Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence

Primer on some of the subjects of this RfArb

Here is a primer of the basic ideas that Ian POV-pushes about (from most out-there to most mainstream)

• Electric universe (concept) -- A harebrained idea that dismisses almost all of astrophysics outright in favor of an electrical engineer's wet dream about the way the universe is.
• Intrinsic redshift -- Pie-in-the-sky fantasy (that violated Occam's razor, by the way) of certain non-mainstream cosmology proponents who claim that there is another way redshifts happen other than that which is seen on redshift. Why do they want to do this? Because the Hubble Law matches the expanding universe which, for sundry reasons, they don't like.
• Tired light -- proposed as an alternative in the early days of cosmology, it has popped up from time-to-time only to be knocked down by many different cosmologists. Most famously, Peebles showed that tired light could not account for many of the features observed in our universe and often tired light is mentioned as a pedagogical exercise in what a falsified idea looks like in astrophysics. There are an extreme few who keep trying, and there are those hoping to make their prominence greater on Wikipedia.
• Plasma cosmology -- A very underdeveloped idea that is based in part on Hannes Alfvén's ambiplasma conjecture (but now markedly different), it was revived by a few researchers and today takes the form mainly as a direct assault on the Big Bang without many straightforward predictions of its own. The subject is ignored by most cosmologists and generally poorly considered because of a lack of rigor compared to the standard cosmological paradigm. Eric Lerner, a private researcher from New Jersey who dropped out of grad school is perhaps the most visible internet proponent of this idea (and also edits at Wikipedia).
• nonstandard cosmologies -- the history of cosmology has a dominant conflict between the steady state theory and big bang theory. There still persist a small number of holdouts who support nonstandard cosmologies. There are generally more non-experts who adhere to such things than experts. I recently began rewriting this article from a historical perspective with the hopes of creating an article that was less likely to be spammed by original research
• Halton Arp -- respected observational astronomer who likes to look for oddball associations and weird objects. This obsession has led him to create a catalog that is still used by astronomers today. However, it has also caused him to become a pathological skeptic toward all things in the standard deviation, including standard cosmology, explanations of quasars, black holes, etc. He's most famous for proposing that intrinsic redshifts are associated strongly with quasars that he believes are spit out of the cores of AGN. Very few others take this suggestion seriously. Being out in the tails of the distribution, Arp is fond of pushing the envelope ever towards the fringe. He tends to be championed, therefore, by the usual suspects and is overrepresented at Wikipedia as a result.
• Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.
• Wolf Effect -- An actual effect in optics that the researchers thought might resolve the quasar controversies of the 1970s (now resolved in a completely different way) by actually being the intrinsic redshift non-mainstream researchers were hoping for. However, the research has surpassed what the Wolf Effect people proposed as a mechanism for quasar redshifts. The practical difficulties of getting the coincidences required to produce a Wolf Effect means that it is a curio in physical optics -- an important one but certainly not worthy of more than passing mention on a decent, reliable, verifiable, and NPOV treatment of redshift.

[placed here by ScienceApologist on 19:26, 17 October 2006; author not indicated. Harald88 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)]

On User:Rednblu's evidence

The single edit User:Rednblu uses to illustrate his point is an edit to intrinsic redshift not redshift quantization where the edit belongs. The edit was removed not because I disagreed with the papers but because it belongs on the redshift quantization page (where it is in fact discussed). I pointed this out to User:Rednblu but he didn't seem to understand. --ScienceApologist 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that a typical bandwagon has formed on which the uninformed policy hounds and the pseudoscience-supporters love to jump. The problem is that their advocacy is not backed up with evidence or intelligent consideration of fact. Basically, upon being caught in an incorrect evaluation of an edit, User:Rednblu makes up his position out-of-thin air. It is clear from his non-analytical post that User:Rednblu has not read the papers in question, yet feels qualified to say what they discuss. While I study cosmology on a day-to-day basis, User:Rednblu and the anon think it reasonable to attack this from a basic standpoint of ignorance and lack of research, and then have the audactiy to claim that I am editting from a POV! It's the basic problem that Wikipedia:Expert Retention is being designed to address. This kind of unmitigated, unqualified, and unintelligent harassment based on policy-Wikilawyering and absurd lack of research does lead to the most qualified editors at Wikipedia throwing their hands up and leaving. It's this kind of amateurish defense that I find most distressing about Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I begin with a quote from Russell at 388. Russell specifically titles his paper: Further evidence for intrinsic redshifts in normal spiral galaxies, rather than ... redshift quantization .... Russell at 388 says:

• It is important to note that the evidence for intrinsic redshifts in spiral galaxies can be evaluated independent of cosmological models. It has been suggested by Arp (1988) that large intrinsic redshifts require a non-expanding universe. However Bell (2002, 2004) has argued that intrinsic redshifts are superimposed upon expansion of the universe. The evidence discussed in this paper is compatible with either interpretation.

Generally, it seems to me that the scholars Russell, Arp, Bell & McDiarmid are talking about the empirical evidence for intrinsic redshift which they all seem to agree they have not quite explained yet. There are over ten years of discussions of the empirical data on "intrinsic redshift" no matter what the 1) explanation or conclusions about whether the "intrinsic redshift" 2) disproves the Big Bang.

So, how could you cut the Bell & McDiarmid citation from intrinsic redshift to redshift quantization over the vehement protests of a lot of people?

I would say there should be a NPOV rule against that edit.

Why do you insist that the Bell & McDiarmid citation could not be on two different Wikipedia pages at the same time? It does not make sense to me. --Rednblu 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

David Russell is not a reliable source per being basically an amateur internet denizen and high school science teacher from Universe Today message board (dgruss) who has managed to publish a third-rate analysis of publically available data that is quaint but not to the level of what is suggested by Arp and others who discuss intrinsic redshift. However, this sort of evaluation is lost on most of the pseudoscience POV-pushers as it is lost on you, being an amateur looking from the outside in.

