuse to launch personal attacks on me even though I wasn't even the one who proposed the VfD and I haven't even voted one way or the other? Very classy, sir, very classy. I suppose you would like to tell me what "vandalism" I have "approved" -- using, of course, Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, not any other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your VfD proposals, Antaeus, could be construed attacks on good faith contributions. You have rebuffed several de-escalation attempts aimed at encouraging you to discuss your concerns in a more collegial manner. Instead, you have cried foul repeatedly after creating and using opportunities that test the patience of your fellow editors. Ombudsman 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So in other words, your answers are "yes, I am going to use a VfD you didn't start and haven't even voted in for personal attacks on you" and "Hey! Look at that over there! By golly!" respectively. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I fully believe that this article was created in good faith, but I do not believe it belongs. An encyclopedia should not attempt to catalog every single scientific theory out there. If this theory is not generally accepted, then it should not be in an encyclopedia. If the theory later becoems accepted, it can be added then. 68.75.117.73 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep: if you lookup holographic brain, this is the article you get. Asking this to be deleted, is like asking people to delete Creation science because its only backed up by people who aren't convinced of a true scientific hypothesis by its own merits (saying "God/Alien/Jesus/It" did it was going on before it was called a theory). This is another viewpoint in its field, that is still being fleshed out: whether you agree with it or not should not impact your choice in keeping articles. Cwolfsheep 15:30, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.