Talk:Eric Lerner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Eric Lerner, has edited Wikipedia as
Elerner (talk · contribs)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Van Allen quotation RFC

? !! time= 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) }}

There is currently a dispute as to whether the following quotation by James Van Allen, which appeared on the back of Eric Lerners book "The Big Bang Never Happened", can be included in the article:

Eric J. Lerner gives both a provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven.

I contend that since James Van Allen is a highly notable space scientist who worked in a field closely related to cosmology, his review of Eric Lerner's book is worthy of inclusion in the article. ScienceApologist initially objected to the quotation on the basis of the forum in which it appeared and speculations that James Van Allen recieved financial compensation for his endorsement of the book, but later declared that his objections on this basis were actually just

all pointless machinations: we're not planning on writing about whether Van Allen received payment for his book jacket quotation or not. I actually don't care much one way or the other if he did.[1]

Seeking some other basis on which to justify the exclusion of the quotation, ScienceApologist resorted to the claim that James Van Allen's research was in space physics and an unfounded assertion that this was "a totally unrelated field"[2] to cosmology. I refuted this claim with cogent reasoning, namely, the observation that

space physics is fairly obviously related to physical cosmology, to the extent that the universe, or at least the baryonic matter that it contains, is comprised largely of astrophysical plasma[3]

[4], to which ScienceApologist responded with meaningless personal attacks [5] [6]. John254 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't presume to speak for SA, but my objection is that it's a book jacket quote, and almost all of those are taken out of context. Even if Van Allen is considered an appropriate expert, we would need independent evidence of exactly what it is he wrote — in which case it would be unnecessary to quote the book jacket. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, to quote ScienceApologist

According to a conversation I had with the publisher, this statement was the entirety of the review solicited by the published to James Van Allen.[7]