The Bell & McDiarmid paper is about their particular theoretical form, but its principle analysis is of redshift quantization. It belongs on the redshift quantization, or if we wish to discuss it on the intrinsic redshift page, it needs to be clarified in the article. Simply including it as a resource to an article that doesn't mention it is unreasonable.

So the big issue is that you did not do the research necessary to back-up your assertion. Yet, as typical of your more-holier-than-thou attitude, you fail to admit this. I say this with as much genorosity as I can muster, but I do find your position to be very arrogant.

--ScienceApologist 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I acknowledge your generosity of spirit even engaging with this--

I am not even saying that you are wrong.

Notwithstanding your being right in what you say, for the good of Wikipedia and NPOV, I am saying there should be a law prohibiting this edit.

For example, the three 2005 publications on "intrinsic redshift" in the journal of Astrophysics and Space Science should provide a safe harbor for protecting that NPOV from being ripped out by this edit--Oswego Free Academy, as you note, notwithstanding.

I am sure we would both agree which side has the power and money. But the challenge here on Wikipedia is "representing significant views fairly and without bias"--which is quite different from selecting whom to cite in an NSF grant proposal. And I understand that the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV invites any of us quick-thinking game players to rip out the NPOV that we think is insignificant and passé. That is why I say that there should be an explicit NPOV law that prohibits this edit. In the interests of NPOV, I would want you to stop me if I did that edit.

And that is just my opinion, I agree. --Rednblu 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with your didactism above is your insistence that these references are somehow "significant views". I don't think you realize how bizarre it is to consider David Russell as somehow having a "significant view". The basic problem with these articles is that they ignore the "significance" of the windmills at which they are attempting to tilt. To be perfectly honest, a truly NPOV treatment of these subjects would involve spamming them with tutorials about modern cosmology in every single article: swamping the material with standard explanations until it is shown to have the insignificance it enjoys in the field. That would be the most honest way to deal with these insignificant points. However, there is carefully constructed prose in NPOV that prohibits such a realization (for better or worse). This is the accomodationist spirit of Wikipedia, that we only accept direct and not indirect criticism of minority opinions on their own pages. There is no carte blanche for the minority to have ownership of certain pet articles. It is fully appropriate for me and other editors to resist the efforts by project (if not article) POV-pushers to build superstructures that either unwittingly or intentionally attempt to make is seem like there is a significance beyond the marginalization of these subjects. --ScienceApologist 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good analysis, my friend. And along that line, I think the whole controversy here is over what "significant views" means. If I may follow the inquiry you suggest for a bit, I would say that the whole Wikipedia community--not a localized battle of editors--should establish the standard for what "significant views" means. Maybe there should be a constantly updated Wikipedia poll on what every active editor in Wikipedia thinks "significant views" means. And if the result of that ConstantlyUpdatedWikipediaPoll would be that "significant views" means publication quality for next month's PhysRev, then I would not complain.

Wouldn't it be a good idea for there to be a statement of some rule as to what "significant views" means so that you and I would not have to keep beating back the barbarians that insert "insignificant views"? But the difficulty, it seems to me, would be for the rule on what "significant views" means to be established by some consensus mechanism that Wikipedia editors would generally consider to be "legitimate" and "acceptable."

Would you agree that the entirety of this controversy here comes down to standards for what "significant views" means? --Rednblu 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Determining significance is important, but I think that we are going to have to look at expert retetention as the key to this determination. It is very difficult to place an objective standard on the proceses of what makes an idea significant. It has to be beyond simple publication quality or journal inclusion because there are different publications for different purposes and insignificant papers are published all the time. A really out-there speculative publication about an alternative to inflation may be publishable on PhysRev, but it may not (and probably won't) rise to the notability required for any coverage in Wikipedia whatsoever. User:Sdedeo was the first Wikipedian to point this out, so let's call it the Dedeo Inequality: just because something is published doesn't mean that it is significant. This is, again, a problem we have at Wikipedia: as the content gets more and more savvy we're going to have to abandon the first checks we do to determine the type of treatment something deserves. While looking to see whether something is publishable in PhysRev is a good bellwether for cranks, it is a terrible bellwether for how to edit a summative article that's supposed to represent the best approximation of the current understanding of a subject. It is only the first step that is publishing, but once a paper is published that doesn't mean it is suddenly significant. What makes something significant is an attribute akin to the touchy-feely editorial spirit of Wikipedia's consensus; we have an article on the subject: scientific consensus. Determining scientific consensus and significance is simply not done through publication; it's done through being aware of the best standards and practices of the field as well as having your finger on the pulse of the new research. This is a job for experts, not amateurs. We actually need to have expert editorial control in order to determine what is significant and what is insignificant: and we need to have experts that represent the mainstream and not the fringe otherwise Wikipedia will end up with a skewed portrayal of what this consensus is. We don't live in an ideal world, so we can only approximate what the consensus is about these issues, but it is important that we try to do this. We need to or Wikipedia will end up a terrible resource. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Redshift Anomaly

By ScienceApologist about a year ago...

"As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. "--ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

SA's evaluation of Rednblu's comment is not rigorous. He claims that his opinion is reflective of the facts. He says that quantized redshift does not belong in intrinsic redshift. Quantized redshift is evidence of intrinsic redshift, and does in fact belong in intrinsic redshift. Intrinsic redshift is crucial to the big bang theory in that IF there is intrinsic redshift THEN Doppler redshift is questionable. Doppler redshift was just an assumption because at the time it was conceived because there were no other explanations. Hubble honestly said the cause was unknown, i.e., an intrincis redshift. It's the only explanation they could come up with. In other words, according to them. there is no such thing as intrinsic redshift. Quantized redshift, if true, proves there is indeed an intrinsic redshift.

