Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus, and the article has been rewritten since nomination - no prejudice against renomination if the article still has not addressed concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:56Z

[edit] Retrocausality

Retrocausality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The first nomination was poorly stated; here is the real nomination

This article represents original research. From Opabinia regalis 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC): This is a novel synthesis of independently published claims. The physics section is, taken on its own, muddled at best; the OR is in the connection to the psychology discussion, in which each of the individual studies mentioned is either a) widely agreed to be plagued with methodological problems (PEAR), or b) entirely unrelated to the thesis (skin conductance and heart rate studies). Seriously - the creator, User:Dicorpo, has contributed nothing outside of this type of material, in particular his linkspamming of this "open access journal" (read: some guy's website) for these ideas. Also, the sources cited in this article may appear to be legitimate, but "Physics Essays" and "NeuroQuantology" are not well-regarded journals, and those sources that are reliable, are related to the psychology experiments - which, as I mentioned, are unrelated to the quantum consciousness thesis. --ScienceApologist 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the original debate is relegated to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) --ScienceApologist 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Endless procedural discussion which was cluttering the page has been moved to the talk page. -- SCZenz 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
STUBIFICATION I've reworked the article as a totally revamped stub as per JzG's suggestion Bwithh 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Weak keep Delete Weak keep, the sources do used to seem to kinda address the subject (in a way that they are completely irrelevant), but now they do. -Amarkov blahedits 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Which sources are you refering to, the reliable ones (which are not about retrocausality) or the unreliable ones (which are part of the original research)? --ScienceApologist 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh boy. I missed the titles of the articles. What the heck? Changed to delete. -Amarkov blahedits 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Sources are a mix of irrelevant and unreliable. -- SCZenz 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Completely rewritten. Now verifiable. -- SCZenz 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those sources are unreliable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, for example, is not a respected peer-reviewed journal. Authors pay the journal to publish their articles. Other sources have absolutely nothing to do with the article's basic assertion.[1] The NeuroQuantology article addresses supercausality, not retrocausality. Doczilla 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This referencing of random unrelated sources along with a few unreliable sources is annoying, and seems to be happening with increasing frequency. But perhaps Retrocausality and Supercausality should have been listed together? --Philosophus T 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete - I will remain as a delete vote for now. Most of the sources given are not reliable sources for the purpose of an article on a scientific topic, and should be removed. MSNBC and the San Diego Union Tribune just aren't appropriate sources for this type of article. The only source that might be remotely considered reliable is the AAAS symposium. I'm concerned that there are no references to papers in proper peer-reviewed journals. Why is this? It also seems that Cramer might be trying to use a concept that he calls "retrocausality" as an abstract formalism for dealing with entanglement, and the popular press is presenting it as traveling back in time. But even then, some of the things don't make sense to me. Cramer's presentation says "the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present ... retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature". I would very much like to see an explanation as to how this does not violate causality, and how one can have that sort of "retrocausality" without tachyons that cause a breakdown in energy conservation. Finally, none of the sources given are suitable for a scientific article according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Philosophus T 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, reliable sources are needed for WP:V. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep for the new stub. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - This seems like some type of strange metaphysical ramblings that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Neutral - I feel more ambivalent towards the stub. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isn't this a genuine concept, even if one that's almost universally dismissed by the scientific community? Isn't this a case of an article that needs to be corrected for NPOV rather than deleted? Isn't it comparable, as an article subject, to Action at a distance (physics)? KarlBunker 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It might be, but the current article is just a hodgepodge of OR, POV, and just general stupidness. We won't lose anthing. -Amarkov blahedits 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since unverifiable OR. The only verifiable concept in this article seems to stem from the Klein-Gordon equation, and it is then interpreted in a novel way. Awolf002 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The recent re-write now clearly shows that there is no real substance to this, that is verifiable. All possibly salvageable small amount of information should be merged into subsections of the appropriate main article. Awolf002 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to acute lack of reliable sources to back the content of the article. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten stub, hope that Bwithh has the persistence to keep it real going forward :-) Guy (Help!) 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stubify Unnecessary to delete the article outright. Cut out the OR, reduce it to the basic meaning in quantum physics & philosophy based on [2][3]