If this is correct, then the quotation is obviously not taken out of context. Furthermore, parity of source quality issues are important here: since we're presently employing this blog post as criticism, I claim that, by the same standard of source reliability, we can likewise attribute a favorable review to a book jacket. John254 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a reliable source in this matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That statement can be interpreted one of two ways. Either its irrelevant, because your statement regarding your conversation with the publisher wouldn't actually be included in the article, and silly, because you offered the statement as evidence to support your preferred disposition of the quotation, or you're claiming that you're lying to us. Which is it? John254 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
False dichotomy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add a comment (If this works [my first on wikipedia, be gentle!]). I have been following this debate about Lerner for a while now, and I really have to wonder what the scientific reasons to dismiss Lerners material are, as so far I have seen very little scientific rebuttals of Lerners work. If one of the editors here has any scientific reasons that invalidate Lerners material, I suggest that you post it, because the the usual array of Ad Antiquitam arguments often deployed here do no-one any favours. I have seen much arguing, accusations, bickering over fine minutia, but from what I have read so far, any specific scientific refutations have not been forthcoming.
And I would also like to say that I think that the conduct of some of the editors here is very questionable, often your responses here come across as arrogant, presumptuos and dismissive. On the other hand, the responses written by people supporting Lerners views come across as well reasoned and polite. I originally visited this page to try to find out about Lerners work; only to find that nearly all of his scientific work is banned from his own webpage on wiki, despite Lerners many very valid contributions to science. What is going on here?
In my opinion the Van Allen quote should most certainly be added, as it does well to show that there are indeed a number of established scientists that support Plasma Cosmology and Lerners material; a fact that anyone who reads this article would remain ignorant of. This is not the only contribution that Van Allen made to plasma cosmology, for example, his work and observations form the basis for the external magnetic field model for rotating bodies [8], which is able to explain why the magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum over some 12 orders of magnitude; "The author would like to thank Dr. J. Van Allen for his support, and E. P. Pradeep, one of the author’s graduate students who helped him with the formatting of this publication." [page 3].
Also, for instance, see this publication [9], by Head of Raytheon's space physics group, Dr. Timothy E. Eastman, which cites Lerners work on numerous occasions, and gives a good overview of some of the cosmological models, including a favorable mention of plasma cosmology. So I have a choice; and so does everyone else here. I can either believe all the above scientists I listed (plus many more), all of which prefer the plasma cosmology approach, and who's work is published in reputable peer reviewed journals; or I can believe a group of editors at wikipedia, that never discuss the underlying science of the issue at hand, and seem reluctant to even let the material on wiki in the first place.
Please let Lerners scientific material be published here, if its all really so wrong, then, maybe, you could actually refute it, and post both the claim and the refutation (I'm not holding my breath). I look forward to further discussing the scientific veracity of plasma cosmology in the future here, maybe eventually these conversations will eventually progress onto the actual scientific literature underlying this whole fiasco. I certainly hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNailor (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Adam. Thanks for your comments. As you have probably witnessed, there is a tendency among editors to either be generally inclusive or exclusive of information in an article. Inclusionists tend to create long, comprehensive articles where exclusionists tend to create to-the-point articles. Usually a balance is reached, but sometimes the process is painful, especially when people have strong opinions as they do on this subject. Also, these talk pages are not really the forum for debating the underlying merits of a theory as it tends to make the talk page really long, especially when dealing with a controversial subject. If you want to include a specific piece of information, such as a source document to show the notability of an idea, that is an appropriate thing to discuss on the talk page, but make sure it passes all of the tests of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. ABlake (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Adam. You may wish to read about meat puppetry. Generally when people tell you to comment on Wikipedia to support their side, it's looked on very unfavorably. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi ScienceApologist. So, my welcome to wikipedia starts with an accusation from one of the wiki staff of me being a meatpuppet. Thankyou for the warm welcome. Do you have any evidence what-so-ever for this assertion? or is this going to be added to the, now very considerable, list of unsubstanciated accusations you make against people here with no supporting evidence? If you refer to the article on meat puppetry, it says "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." Well, maybe you should learn some manners, and address some of the material you ignored in my above post? And I feel that John has made a perfectly valid point above, in regard to quoting Van Allens endorsement of Lerners work, and I hope that this will be included to help the article remain as factually accurate as possible. Regards AdamNailor (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Adam, I know that you came to this article with the express intention of supporting Eric Lerner at the request of involved editors. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you know something I don't. ABlake was just explaining the rules to a newbie who obviously needed it. Adam's expressed intention was: "I originally visited this page to try to find out about Lerners work...". So did I miss a quote? Art LaPella (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if ScienceApologist has good evidence for his accusation, but I will address one detail: he isn't the "wiki staff". There is no wiki staff unless you mean Wikipedia:Administrators, and ScienceApologist isn't that. He is a very experienced, very controversial Wikipedian with a long list of friends and enemies. Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So back to the original topic, Van Allen was a notable person, qualified to give his opinion regarding a book on plasma cosmology. The claimed downside was that the quote was on the book jacket, which is a suspect location, even though it is verifiable, and the quote was apparently taken in its entirety, so it couldn't be misconstrued (as was brought up as a reason against using it). Based on that rationale, it is still my opinion that it should be included. Is there a good reason not to that hasn't been answered? ABlake (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Van Allen qualified? I can find no evidence that Van Allen ever published a thing about cosmology in his lifetime. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Van Allen is qualified (personally I see no reason not to include a quote from an extremely well-respected scientist, even if this is not exactly his field) we simply cannot use blurbs on the back of books as sources. That should basically go without saying. I don't doubt that Van Allen provided the quote in good faith and that that's how he felt about the book. Nonetheless, quotes that publishers stick on the back of a book should never be considered a reliable source on any article for obvious reasons already articulated. Lerner himself said somewhere above that he actually had a letter from Van Allen from which the quote was drawn. I have no reason to doubt that either, and if that letter were placed online somewhere where it was viewable and if it was somehow verified that it was indeed from Van Allen then I think it would be fine to use the quote. That might seem like a lot of hoops to jump throw over what is really a small issue, but we simply cannot use the book blurb and primary sources (such as personal letters) need to be used very carefully. In this case the content of the letter and the authorship would need to be verified, though again we have no reason at all to doubt Lerner's characterization of the letter in an earlier post. I'm sure Van Allen said what he supposedly said and I think it's worth including it in the article, we just need a proper source and a book jacket blurb is simply not up to snuff in that respect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That was a well-reasoned and articulated response. If Lerner were to post the contents of the letter on the BBNH website, would that qualify as a WP:RS since this is a BLP? ABlake (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Lerner isn't a reliable publisher. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Posting it to Lerner's site would be the first step. Again, while I fully believe that Lerner is not misrepresenting the content of the letter, for the purposes of reliable sourcing there should be some means of authenticating that the letter is from Van Allen. I don't know exactly how this would happen or if it would be easy or difficult to do, but we need some form of verification of a primary source like this since it would be published on a web site of the subject of this article. If that verification is provided, the letter combined with the fact that the Van Allen comment was ultimately published on the back of the book is, I think, sufficient sourcing to include this in the article. It would be clear at that point that Van Allen did compliment the book, and I think such a compliment from an esteemed scientist is relevant. I think it would be critical though to point out (briefly) that this is not really Van Allen's field (assuming that is really the case, I don't know either way) and that his positive view of the book was very much in the minority. As it stands now there are no positive comments about the book at all. So long as it is sourced well enough, and so long as we explain the mainstream reaction to the book as we already do, I don't see a problem with including one short comment that said something good about the book.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I understood this[10] meant that we could use it if it was published on a website by him. I haven't heard of anyone going to such lengths to verify sources on other web sites before, especially if there is no reason to doubt the authenticity. I don't understand why this would be different. ABlake (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why a raw statement by Lerner that Van Allan approved of his (Lerner's) book could be allowable, and I don't see how Lerner's publishing Van Allan's letter is any different. Can you explain either one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it a bit more, since the comment is about the book and not the person, the application of WP:BLP rules for inclusion probably don't apply. In this case, it would revert back to regular WP:RS guidelines, so it wouldn't be appropriate to include it. Comments about Lerner himself would still fall under BLP rules. Is that a correct interpretation and application? ABlake (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that Lerner and/or his publisher could make up a quote, attribute it to a famous scientist, publish it on a book jacket, and get away with it? I can understand (though not accept) the objection that van Allen was not professionally qualified to judge the book, but even publisher's blurge should be reliable prima facie evidence that van Allen did indeed say such a (stupid) thing. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As for me, I'm suggesting that book jacket quotes are frequently taken out of context, enough so that they cannot be considered reliable by our standards, and that Lerner, himself, is not a reliable source for Van Allan's letter. I'm not sure whether Van Allan qualifies as a "plasma physicist" by modern standards, although he certainly was considered an expert as generally understood then. On the other hand, I'm not sure Lerner qualifies as a "plasma physicist", either, so my opinions on that issue are probably not worth very much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would just add that Van Allen wasn't endorsing the views in the book. He just said the book was a "provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven." I would be qualified to say that. If he had offered his evaluation of the scientific arguments within the book, then his expertise would be needed. However, that wasn't the case. He just said it was an interesting book. ABlake (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I suppose that's possible. Maybe he really said, "Eric J. Lerner gives both a provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven. Although both provocative and stimulating, Lerner unfortunately doesn't comprehend the mass of evidence supporting the Big Bang, and even Alfven's respectable cosmological hypotheses have had to yield to subsequent research." If we only had the first sentence without the context, we would be misrepresenting Van Allens true opinion. But really, I don't believe the quote could have been published without Van Allen's approval, and he would see to it that his opinion was not too badly mangled. (If you read it closely, he doesn't say that Lerner is right, or even that he has any interesting ideas.) --Art Carlson (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How about including the quote but discreetely pointing out that Van Allen doesn't actually say what he thinks of the scientific value of Lerner's arguments and evidence? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How about something like, "Van Allen reviewed the book and provided the following comment, without evaluating its scientific merits:." That seems factual and unbiased to me. ABlake (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the source is just the book jacket, I don't think we should use it no matter how we phrase it. If the original source (i.e. the letter) is reproduced and verified somehow then I think we should. Book jacket quotes are not reliable sources. If we know where the quote originally came from then we can use it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone might want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Publisher's "blurb" quotes and Bat Ye'or for a similar case - also a controversial fringe author with one or two positive academic quotes on the book cover. Relata refero (disp.) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice to have that rolled into a policy so we wouldn't have to debate it so much. So, are we going to go with the logic of that conclusion? Makes sense to me. ABlake (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me, discounting the opinion of Jossi who I've never trusted, that the conclusion is not to trust book jacket quotes. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, it would be helpful if you would justify the positions you take on some more substantial basis than ad hoc personal attacks against anyone who happens to disagree with you. Jossi is a respected contributor, and has been an administrator in good standing for two and a half years -- please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jossi. Are you are prepared to offer some more substantive objection to Jossi's comments than the bare fact that he takes a position which you oppose? John254 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The point, I'm sure, isn't that Jossi is right or wrong, it's that the rest of the participants in that discussion appeared to agree that statements on book covers need to be treated carefully. They are, after all, a method of advertising and don't have the same editorial oversight as statements within a book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Lobojo concurred with the inclusion of quotations from book jackets, attributed as such [11], while A. B. stated that such quotations might be included under certain circumstances, when "considering them on a case-by-case basis" [12]. Furthermore, since we're presently employing a blog post as a source of criticism, and in consideration of the fact that editorial oversight is essentially nonexistent in such self-published sources, the principle of parity of source quality suggests that sources which are subject to deficient editorial oversight, such as quotations from book jackets, may nonetheless be suitable for inclusion. John254 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Put down the stick and back away from the deceased equine. The van Allen quote is promotional puff, book jacket quotes are not even pretended to be neutral or balanced, and the blog has been discussed to death: self-published sources are not forbidden, theya re to be used with care and discretion; in this case the mainstream scientific community does not discuss Lerner's fringe views in peer-reviewed publications because they are too fringe, but a reputable professional in the field has commented on his own site, and that gives necessary balance to something which would otherwise fail WP:NPOV by putting only the fringe side. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your claim that we need to use a blog post as a critical source since "the mainstream scientific community does not discuss Lerner's fringe views in peer-reviewed publications because they are too fringe" is outrageously false, as Lerner's book has been the subject of extensive criticism in The New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer, both of which are peer-reviewed reliable sources, as clearly described in Eric_Lerner#The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened. Furthermore, some of Eric Lerner's cosmology research has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, which even ScienceApologist acknowledges [13] is a peer-reviewed reliable source for cosmology -- see "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63-68. "The Big Bang Never Happened" itself was initially published by Random House, which our article describes as "the world's largest English-language general trade book publisher." John254 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll let others address the rest of your comments, but I find it "outrageously false" to call either the New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer "peer-reviewed". --Art Carlson (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I agree with the point that Bigtimepeace made above- the back cover of the book isn't a reliable source. If this was quoted from another source, and that can be reliably cited, I'd say to go with it, seeing Van Allen's status. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • RfC response It's not a RS. --Faith (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources still needed?