A favored approach of SA is to claim the material belongs in some other section or article. Is it good policy if somethng is out of place, throw it away?? The above paragraph is an example of how adept SA is at twisting the facts around to suit him. All (meaningful) views should go into the article, not just those that SA deems appropriate.

If Joshua Schroeder does in fact work at the Institute of Cosmology, will he lose his job if the big bang theory is shown to be false? Judging from his earlier posts, he apparently edits on company time, and therefore is being paid to edit. If his Institute depends on the big bang theory for sustinance, then does SA edit to save his job? If that is the case, then the problem of "vested interest" arises.

Tommy Mandel 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Point-by-point refutation of Ian Tresman's evidence

This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views as either (a) Insignificant or non-notable, or worse (b) Pseudoscience. This results in the unbalanced "pushing" of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV).

I will remind the readers of this page that Wikipedia had a debate over WP:SPOV. The resolution was, in my estimation, that points-of-view that were not scientific could be described as such according to their own relevance and handled with the appropriate treatment. Articles about pseudoscientific subjects are written to explain the idea and to explain the criticism. Articles about scientific subjects often exclude or minimize the pseudoscientific perspective per undue weight. These two sections of WP:NPOV are what encourage editors who want to conform Wikipedia to the highest comparable standards (e.g. Brittanica) insist upon when pseudoscience supporters like Ian try to manipulate and push their POV.

I agree that there is no place in science article (a) for pseudoscience (b) for any kind of information described in a pseudoscientific manner, ie. failing WP:RS (c) that the mainstream view should be described as such.

Ian very carefully here declares he is not for "pseudoscience". However, what he fails to mention is that fringe minority opinions also generally do not belong in science articles unless the articles are specifically about the fringe opinion per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I note that editors claiming in their original Statement that I push or promote pseudoscience in scientific articles, include (a) ScienceApologist [1] (b) FeloniousMonk [2] [3] [4] (c) Guettarda [5] (d) Joke137 [6] The onus is on them to (a) present evidence from reliable sources (not their opinions), that the subject I am writing about is recognised as pseudoscience (b) Diffs showing that I am "pushing" it as defined in POV pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view".)

I have included in my evidence a primer on the subjects Ian edits about. They range from the pseudoscientific (Electric Universe) to the misapplied mainstream (Wolf Effect).

• Examples of misrepresentation of minority scientific views as pseudoscience (without reliable sources)
• Eric Lerner

The controversy over Eric Lerner is well described on the evidence page. What is clear is that this particular researcher is not well-received by the scientific community. During a debate at Princeton University in the early 1990s, Eric had trouble interpretting or knowing what an "error bar" was. The inability for Eric to engage in rigorous research is documented on his page in the section on reception of his work. Sean Carroll put it best when he described the fact that Eric doesn't really understand general relativity (a necessary starting point for discussing cosmology). There are also issues about Eric's self-promotional activities. He stands to make money if people think he is legitimate and stands to lose money if people think he isn't worth the risk of investment in his outside-the-mainstream ideas.

• Plasma cosmology [7] [8]

Plasma cosmology is poorly considered and basically ignored by the mainstream scientific community. Rocky Kolb pointed out in the 1990s that the work done by plasma cosmology researchers amounts to looking for patterns by eye and matching them to physically unrelated astrophysical phenomena -- akin to looking at swirling in your toilet and concluding that this explains the swirling of spiral galaxies. Very borderline stuff.

Real pseudoscientists like to make absurd analogies such as comparing a galaxy to the spiraling water moving down a toilet. BTW, swirling water down a toilet is the big bang perspective, alternative cosmologies believe the the swirling is UP & OUT, not DOWN & IN. Tommy Mandel 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical of Tommysun, this comment is so ignorant of the issues as to be almost impossible to respond to. For some reason Tommysun has an enormous chip on his shoulder regarding the Big Bang. Maybe he thinks that it is what is standing in the way of science accepting his favorite flight-of-fancy regarding crop circles. I'm not sure what it is, but it's definitely an uneducated and poorly-considered amalgamation of opinion, shoddy research, and innuendo that detracts from discussions regarding the content of the encyclopedia. I try to avoid discussions with him as much as possible for these reasons. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tired light [9]

Most famous for being disproven by Peebles. Those researchers who work on it are generally ignored. Wikipedia should be honest about this.

• Examples of discrediting, or ad hominems against individuals, (without reliable sources). WP:LIVING tells us that "poorly sourced controversial material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages" (WP:NPA does not apply to non-editors, though WP:LIVING implies it should?)

This is an example of Ian's wikilawyering at its best. For a long time Ian thought that describing the work of people pejoratively was unacceptable because of WP:NPA. However, when numerous administrators told him NPA was meant for other users, Ian repositioned his accusations to the tune of WP:LIVING. Unfortunately, for Ian, none of the points he lists apply to this.

• Eric Lerner (a) Removal of awards [10]

Not a problem in removing something that is basically shameless self-promotion (see WP:AUTO) and basically unreferenced. That's not poorly sourced controversial material: that's removal of material! WP:LIVING doesn't cover that.

(b) Discrediting "theories" by calling then "ideas" [11]

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.

(c) Replacing positive reviews with negative ones [12]

For good reason. The positive review of Lerner with the exception of Van Allen were by nonscientists. I replaced them with reviews by scientists. It makes sense to do this because Lerner is talking about a scientific subject.

*Dr. László Körtvélyessy, Removing academic credentials "physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences." [13], changing his speciality to "self described"[14]

Gave this one up a long time ago. Basically, it's nearly impossible to determine independently what Körtvélyessy's credentials are as he is sequestered in Hungary and isn't actively pushing his stuff out on the world anymore. Independent verification of this person is nearly impossible. Nobody cares about him except for himself.

