Talk:David Talbott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

While some of the criticisms of Talbott's work are verifiable, some of them appear to be verging on "original research". For example, while we can attribute specific criticisms to, for example, Roger Ashton, citing Jastrow is not applicable since Jastrow himself does not address Talbott. Of course if we can find a published source which we can attribute to someone, and they cite Jastrow as a criticism of Talbott, then fine.

Additionally, I would suggest that the wording "the 'best' physical model to date[16] was refuted by two astronomers", is over-judgemental. Grubaugh produced a model which Slabinski described as "insufficient", which is not the same as "refuted". And Slabinski is a criticism of Grubaugh, not necessarily of Talbott.

I also think the article could do with diviing into sections reflecting (a) biographical material, (b) Talbott's theories, (c) Criticisms.

Several comments are in order here: 1) That Jastrow (1910) does not "address Talbott", is irrelevant because the point is that Talbott misrepresents what Jastrow presented by concealing the fact that Jastrow explains how the Babylonians did not give planet Saturn a specific name until after Venus and Jupiter were so distinguished, a situation that completely refutes the primacy Talbott claims the ancients gave to Saturn; 2) Grubaugh's model was the "best" model to date, attested by the fact that it was the arrival of Grubaugh's model that brought Talbott out of his two year retirement in 1993, is featured prominently in the documentary Remembering the End of the World (1996), and was published in Aeon 3:3, 1993, ahead of Driscoll's model that had been scheduled for that issue. Slabinski demonstrated that Grubaugh's did not work as intended (actually did not work AT ALL); but to counter Slabinski's criticism, Grubaugh made a trivial modification which had the effect of having Saturn lose its constant crescent (a crucial feature of the model) and show phases as the Moon does and which Van Flandern refuted on talk.origins 17 Dec. 1994. Lacking a valid physical model, Talbott's notions lose all credibility; i.e., disproving the model implicitly disproves Talbott. There is no publicly available "biographical material" on Talbott whose private life has been very private; however his wife's name is Nancy and they have many children. Phaedrus7, 9 Sep 2007, 12:25 CDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus7 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jastrow. WP:NOR says we can not ".. introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Your criticism may well be valid. I might have my own too. Talbott also. But Wikipedia has no place for them.

Talbott's idea do necessarily lose credibility because someone else comes up with a flawed model. That's your opinion.

That's not to say that there are not valid criticisms. The article seems to mention some, such as Ashton's "The Unworkable Polar Saturn", and James' "The Saturn Problem".

So let's keep the criticism accurate and subject to WP:V. --81.201.56.15 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)