The tag requesting sources is still on the Personal History section. Is it still necessary? Seems pretty well sourced to me. Any objection to removing it, or is there a line that needs better sourcing? ABlake (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's poorly sourced since there aren't any third party sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for good sourcing. It's the Wiki way! Just for fun, let's compare Lerner's current page (with extensive references, as well as now-excised list of papers and itemized Professional Activities) with Victor Stenger and Edward L. Wright's pages. Maybe someone ought to put up source tags there and apply the same standards that have gone into this page. Oh, and did Vstenger add self-promoting stuff to his own article and not get beat up over it? Perhaps someone should mention it to him. How about we head over to those articles and help bring them up to snuff! I'm sure we could get them up to the same quality as this article in no time at all. Equal standards for everybody! Yeah! Just kidding. I'll look for some third-party sources for Lerner. Thanks for clarifying. ABlake (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have problems with other pages, go over there and talk about them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google TechTalks listing

I added Eric Lerner to the list of notable speakers at Google TechTalks, only to be quickly reverted by SA with the claim that he isn't notable. Lerner is notable according to WP:NOTE, and it is a fact that he was invited to speak, and indeed did speak, at Google TechTalks. I bring it up here because this is Lerner's page, where all reference to the presentation has been removed, except in the caption of the picture. Before I revert him, and in so doing spread the edit war that has been waged here to another page, I'll ask for others' opinions. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Eric Lerner is notable -- that's why we have an article on him, why ScienceApologist's disruptive effort to have the article deleted failed, and why ScienceApologist's disruptive attempt to have the article moved to the title of Lerner's book will fail. Furthermore, Eric Lerner's research concerning the use of the dense plasma focus device to produce aneutronic fusion, the subject of the Google TechTalk in question, is notable itself, being the subject of substantial coverage both by The New York Times and Discover magazine -- please see Kenneth Chang, "Practical Fusion, or Just a Bubble?", New York Times, February 27, 2007, and the current edition of Discover magazine, page 64. John254 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree that Lerner should be regarded as notable, on the grounds of the failed AfD if nothing else. Agree that a case can be made that this requested move is disruptive, but I think it's a borderline one. It would help if the article on Google TechTalks could be expanded. See talk:Google TechTalks#Eric Lerner. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you forgotten the WP:BLP1E discussion on the AfD. If that were consensus, then moving the article would be quite appropriate. As it stands, the only notability I see is his book and the removed LaRouche connection. Now that it's removed.... As for the subject of this header, I suspect Google TechTalks should be deleted as being clearly not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You suspect that it's clearly not notable? Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Arthur suspects that it should be deleted. He doesn't debate its clear lack of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
My point was that I suspect that his suspicion is suspect, because this suspect would clearly qualify for deletion if it is clearly not notable. But I also suspect that an AfD on it would be a(nother) complete waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the reference to Lerner. I notice that the ARBCOM case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) in its findings of fact seems to imply that Lerner does have notability, and in its decisions issued the following caution: ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility. ISTM that removing Lerner from a list of notable speakers may violate that caution. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How did you establish that he was notable? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, the ARBCOM case (to which you were a party) under findings of fact stated One involved party is also a leading developer and proponent of one of the topics in question, and has a biography on Wikipedia (Eric Lerner), which is also involved. We can go through it all again, but why? Isn't this enough? Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
He didn't give his talk about that idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So? The section heading isn't Notable Talks. It's Notable Speakers (and the capital should be corrected to conform to WP:MOS but that can wait). The content of the talk is irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The content of the talks on a page about talks is irrelevant? I think you just dug your own grave with that one. Get an outside opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) The content of the particular talk is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether or not a speaker (not a talk) is notable. I note that none of your replies actually address the points raised. For example you question whether the speaker is notable, then when evidence for is given and evidence against is invited you shift to questioning whether the talk is notable. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The question of whether the "speaker is notable" for inclusion on a pages of talks given by various speakers means we should pay close attention to what the speaker is talking about. If a marginally significant figure who wrote a book 20 years ago about spices came to give a talk about ecology, it would be questionable as to whether that speaker would be notable enough for inclusion in a list of notable talks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But, again at the risk of repeating myself, this isn't a list of notable talks. It's a list of speakers. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are standard debate tactics for ScienceApologist. Deflect and revert. Welcome to the Matrix! :) ABlake (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If I were Lerner, and there was a foundation supporting ScienceApologist and his cronies, I'd probably secretly support it financially! Their tactics only serve to blur the distinction between real science and pseudoscience. It's very sad. But I believe truth will prevail. We seem to have won Time Cube, for the moment at least. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Time Cube point eludes me, probably because I haven't followed it. After looking over the article, it seems like weird ranting, and is only notable because people make fun of it and not because it is related to science at all. If you care to clue me in on your Time Cube point, just email me so we don't have to fill up this page with it. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(And ScienceApologist immediately undid my edit, including the clarification that some talks include pseudoscience. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