• Ricardo Carezani, Labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Ricardo Carezani as well-known Woo-Woos" [15]

These two are notorious for their half-baked ideas and the amateur anti-banger's fondness for promoting of their tired light suggestions. I'm sorry that people who are outside the mainstream doing shoddy research are not held in high regard by most scientists. However, I've never editted any article to say that these scientists are woo-woos. I just offered my opinion on the matter.

• Halton Arp, Suggesting his "pathological skepticism" [16]

Interesting, didn't Ian claim I was a pathological skeptic? I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

• Tom van Flandern "out-and-out insane" [17]

Unforunetely, Van Flandern became more and more unstable as time went on and his ideas steadily deteriorated into absurdity. The man apparently suffers from paranoid delusions and was dismissed from his post at a university, in part, because of it. Now, this I would never put in the article about the subject because it is proprietary (though somewhat well-known) knowledge. Every community has its people who go off the deep-end. Van Flandern happens to be one of them in astrophysics. There's a Salon.com article about the subject.

• User:Iantresman (me!): my "close-minded ignorance" [18]

I stand by this accusation with the evidence I outlined.

• not to "be a dick" [19]

I still wish he would abide by this. Nevertheless...

I am "very incompetent in this regard",[20]

Yep, Ian is pretty incompetent when it comes to evaluating physics. He's very good at using search engines though.

I am an "avowed Velikovskian"[21]

Well, as he is a member of a catastrophism society and a publisher of their work, it's pretty hard to say otherwise.

I am a "nonscientist layman" [22]

Ian hasn't denied this.

I am an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" [23]

Actually true.

I actually have a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, and a Masters degree in Computer Sciences; while they are over 20 years old, I'm not unfamiliar with the academia.

I'm glad Ian is not unfamiliar with the academy and has a Bachelor's degree in chemistry. Ian is unfamiliar with scientific discourse in the subjects he edits, obviously and is not a professional scientist or academic. Too bad he doesn't edit chemistry or computer science articles, eh? This is important: Ian is not a bad contributor to Wikipedia. In fact, many of his images are very nice and I'm glad that he has helped out. However, his choice of how to be an editor causes a lot of problems. If he would stick to the subjects he's trained in, this might bode well for his Wikipedian experience. There is a reason that experts edit the articles they are expert in and not other articles. It may be time for Wikipedia to acknowledge this.

• Examples of RfD or blanking entire article: Intrinsic redshift with no discussion [24], RfD [25] Subsequent blanking a rewriting [26]

Articles needed to be rewritten or deleted from time to time. This article is much better than it was before. I stand by my rewriting and the AfD which is always about getting community consensus, and unless is tendentiously repetitive is never a problematic thing to do.

• Examples of discrediting individuals, or minority scientific views by association with claimed pseudoscience (eg. Creation science, Geocentrism, Velikovsky), with no reliable sources:
• The Electric Universe (book): "The book includes ideas culled from a variety of sources from those interested in plasma cosmology to Velikovsky"[27]

This is true. I've read the book. However, I abandonded this issue quite some time ago.

• Redshift quantization: Association with Creationism and geocentrism, [28]

Verified and true.

• Plasma Universe: "the term "Plasma Universe" [includes] fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions.. "[29]

There are fringe science and pseudoscience suggestions in "Plasma Universe". It's as simple as that.

*Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science", [30]

True, but difficult to verify as most cosmologists ignore/are unaware of the subjects today. Anyway, we came to an excellent compromise on this topic to deal with the subject from the historical rather than contemporary perspective. Much improved treatment, I'd say.

• Dusty plasma: Mis-association with "electric universe" and bias against "Plasma universe" book. See section "Inappropriate" [31]

Dusty plasmas are a subject studied by mostly by people who have never heard of the Plasma Universe. It is inappropriate to include a Perrat daydream in the list of references, but I'm not really involved in this one.

• Examples of use of the Weasel word phrase "The (mainstream) scientific community"[32], when there is no reliable source supporting this view, nor indicating the proportion of the scientific community that is even familiar with a subject.

• Redshift quantization: "the consensus in the astronomical community"[33]

Described in the primer. Consensus is culled from papers on redshift correlations, not on the papers Ian likes to research.

• Eric Lerner: "regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community"[34]
• Plasma universe: "considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified."[35]

Pseudoscience may be a bit harsh, but isn't too far off. It is generally considered that Alfvén's cosmology is falsified by most people who study cosmology and know about it.

• Pseudoscience: "Fields considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" (User:FeloniousMonk) [36], (User:KillerChihuahua) [[37]], (user:Jefffire) [38] [39], (user:Jim62sch) [40]

This is a difficult one. Most of the pseudosciences are ignored by scientific groups and so these facts are nearly impossible to verify. Ian's criticism is premature at best and definitely inappropriately motivated.

• Examples of POV-pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."), in this case the mainstream scientific point of view.
• Redshift: Removal of alternative redshift theories, [41], even from "See also" links, [42] (Only redshift-like optical phenomenon are included)

Deservedly so-removed per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

• Galaxy rotation curve (showing only one alternative POV) [43]

Only MOND alternative is well-known and notable.

• Examples of mis-using Undue weight against significant minority scientific views.
• Redshift, Near exclusion of Wolf effect (a type of redshift, see article for notability and references) [44] [45], [46], yet, the original paper on the Wolf Effect is cited over 100 times.[47], Prof. Daniel James confirms there have been over 100 papers on the topic [48]

Absolutely appropriate. The suggestion that the Wolf Effect caused the intrinsic redshift in quasars is not taken seriously any more because intrinsic redshift isn't taken seriously. A real effect, a curiousity, but not worthy of much discussion on an article written seriously about redshift.

