Talk:Luigi Fantappiè

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

[edit] Neutrality and accuracy dispute

I have tagged this article with {{totally-disputed-section}} because it needs a thorough overhaul. Very few of this fellow's claims have any connection with actual science; we need to root through the verbiage and sort out what he said, carefully delineating it from what is actually true. In this context, see WP:FRINGE. Anville 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppenheimer offering him a position at Princeton University can't be true, as Oppenheimer never held a position there (he was at IAS at the end of his career). --C S (Talk) 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Things like that should be removed on sight when unsourced. You could remove it under WP:BLP, since it is defamatory toward Oppenheimer. --Philosophus ^T 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantappiè’s family still keeps a copy of the letter from Oppenheimer. Fantappiè was a close friend of Enrico Fermi, they shared the University years at the “Normale di Pisa”, and Fermi was well informed about the work on the “anticipated potentials” and syntropy. In one of his last conferences Fantappiè describes how the scientific climate changed after 1945, suddenly talks about final causes and negative solutions were forbidden, and only the mechanical cause-effect paradigm was allowed. The law of syntropy and retrocausation are now well supported by empirical evidences in the fields of biology and psychology (anticipatory systems in biology and pre-stimuli responses of the autonomic nervous system in psychology). Science is based on facts and not beliefs. Removing Fantappiè’s explanation of retrocausality and syntropy on the basis of statements of this kind: “Everything that exists is purely physical matter and there is no special force that holds life together. I believe that anything can be explained by breaking it up into its pieces. i.e. the big picture can be understood by its smaller elements”, written by ScienceApologist, violates the basic rules of science, according to which science is not based on what we believe but on what can be proven by experiments. Accepting to publish only what meets the beliefs of actual science would have prohibited science to start, just bear in mind Galileo and Giordano Bruno. The point about retrocausation and syntropy is probably a political one. The implications of syntropy and retrocausality in life are so deep that they would radically change our culture and the way how the Western World works. Ulisse Di Corpo. Dicorpo 12:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article copyvio'd

I've noticed that one of the external links: [1] has copied our text into their article, namely this version. Not sure what to do about it. Staecker 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they acknowledge the source as WP, and that the text is GFDL, there is no problem. Charles Matthews 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right- but they don't (at least not that I can see) Staecker 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)