I've added him back again, along with the slight expansion of the article (which is still a stub) which was also reverted before. See Talk:Google TechTalks#We'll try again for my reasons. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with pseudoscience

Let's assume for the moment that we are dealing with a living person whose only notable contribution to human knowledge is in the realm of pseudoscience, and that humanity would be better off without it. I don't want to claim that Lerner is in that category, just to observe that some other editors do seem to be of this view.

Question: How should Wikipedia deal with this?

My feeling is that, even given the above suppositions, it is counterproductive to excise all mention of the person and their work from Wikipedia. Much of the attraction of pseudoscience lies in its claims that it is being unfairly dismissed. We do nobody any favours by giving these claims credibility.

And even by failing to report notable pseudoscience theories and personalities, we give these claims credibility. But if in our rejection of this material, we ourselves argue illogically and passionately from our own strongly held dogmatic beliefs, then we appear no different to the advocates of pseudoscience, which is far, far worse.

A far better way is to report as objectively and completely as we can. It's not the easy way, but it's the encyclopedic way, and it's the way endorsed by Wikipedia policy at every level. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Under what circumstances do appearances to pseudoscience promoters have any bearing outside that group? If they are heavily involved in pseudoscience, science and logic will not appeal to them anyway, only the authorities within their own group would.
Under many circumstances... unbiased people doing research into cults and the like will come here, potential supporters wanting to know the details of alternative theories will come here, people wanting to crusade against them will come here, people who want to set up their own pseudoscience will come here. Our role is not to judge their motives for wanting this information, it's just to provide it as best we can. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read much of what you have written in response to SA here, you commonly switch the topic of your sentence in a response. Here we went from "pseudoscience promoters" to "unbiased people". Unbiased people are looking for science and logic and reasoning, maybe not in that order. Jok2000 (talk)
I certainly don't mean to be evasive. But yes, I've failed to answer the question as asked here, just as it failed to address my remarks above. Appearances to pseudoscience promoters aren't my main concern, obviously from my answer; Most of the readers of this article will be here for other reasons. But even then, many, although certainly not all, pseudoscience promoters are well intentioned, and are looking for science and logic and reasoning. That's part of the challenge! And some pseudoscience opponents, sadly, are not; They have decided that their cause is so important that they don't need to question it any more, and in so doing have of course abandonned the scientific approach in favour of dogma. That's another challenge. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, a complete report of unscientific things is usually replete with unreliable testimony. To be encyclopedic, unreliable stuff, or mistakes, if you will, once shown to be so, should just be left out of articles. Jok2000 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... if by replete with unreliable testimony you mean that we can't write a good article on it, I disagree. It's a challenge, but one we can and should take up. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply mean that if the Bill Meier UFO hoax of the 70's was offered as proof of UFOs that look like saucers, it would have to be moved from the proof-of-ufo's section on the ufo page, to the "junk I've forgotten about and don't care to revisit" part of the page, if consensus had it that there should be such a section. So similarly, you will find in many pseudoscience topics, as well as non-conventional scientific theories (which I categorize separately), that people have simply made a mistake, or the claim is simply uninvestigated. Jok2000 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... the answer is to cite and source. Claims made by fringe theories of whatever categories need particularly to be sourced; Provided they are so sourced, there's no problem in including the claims. Where other authorities dismiss these claims, this should also be included of course, and similarly sourced, avoiding undue emphasis. The balance is the tricky bit. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you (Andrewa), that notable pseudoscientists should be reported on, and I don't think anyone here will differ. The question is whether Lerner is notable. If he is not, which several editors believe, then the rules say he should not have an article. I think that rule also makes sense under your argumentation about making the world a better place. The line between notable and non-notable is roughly the same line as that between giving people (a sort of) credibility by "suppressing" their ideas and making martyrs of them, and giving them credibility by advertising their ideas for them. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree... except that I think that some do differ. But the question should be, as you say, whether Lerner is notable. Certainly, there is a danger of giving them credibility by advertising their ideas for them, and there have been and will continue to be attempts to use Wikipedia in this way, and Lerner has even been one of the culprits, hence the ARBCOM ban on his editing his own article. The Time Cube and Quasiturbine and many other articles have had similar problems. But there is also a danger that we react to these attempts by removing material from Wikipedia which is encyclopedic. Just because people want it in for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that there are no right reasons. There now seems little doubt that, quite apart from Wikipedia, the proposer of the Time Cube has made a name for himself. With Lerner perhaps it's not as clear.
There seems a rough consensus that his book is notable, but I did say rough, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner which although quite long makes very interesting reading. Amazon.com lists 52 other books that cite it, including books by Martin Gardner and Paul Davies among others. I don't see any need to defend the scholarship of those two; Just the fact that they both cite it would satisfy minimum requirements of notability for the book IMO. This essay even implies that its sales are comparable to Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which I find very difficult to believe and the essay gives no figures.
So, the claim has now become, it's a notable book by a non-notable author. But that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a big difference between promotion and description. An encyclopedia should describe a subject objectively and neutrally. If it promotes an idea, it becomes an advertising tool, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Describing consists of recounting facts. Promoting involves making subjective judgements about the facts and encouraging behavior. To include facts is not promotion, although doing so while leaving out other contradictory facts is biased, and can be considered promotional. So, the correct way to deal with pseudoscience (or any other article for that matter) is to describe the relevant, verifiable facts about the subject, whether positive or negative.
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Art Carlson (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... That link leads to a section which lists a general principle and five more specific principles. None of the six seem applicable here. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but some of your comment sounds like any fact is eligible for inclusion as long as it is objective, neutral, relevant, and verifiable. I just wanted to throw out the reminder that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (the general principle). Even objective description can have a promotional character if the subject is not notable. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Lerner being notable, he could be considered notable on two separate subjects, his cosmology work and his fusion work. His cosmology work received more attention in the 90s, but he is still active in it today, and has received some media attention. His fusion work is more recent, and has received some media attention as listed in the references. ABlake (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree on the difference between promotion and discription, and that notable pseudoscientists, such as Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, should have articles. Disagree as to notability. See WP:BLP1E, although it doesn't specifically mention authors of a single book. There are situations in which we have a notable book by a non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) author, if that's all he's known for. If the LaRouche comments were allowed in the article, that would provide a second reason for notability. I doubt the notability of the fusion work (even if also pseudoscience), but that might provide a second reason for notability, making the article appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the requested move has been closed, like the AfD, on the basis of no consensus, which I think was predictable. Wikipedia seems to deem him again as borderline notable. So, how do we now move forward with a minimum waste of time? Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Arthur you keep bringing up the LaRouche issue even then it has been explained repeatedly why this was not included. If you want to discuss Lerner's political activities, his current work with the NJ Civil Rights Coalition is more notable and covered in a couple of reliable sources. We also had some material on past political activities which were more notable than a tangential association with a LaRouche group. I fail to understand why the LaRouche-group association is the only political activity you seem to be interested in mentioning, and the only one which (in your opinion) confers some measure of notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Because LaRouche is a notable crank and Lerner is reported as the person who stood up to LaRouche's organizations' strong-arm tactics. If properly sourced, it adds positive, notable information about Lerner. The NJ Civil Rights Coalition is not, itself, notable, even though Lerner's association with them might be noted. Lerner's work in civil rights doesn't seem to rise to the level of something which would be independently notable; i.e., if someone's only claim to notability were what Lerner has done in civil rights, that person would not have a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the premise of this section highly ambigous. What basis do you have for calling Lerners material pseudoscience? None at all that I can see. Is this material ignored by conventioanl astronomers? Yes. But scientific popularity does not imply scientific veracity, by any means what-so-ever. There are no peer reviewed articles in any journal that I have read that dispute any of the material in Lerners work. In public, yes, scientists are critical of it, in magazines and newspapers (the only sources on this page that purport to "debunk" his material), but there is not one shred of peer reviewed evidence that refutes his work, which is very odd considering that it has been published in very reputable journals that any scientist could falsify if it was really so bad. This alone indicates that it is definately NOT pseudoscience. Whether the number of citations to an article means that;

(a) it is factually wrong
(b) ignored
(c) not understood
(d) uncontested
(e) unknown
(f) politically unpopular,

is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment. I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal [14]received only 1 citation in the first 10 years[15], and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that. And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat[16] published in 1943, has received one citation to the article[17], ever. Despite this, his hydromagnetic wave theory is used by nearly every astronomer in the world today.