• Examples of over-riding information from reliable sources without providing own sources (ie. unsubstantiated opinion):

• Wolf effect: ScienceApologist (writing as Joshuaschroeder) personally disagrees that the Wolf effect is a redshift, and provides no verification.[49] [50] [51], yet, sources describe the Wolf Effect as (A) "a new redshift mechanism" (See article, first sentence), (B) "Doppler like" (ie. like a Doppler redshift, see article, first quote). (C) As a "redshift"... confirmed by author-come-Wiki-editor (Dfvjames) Prof. Dan James,[52] author of several peer reviewed papers on the subject,[53] (D) As a "Redshift" (see article refs [54]) by the person who predicted and effect, Prof. Emil Wolf [55] (E) By other peer reviewed researchers see article refs [56])

Well described in the primer. The Wolf Effect occurs, but it doesn't occur like other redshifts. It is fundamentally different. We had an RfC, mediation, and many other discussion over this and now our article describes it better than pratically any other source I know on the subject.

• Wolf effect: Removing an image based on a peer-reviewed illustration,[57]) claiming: (a) Image removed claimed "because it is inaccurate"[58] (b) Claimed in violation of WP:V [59], or (c) "Claimed the image is included is a bad one"[60] (d) Put up for deletion, without explanation, [61]

The image is a bit misleading because it de-emphasizes the difference between the effect and the Doppler redshift. However, I am not too upset by it because the text explains the problems well.

• Examples of biased editing, and not providing reliable sources on request:
• Timeline of cosmology, this edit [62] (a) removes two entries that are both verifiable, but described as "inaccurate" (b) changes one entry to read "now-discounted concept". This is biased because there are no other entries on the page described as "now-discounted" (even though there are others), and several requests for a reliable source confirming (i) the original inaccuracies (ii) confirming the discounted theory, have not been forthcoming. See Talk section "Discounted Ambiplasma theory"

What's amazing about this characterization is that Ian was seriously claiming that ambiplasma, an idea that any introductory text in cosmology that mentions the subject can verify as being currently discounted, was not discounted! This is one of the more absurd assertions Ian has made in his time here.

*Wolf effect, in the section "Wolf effect and Quasars", this edit [63] removes a quote taken from a reliable source (beginning: ".. the observed spectral shifts may be due to other causes has been a subject of intense controversy .. "), and replaces it with a speculative version (in the introduction, ".. apparently a reference to the controversies"), that has no citations, and presents a mainstream view as fact.

Problem with using out-of-date quotes. There is no intense controversy anymore.

• Redshift: I requested a source for a statement which I believe to be contrived,[64], but I contend that the reference provided (to three books, no page numbers, nor quotes),[65] is too vague. However, after several requests [66] for a specific quote, none are forthcoming, and I've provided my own specific quotes which are ignored.

The source is provided and conforms to the standards currently being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal. This is basically sour grapes.

• Examples of suppression, and double standards, all in Redshift quantization:
• Suppression of peer reviewed material: Removal of quote claimed not to be peer reviewed,[67], removal of positive parts of peer reviewed quote,[68], removal of peer reviewed positive quote (see "Hodge concluded .."), [69]

The article is much more accurate and neutral than it was before. Trying to pepper redshift quantization with insistences of the few that it proves intrinsic redshifts is an example of POV-pushing.

*Double standards: Inclusion of material from self-published sources on Creationism, Geocentrism,[70]

This is verifiable fact and is the place where, conceivably, most people who are aware of this will have heard about this.

*... and consequently drawing conclusions after suppression of papers above, see "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence.." (because the two papers providing evidence have been removed), and "consequently most cosmologists dispute .." [71] (which one or two papers do not support).

The papers are not "surpressed", the (barely) active dialogue which is overtly negative towards two research groups is decidedly opposed to this interpretation. Trying to push just the papers published by these groups is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I've added my own emphases:

• "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..."(Undue_weight)

Many of Ian's most favorite sources are less than reliable because they are fringe or competely removed from the scientific community.

• "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"(Fairness_of_tone)

Every hypothesis is treated equally in science. Since science is about the process of falsifiability, it is proper and right to show where theories are falsified. This isn't about describing a 50/50 political debate, it's about describing WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and fringe science in terms of the mainstream.

• "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"(NPOV on minority views)

This is what I am trying to do.

So why are some editors trying to exclude minority views?

WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

--ScienceApologist 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang is the real pseudoscience

I am glad that pseudoscience was brought to my attention.

And sanity in science, according to Korzybski, the general semanticist, is observing first and abstracting second. Unsane science, he says, is to abstract first, then observe. The big bang theory is based on assumptions, abstractions, which observations are then fitted to.

I don't believe that the term pseudoscience applies here as it intended. Pseudoscience is a claim to be science but not using the scientific method. Technically it is an opinion masquerading as fact. Plasma cosmology may or may not be fraught with errors, but being wrong does not make it pseudoscientific. That fact that an error was found fulfills the scientific requirement.

To label it as pseudoscientific is what a clever pseudoscientist would do.

I contend that it is the Big Bang theory that is pseudoscientific. It is based on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect, and it is only an opinion that this assumed velocity component indicates expansion.(which Hubble did not share, but SA says that is irelevant) And it is also an assumption that expansion in reverse must mean it expanded from a point in the past. And it is an assumption that the beginning had to begin at this point in time and space. These assumptions are the abstractions, then come the observations selected to fit.

But observations didn't fit, and in order to make them fit, the Universe had to be everywhere to start. So how do you get from a point to everywhere? Inflation, not of matter, but of space. Inflation is an abstraction to make the theory fit the observations. (Interestingly, the boudary between Inflation of the physical world as we know it is plasma.) But instead of developing the plasma aspect, the remainder of big bang cosmology is based on gravitational effects. And because it based on gravity, the anomalous galaxy rotation speeds give rise to a strange yet unseen Dark Matter. And the tremendous outflowing matter from galaxies gave rise to a unseen Black hole, which in the popular press is proved whenever there is outflowing matter. And the expanding Universe gives rise to Dark Energy. Not only abstractions, but dark, black, invisible abstracting.