[4]. I supported the relisting of this afd, but I'm still unhappy with the wrecking of the afd process here by both sides Bwithh 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. --- RockMFR 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Retrocausality suggests that much as the present affects the future, the reverse can also happen; the future can affect the present, and the present can affect the past. This strikes me as the Platonic ideal of original research: a neologism devised as part of a crank theory. Unless it's shown to be a noteworthy crank theory, delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
New Scientist published a 2,425 word article on Retrocasuality in September 2006 (as referenced in my above comment). I quote: Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and... Bwithh 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Stub it and start work, then I'll change my !vote. Nobody here is against a good-faith contributor making a valid fresh attempt at the article, it's the nonsense we want gone. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've stubbed and revamped it as per your suggestion Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
New Scientist may not be a peer review journal, and its reputation has come under attack, but it's still a major, respected science news and ideas publication (by the way, the retrocausality story was actually the front cover story of that edition of the New Scientist[5]. The New York Times and the BBC have had their journalistic integrity far more widely attacked - does that mean they are no longer reliable, respected sources for Wikipedia? Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added further details on the AAAS symposium on this theme. Bwithh 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are there no proper articles in peer reviewed journals? Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience - specifically, Appropriate sources. New Scientist is not to be considered a reliable source for an article that represents its subject as a scientific topic. --Philosophus T 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep current stub. I am convinced, at any rate, that the word "retrocausality" has sufficient currency to describe theories of this type to warrant an article on the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fringe, stub, cites hype articles rather than real science. IMO, physics+philosophy for the same subject seems suspect in the first place! —Długosz December 18, 2006
Well, the new stub states that its a thought experiment concept. Anyway, take a look at Philosophy of Physics. Science and Philosophy are not opposites to each other Bwithh 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in its revamped and stubified form. The proper approach to scientifically invalid concepts is to discuss them honestly and explain why they're invalid, not to pretend that they don't exist. KarlBunker 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is an encyclopedia. Writing a tutorial on why an invalid idea is invalid is pure OR, and highly inappropriate for WP. linas 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepThe very thought of not having an article on something hat was a new Scientist cover story is absurd. DGG 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current references make it clear that this is a topic that has been discussed, regardless of its innate veracity (or lack thereof...). Keeping OR out of the article as it goes forward is an editorial issue, not an AFD issue. Serpent's Choice 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - See below for clarification
  • keep as it stands, its a pretty poor stub about a just notable idea (the only valid ref is the ns article), but it appears to have legs. try to ensure it's very clear it's a thought experiment. (i had to link that)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As I noted on the talk page and this AfD, the NS article is not an acceptable source for an article on a scientific topic. --Philosophus T 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Retrocausality made the 30 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000, and has also been covered by the general press. The popular media may not be a reliable source for what science says about retrocausality, but they are a reliable source for what the popular media say about retrocausality, which we can present. Additionally, philosophers have been publishing on retro-causation since at least the 1950s; see backward causation at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly the extensive bibliography. Tim Smith 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Finally a more scholarly source for a portion of the article, and other references we can consider using. Also, I agree about having an article about what the popular media say, but I'm not sure what such an article should look like, and would appreciate it if you could help in that regard. --Philosophus T 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if we could get an article out of this that was of the caliber of the standford encyclopedia entry. Unfortunaely, given the experience I've had with WP, this seems unlikely.linas 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Which is why my vote is still to delete, especially as it seems that the article is soon to become part of a battle over Luigi Fantappiè as well. --Philosophus T 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to time travel. --EMS | Talk 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The stub is better than the original, but as of this moment it still contains not a single citation to a peer-reviewed *printed* article on retrocausality. The AAAS symposium is a step in the right direction, but oral presentations aren't citable. We can't go back in time to listen to them, as it were. It seems not a coincidence that nobody can find *anything* peer-reviewed written by John Cramer on this subject. EdJohnston 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    But does that mean we shouldn't have an article, or just that the article should make clear that it's a vague idea and not peer-reviewed scientific work? It's also possible we already have some article on the arrow of time somewhere, that we should redirect to, but that can be considered after this AfD. -- SCZenz 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
...at arrow of time, in fact. Serpent's Choice 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that, despite snarkily providing that article link, I do not advocate merger. The arbcom case dictated that even patently wrong ideas that meet inclusion standards should be covered, but that we should take caution not to conflate them with established views (or, often, with science at all), and should give due weight to whatever science and established, peer-reviewed philosophy have to say that falls into the issue. That means, by the way, that we should consider rewriting this article in favor of Feynman's depricated theory of the reverse-causal positron (Physical Review 76) and its refutation by Earman, tachyon theory by lots of people (Bilaniuk was in Physics Today 22, for one) and its refutation by Recami, Price's 1996 discussion about boundary conditions, and probably de Beauregard's quantum paradox work (although I am not familiar with it, and it is mostly in Italian). Serpent's Choice 05:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Who is "we"? When a capable author who is knowledgable (or at least acquainted) with Feynmann's ideas shows up, and shows the interest in writing about them, then this person should be encouraged and aided. That person may show up next week, or may not show up for half a decade or more. In the meanwhile, we shall have a stub that attracts oddball, factually incorrect edits, building up a crunchy crust of cranky, crappy edits? Who shall have the energy to maintain the cruft patrol? linas 18:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

81.132.177.55 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Keep Bizarre debate. Clearly retrocausality exists as a theory whether or not we're able to find credible sources for it. Why not have an entry that informs of the concept, but emphasises how its scientific basis is at absolute very best tremendously shaky. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general interest, not a dictionary of science. It'd be highly pedantic to delete the entry altogether.

  • Keep Everything in the article is either sourced or verifiable. --Oakshade 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, OR and whatsnot. You can't source a philosophy article from the popular press. The extensive online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't know about it. --Pjacobi 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've now added this ref to the article Bwithh 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ... and please note that I've completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the article from its intermediate stub state, citing topics in both philosophy and science (and trying to preserve a bright-line distinction between the two), referring to several important existing Wikipedia articles, and offering references to (among other places) Physical Review, and Review of Modern Physics. The article bears little, if any, resemblence to its form at the start of this AFD. I have hopes this will satisfy all involved parties. Serpent's Choice 10:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after the very nice rewrite by Serpent's Choice. HEL 23:31, 26 December 2006 (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.