His material is published in reputable peer reviewed journals, some publications in the highly respected Astrophysics and Space science[18][19] [20], The Astrophysical Journal [21], and various publications in IEEE Journals[22] [23][24] [25] [26] [27], which is another reputable journal. The first two journals are beyond reproach by any standard, and the IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization with more than 360,000 members in around 175 countries. Their IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who publishes the Transactions on Plasma Science, has about 3000 professional engineers and scientist, which is hardly an obscure number in comparison to, say, the American Astronomical Society has about 6,500 members that includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers; they definately do NOT publish pseudoscience. The burden of proof does not rest on Lerner to prove his work is not pseudoscience, it rests on the people here trying to label it as such, despite the ample evidence that it is indeed scientifically valid material published in respected journals. Maybe SciencAppologist, and his companions, should contact the Journal of Astrophsycis and Space Science, The Astrophysical Journal and the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and inform them of their terrible mistake in readily publishing his material. Not one person has come up with ANY scientific reason why his material can be treated as pseudoscience, other than making the truly ridiculous claim that any science material that is not popular, or largely ignored, is wrong. As Timothy Eastman, Director of Plasmas international and Head of Raytheon astrophysics groups points out while reviewing one of Lerners more recent publications[28] "No responce to Lerners recent publication has yet been put forward"[29]
I say again, I came originally to wikipedia to assess Lerners work after seeing various references to his work in modern publications[30][31], only to find that his work is banned from his very own page. That alone tells me that something is very suspect is going on here. I suppose that all the scientists that have cited his work over the last few years should also be banned from wikipedia for not adhering to ScienceAppologist, and others, personal scientific preferences? You see what a ridiculous situation this is?
Considering this, his material published in these journals should most certainly be allowed for inclusion, including a small section about the details behind his scientific views, which can reflect both sides of the story. If any of the esteemed admins here want to assess his material (because I get the distict impression from this article that they have not even read any of it), and come up with one single scientific reason why his work should be classed as pseudoscience (which i'm quite sure you cant, or it would have been done already), some of his publications are available to see in full here[32]. I await your reply with great anticipation. Adam. AdamNailor (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Adam, the title of this section was added by Andrewa, who incorrectly assumed that Lerner's work was considered pseudoscience. However, it is considered fringe science rather than pseudoscience, since it adheres to the scientific method but is not generally accepted by the mainstream. Simple mistake. So, no need to get too spun up about the pseudoscience reference. Also, for Wikipedia purposes, it is better to use sources that reference Lerner's work and articles than to use things that have been written by him, even if they are in the IEEE. Having something published in IEEE may be reliable, but not really notable unless someone comments on it. Does that make sense? However, the article in Discover magazine (June issue) is both reliable and notable, so it would be good to reference. Hopefully you see the difference. ABlake (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, I was a bit hasty with my responce there, but I still feel that my points stand. References to Lerners material in the reuptable journals I listed should be included, unless valid scientific rebuttals can be put forward by someone here. Generally fringe science is not published in the respected journals I listed, they usually have their own journals, which indicates that this work is more than merely fringe. I'm sure that the journals would not like being accused of publishing fringe science. Largely Ignored, yes, Incorrect or scientifically invalid like most fringe science, definately not, it is based on well established plasma physics that the scientific community has yet to apply to most of their cosmological models. At the top of the fringe science page it says "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Pseudoscience" so there seems little distinction between the two. AdamNailor (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any sources that indicate that Lerner's aging body of published scientific papers have received any attention at all, they do not belong in this article as a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above publications in established journals I cited can be categorized as soapbox? You are seriously suggesting the the publications in the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science are merely (from the soapbox page you linked to) 1) Propaganda 2) Opinion pieces 3) Self-promotion or 4) Advertising? Do you know something that these journals dont? If this is the case, I suggest you contact the journal and inform them that their publication of Lerners material is merely propaganda, and you request they remove it from their archive.
Did you read my above points? "Is this material ignored by conventioanl astronomers? Yes. But scientific popularity does not imply scientific veracity, by any means what-so-ever. There are no peer reviewed articles in any journal that I have read that dispute any of the material in Lerners work." I take this responce to mean that you have no reason at all to categorize Lerners material as pseudoscience, and infact you are the one that has your own pseudoscientific view, as you are disregarding this work published in esteemed scientific journals, with no scientific reasons put forward. I take this also to mean that all the publications that cite Lerners work, themselves published in established journals, to be faulty too. My simple request was: "If any of the esteemed admins here want to assess his material (because I get the distict impression from this article that they have not even read any of it), and come up with one single scientific reason why his work should be classed as pseudoscience". Refusal to answer this very simple question noted.
See my comment above. That should straighten this out. ABlake (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want, you can e-mail me and I can explain to you why I think that Eric's ideas are high grade baloney. But that's not the point of the talk page. If you want to see material in the article, you have to first familiarize yourself with the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE. That should get you started on figuring out how to write a Wikipedia article on someone who basically lacks a cross-section in the community and the outside world he seemingly desperately wants to have notice him. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"If you want, you can e-mail me and I can explain to you why I think that Eric's ideas are high grade baloney." This I cant wait to hear. My e-mail is adamnailor8421@hotmail.co.uk Adam. AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Will I be allowed to post some of your scientific reasons here under a new heading? such as "The scientific reasons for the fringe science accusation", so we could discuss some of it? AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Earlier versions of Plasma cosmology contained criticism of Lerner's work in much more detail. You might like to look there. But to answer your question, no, you should not start discussions here on the rightness or wrongness of Lerner's ideas. It's not our job to decide that. We only need to decide which ideas to mention here. To do that, we mostly need to examine the extent to which his ideas have attracted interest in the scientific community, especially in secondary sources like reviews and text books. To decide whether the ideas we mention should be classified as fringe science, we probably also have to examine whether the interest was positive or negative. It may be fun to discuss physics, but the purpose of this forum is to discuss an encyclopedia article. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to that page then? At least when people read that page they would actually know what plasma cosmology is, as opposed to the ancient version represented on the current page. AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the "ancient" version of plasma cosmology was advocated by a Nobel Prize winner and verifiably played a modest but notable role in the development of cosmology. The Lerner/Peratt version has not attracted much attention. I personally have a weakness for the old version of the page (to which I made significant contributions), but I understand the arguments against it. The change was pushed primarily by ScienceApologist, so he might have more to say about that. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you add four tildes (~~~~) after your comments, they will be automatically signed and dated, which helps others to make sense of the discussion.