Seems to me that these are the kinds of things real pseudoscientists claim...Creation from nothing, Inflation faster that anything, expansion via invisible Dark Energy.

Tom Van Flandern? I wonder if you really can dis Tom Van Flandern as you do above. It seems to me that you are the unsane one here, given your abstract then observe position, I have found Tom to be very sensible,[[72]] far more sensible than you SA. Can't you get sued for what you said about Tom, SA? I know, you had me blocked twice for threatening you legally, so I am not threatening you again, but if this were the real world you would be sued.

At any rate, I tangled with Tom, something about how so much of science is a lie, which, unfortunately, I found to be true far too often.

I had written: "And it is really sad that I have to add, "please tell the truth" ... lies cover the truth up"

And this was Tom's reply:

In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals.

Communication between mature adults, at least about intellectual matters, is supposed to maintain respect for the opinions of others, even though you may realize that in the real world people have interests that sometimes compete with their interest in pure truth. They may have been raised with religious beliefs. They may have a job in the field and their income depends on support for certain paradigms. They may need to curry favor with other influential people.

But you can save your breath and energy unless you just enjoy tilting at windmills. The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life. -|Tom|-"

I don't know what to say. Everyone says it is much better to be a nice guy. But does that work when only one party is being nice? I don't know, in the animal world, they go for the jugular vein right away. and in a sense, that is what Joshua Schroeder does. Witness his dismissal of Tom Van Flandern by generalizations without any specific evidence. Dismissal, hardly , he was going for the jugular vein. Maybe it is the mature adults part...

Joshua Schroeder, did I spell your name right, are you being paid by your Institute of Cosmology for editing here? What are your working hours? Just curious...

Tommy Mandel 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to stop by my office hours and chat, that would be fine. We do live in the same city, after all. Send me an e-mail and we'll arrange it. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The arbitrators are unlikey to rule on content issues, such as whether the Big Bang happened or not. They are much more likely to deal with editor's behavior problems (if any) so a refocusing of the evidence page and some fresh evidence of behavior, rather than content problems, will probably be helpful. Thatcher131 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

comment on the confusion between "pseudoscience" and minority POV

On the Evidence page I noticed the remark:

how can these users coherently oppose "pseudoscience" on Wikipedia when they clearly do not understand what it is, and have no apparent interest in being properly educated regarding it?

Coincidentily I am just now confronted with the following persistent misunderstanding by ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk. On the Pseudoscience project page I recently noticed a confusion between fringe science (= minority scientific POV) and pseudoscience (= fake science) that I had overlooked and which goes as follows:

For NPOV compliance, there are several guidelines that must be respected: [...] * Clearly and prominently note points of disagreement between the pseudoscientific theory and mainstream science. * Cite sources, and clearly acknowledge mainstream reputability or disreputability of sources cited.

The instruction first of all misunderstands the scope of "NPOV compliance", but more seriously, it contrasts pseudoscience with mainstream science and implants the suggestion that mainstream is either "correct" or even "NPOV". Of course, as also the Wikipedia article explains, in reality pseudoscience is at odds with the scientific method, and thus to be contrasted with science instead of with a POV, even if the most popular POV.

My recent edit [73] "(some improvements: more neutral formulation and scrap "mainstream" which confuses fringe science with pseudoscience)" was reverted by ScienceApologist as well as FeloniousMonk who amazingly gave as motivation: "rv for non-neutral language Wikiprojects are not for one-sided advocacy". For the current discussion, see [74]

I won't need to stress that such misunderstandings and mix-ups on an instruction page cannot but cause problems elsewhere. ScienceApologists insistance on keeping that misleading text as it is may be taken as indirect evidence of misapplication of WP:NPOV. Harald88 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on mutual fact suppressions

On both sides criticism is expressed that the other side suppresses notable facts (see for example Bubba73 and Rednblu). Indeed I also was now and then in the clinch with ScienceApostle because I found certain peer reviewed opinions notable enough for inclusion in an article about the same subject while he disagreed and attempted to delete them [75].

The examples by Bubba73 and Rednblu taken together seem to indicate that editors should in general be a little more tolerant of inclusions of facts by others.

Interestingly, ScienceApostle and I agree that a good way is to put a less important POV or side issue on a separate page, with a simple link from the main article - if I remember well, something of the kind was even his proposal, and such an approach may solve part of the editing disputes that are still going on if it is at least a guideline.

However, ScienceApostle went as far as deleting verifiable WP:V statements and replacing them by unverified statements in order to even suppress traces of minority POV's from articles, such as here: [76], see also [77]. Such edits go against making a reliable and informative encyclopedia.

IMO it would be helpful for reducing such counterproductive disputes by improving the guidelines on how to make articles better verifiable as well as how to avoid unnecessary fact suppression [78].

In summary, overall I think with Rednblu that ScienceApostle is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but his editing (as well as that of some others) is often needlessly destructive while he appeals to what he claims to be policy. I hope that this arbitration can help to clarify this important issue. Harald88 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind

The topic of this RFA is the actions of the named editors.

This RFA will not decide, or attempt to decide, which (if any) cosmology theories are pseudoscientific.

What matters is:

• Were edits, or editors, disruptive?
• Are sources reliable?

Arguments that one cosmology or another is pseudoscience, are irrelevant.

--EngineerScotty 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Academia

Asmodeus says that "Sure, there's no logical connection between truth and academic credentials". That simply isn't true; there is a logical connection between an environment that encourages and demands study, that provides time for study, that provides a well-stocked library in many cases numbering more than a million books and continuing to collect the latest research, that provides money for trips to study on location or tools need to do studies, and finding the truth. Academia also attracts the most intelligent and most curious.

Mathematics can be done with notepad and paper in the spare time; and yet it's still true that very few mathematicians are separate from academia, and even Srinivasa Ramanujan tried to join academia to work with fellow minds. People working on mathematics without connections to academia are notorious for ignoring or despising long-known results, and producing garbage or trivia. I can't imagine how biological or astronomic studies could be done by someone without access to the laboratories that academia or at least academic credentials provide access to.

Yes, academia sometimes pressures those within it to conform to orthodox opinions, and results have been known to come from those excluded from academia. But that same force also frequently excludes people who would disregard any degree of evidence and follow whatever ideas their biases, hopes, illusions or insanities would give them. Without some form of academic truth, there would be little way for anyone to seperate the kooks and the outdated theories from actual theories plausible in the light of today's evidence.--Prosfilaes 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hi, Prosfilaes. By "logical connection", I mean a necessary connection such that high levels of expertise are always associated with academic credentials. No such connection exists. And as you forthrightly admit, "academia pressures those within it to conform to orthodox opinions." This means that mistakes and oversights can propagate throughout academia by coercion. Accordingly, academics are not always fit to judge whether any particular idea or theory is "garbage or trivia".

By the way, are you an academic? That might help explain your professed inability to imagine that "biological or astronomic studies could be done by someone without access to the laboratories that academia or at least academic credentials provide access to." In fact, many new and interesting astronomical objects have been discovered by amateurs, and theoretical biology can be done by anyone with access to experimental data. One can own a good telescope, and access publicly funded experimental data, without benefit of academic credentials.

Similarly, saying that "very few mathematicians are separate from academia" is to make an unverified statistical assertion. The same is true of any statement to the effect that nonmembership in academia is causally (as opposed to statistically) related to bad mathematics. As long as textbooks and other sources of knowledge are available to the general public, members of the public are free to acquire and extend the knowledge contained therein.

You assert that academia provides an environment "that encourages and demands study, that provides time for study, that provides a well-stocked library in many cases numbering more than a million books and continuing to collect the latest research, that provides money for trips to study on location or tools need to do studies, and finding the truth. Academia also attracts the most intelligent and most curious."

Academia only provides these things for people who can stomach its general modus operandi, and even more importantly, have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay its fees. Trust me, there are countless intelligent, knowledgable people out there who fail to meet one or both of these criteria. To insist that serious ideas become notable and verifiable only after appearing in the chatter of those who can meet both of these criteria would be to commit a grave injustice against the vast majority of bright, inquisitive people.

The message for Wikipedia is obvious: because the link between academia and knowledge has nothing to do with logical or causal necessity, but is clearly circumstantial in nature, academic credentials and opinions cannot be rationally enshrined as parameters of notability or verifiability, particularly by an encyclopedia which claims to be tapping into the knowledge of the general public. Asmodeus 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The importance of academia isn't an absolute, granted. Rubbish frequently comes out of academia (though in the sciences, academia is rather good at detection and correction); and new discoveries often come from outside it (though the primary non-academic vehicle is industry, and academia and industry frequently cooperate these days). It is rare, however, for the lone theorist working outside of academia to produce theories of value--I've encountered (and endured) many cranks in my life who thought their envelope-scratchings to be profound, and academia's utter disregard for them to be proof positive of academia's maliase or corruption. In reality, such cranks were promoting ideas which were studied and (usually) discarded by academia years ago. More to the point for Wikipedia: it is sufficiently rare for scientific discoveries to come from outside of either academia or industry, that Wikipedia is more than justified in ignoring claims from scientists who operate outside either sphere. At least in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

To put it another way. Lone scientists have, over the past century, failed to produce. Consistently. The academy and all its apparatus, OTOH, has consistently produced useful results. Thus, Wikipedia is correct to ignore lone scientists, absent evidence to the contrary. Self-publication is not evidence to the contrary.

Unfair? Perhaps. But we're writing an encyclopedia here. If you have a clever idea that you think merits attention from others, go prove it. Here is not the place to do so.

--EngineerScotty 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hi, EngineerScotty. You say "it is sufficiently rare for scientific discoveries to come from outside of either academia or industry, that Wikipedia is more than justified in ignoring claims from scientists who operate outside either sphere."

The problem with that statement is more than obvious to any non-academic: it's an unverified statement of academic opinion. Even if it could be verified (without appealing to Fallacy 1), there is an appreciable likelihood that the supposed rarity of nonacademic discoveries owes to the fact that academia has managed to arrogate all of the available public attention for such discoveries, thus (in effect) diverting attention and notability away from the discoveries of non-academics.

Uh, no. You don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. In the context of Wikipedia, the onus is always on the supporter of a claim to prove that the claim is verifiable and relevant. Academia has repeatedly demonstrated that it can produce results. So has industry. Outside of those two, who else has? Wikipedia doesn't have to prove that among the legions of failed dreamers, crackpots, and other assorted self-appointed geniuses, there exists nothing useful. Those who come from the field of dreamers, etc. need to demonstrate that their stuff is noteworthy before it gets included in Wikipedia.

Since this unjust situation effectively hamstrings the "lone scientists" of whom you seem so contemptuous, it isn't quite fair to claim that these scientists haven't made significant contributions, or aren't intellectually capable of contributing to the body of scientific knowledge if given the chance. All you can really say is that you and your friends are attempting to deny them that opportunity, e.g., right here in Wikipedia.

Exactly. It isn't fair--but guess what? Tough shit. It ain't Wikipedia's problem. We do not exist so that failed dreamers, crackpots, and other self-appointed geniuses finally have a forum to publish their theories in a forum alongside the same academics and industrial types who have been busily "suppressing" the works of FD/C/SAGs. We exist to report on the state of the field as is known to reliable sources. And if a particular failed dreamer, crackpot, or self-appointed genius doesn't merit attention elsewhere, he/she doesn't merit attention here. This is long-standing policy.