ScienceAppologist, I take your lack of any E-mail containing any scientific reasons at all to refute any of Lerners work as meaning that you have none? Surely, if Lerners material was "high grade baloney", you could write a quick e-mail explaining the scientific reasons why you have arrived at this conclusion? Your reasons to dismiss it are science based, are they not? Or does it have more to do with faith? In case you missed it, heres my e-mail again; adamnailor8421@hotmail.co.uk AdamNailor (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm putting you on notice. As a disruptive single purpose account, you need to clean up your act or be shown the door. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the real-world "problem" that Lerner's theories are rejected by the relevant scientific community. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Way to go Guy! ScienceApologist offers email discussion above, and you shake your Admin tools at newbie AdamNailor for going along with it, adding the old single purpose account double whammy. Threatened to be blocked for offering to take a discussion off-Wikipedia, you couldn't make it up. Straight from the Mafia school of rhetoric and diplomacy! 66.232.106.84 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think AdamNailor is a newbie. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 ??? Are you making an accusation here? If so, please clarify your position and explain why you have arrived at this conclusion. AdamNailor (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guy. Maybe you could e-mail me these reasons for dismissing Lerners material instead, since SA seems reluctant to do so, and we're not allowed to discuss it here. I really want to know how you have arrived at these conclusions about Lerners work, and cant find any reasons on wikipedia, on the plasma cosmology page, or in any scientific literature, or anywhere else. Just curious. AdamNailor (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Above point retracted, SA has now mailed me, so I now know his E-mail, which is an encouraging sign. Hopefully some sort of consensus can be reached on some things, but i'll save it for E-mails for now, i'm not going to provide a running commentary here. AdamNailor (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche

From the discussion above: If the LaRouche comments were allowed in the article, that would provide a second reason for notability. See

for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Focus Fusion recieves $10 million in funding

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. (LPP) has announced the signing of its first licensing agreement for the manufacture, distribution and marketing of focus fusion reactors. The reactors, which could produce energy safely and for far less than current costs, are under development by LPP, which expects them to be ready by 2012. The agreement gives Center for Miljo-och Energiforskning (CMEF), a Swedish firm, a license to manufacture, market and distribute focus fusion reactors in the European Union and Norway in return for phased payments to LPP of $10 million, with an option to extend the license to Russia for an additional amount. Payments past the initial year’s $600,000 will be conditional on proof of the scientific feasibility of focus fusion. CMEF is a start-up clean energy firm, with interests in new technologies, including focus fusion. Leif Arnold, the company’s founder, is excited about the potential of focus fusion and the positive impact for Europe’s energy security and environment.

Kevin Baastalk 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Payments past the initial year’s $600,000 will be conditional on proof of the scientific feasibility of focus fusion. That's the key, isn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an ancient archive of the lpp website and CMEF has reportedly been unable to raise its own funds for that funding deal http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/forums/viewthread/201/ TristanDC (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)