Now, Plasma cosmology has enough adherents that it probably merits mention in Wikipedia; though not at the same level of other hypotheses which are more highly regarded.

By the way, if you think that this isn't the case, then the burden is on you to prove that there is in fact a necessary logical or causal connection between academia and truth and/or intellectual ability. The smart money is overwhelmingly against you on that. Asmodeus 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never asserted that there is a connection between academia and truth or intellectual ability. I've merely asserted that there is a connection between academia and industry, and achievement of significant scientific results. Virtually all of the scientific advancements have come from one of these two--I suppose I should throw in government/military research programs as well, to the extent that those are separate from academia and industry. If you wish to advance the case that "lone gunmen" are a reliable source for scientific knowledge, you need to prove it. And demonstrating it for one lone gunman doesn't demonstrate it for the whole lot.

Unfair? Certainly. But again, tough. We don't exist to right great wrongs; and we don't exist to provide a forum for those who don't merit attention in other forums.

That's just the way Wikipedia works, and should work.

--EngineerScotty 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the burden on him is not to prove that there's a logical or casual connection. All we need is a statistical connection. Again, Ramanujan is the great example of a non-academic mathematican, and he was (a) welcomed with open arms to Cambridge, and (b) went to Cambridge. It's easy to make conspiracy theories about academia, but you've provided no evidence to indicate that this is going on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place to put original research. If you've original research, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. I see no way that the average person, the average genius even, can be expected to weigh an book on a subject they are unfamiliar with, which is why peer-review is so important.--Prosfilaes 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that there are few mathematicians outside of academia is "an unverified statistical assertion", which strikes me as as an evasive way to avoid disagreeing with it. The reason I brought up Ramanujan is because he is known as the one exception in modern times as to mathematicans coming from academia. (As Enginner Scotty says, there's quite a bit of interesting work coming from industry, but it's virtually all from people with degrees and a lot of it feeds back into the academic journals, many of which are heavily subscribed to by industry.)

I seriously doubt that the price of college is an issue for many in the first world. Anyone with the intelligence who was semi-diligent in pre-college education can get grants to pay for most to all of college in the US, and those who slacked off in high school, or didn't have the test scores, can get school loans to cover college. This is the anti-socalist US; I believe most of Europe will completely cover most student costs (e.g. Dutch universities. The people who have to work two jobs to feed their family may not have that chance, but they likely don't have the time to do independent research.

There may be countless intelligent, knowledgable people out there, but the number of people willing to sit down and do intensive intellectual study is much fewer. Academia makes it their job, which tends to work. I know a number of intelligent, knowledgable people, but I don't know a single one that does serious study outside of an academic environment, besides possibly me. They spend their time on TV, or games, or movies, or family, or the Internet.--Prosfilaes 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hello again, fellas. I take it that you're among the small but vocal minority which complains that Wikipedia's most serious problem is a vast legion of cranks, quacks and crackpots trying to use it to foist their insane ideas on an unwitting public. My response: for obvious reasons, "insane ideas" tend to lack notability. The vast majority of them have no citations in the mass media or in scholarly journals. Therefore, they already can't get into Wikipedia, and it is unnecessary to wail and gnash one's teeth over it.

Among other problems, yes. Most serious problem? Probably not; constant POV-pushing by political operatives, and spotty coverage in general, are probably worse. But Wikipedia does attract cranks--as did Usenet and many other open fora before. Note I am not making any conclusions in this matter regarding the instant arbitration case; as I'm not an expert in either physics or astronomy, I'm not qualified to speak on this subject. --EngineerScotty 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about the determination or modification of policy (which is what this RfArb is about). Again, if you want to modify Wikipedia policy so that only academics can deem an idea notable, and only academic journals are accepted for purposes of verification, then you need to explain why. To do that, you need to demonstrate a logical or causal connection between academic credentials, truth, and intellectual excellence. Otherwise, all you have is a statistical, circumstantial connection to which exceptions may in fact occur.

RfArb is primarily about the determination and modification of user behavior. It is a judicial and not a legislative body. It does not set policy; policy comes from the community (per WP:POLICY) or from the Wikimedia Foundation and its officers.

And regarding "modifying" policy, you might go check out WP:ATT; a major modification of the sourcing policy which is under discussion. But, at any rate, Wikipedia policy is what it's users say it is, and currently policy says that things must be attributed to reliable sources. Self-published sources are seldom considered reliable; peer-reviewed journals virtually always are. That's current policy and practice here; not something new that I or anyone else wants to ram through.

Any sound, rational policy makes room for exceptions. Otherwise, exceptions can cause it to fail. That's why it's a good idea for Wikipedia to use reputable mass media sources for verification and proof of notability, as it currently purports to do. But unfortunately, some of the editors trusted to implement this policy haven't yet managed to get with the program. Instead, they attack anything that hasn't yet appeared in academic journals as "non-notable", apparently believing either that academia has all the answers, or that even if it doesn't, nobody will ever know the difference. That's a very interesting thesis, and it no doubt merits debate. But it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, deserve to be enshrined as policy.

I'm unaware of any non-academic, reputable mass-media sources which are at issue, at least in this present arbitration. Nobody seems to be arguing that plasma cosmology is non-notable and shouldn't merit mention in Wikipedia; rather, the argument concerns how it should be presented in relation to other cosmologies, in particular Big Bang, which seems to enjoy the most support among mainstream scientists.

Now let's talk about this statement: "Anyone with intelligence who is semi-diligent in pre-college education can get grants to pay for most to all of college in the US, and those who slacked off in high school, or didn't have the test scores, can get school loans to cover college." Unfortunately, the grants available to most students are barely a drop in the bucket against the total cost of a college education, high test scores notwithstanding. And as far as student loans are concerned, why on earth should any intelligent, self-motivated person incur a mountain of debt to get a higher education, when he or she can simply buy or borrow a few good textbooks and master their contents at home?

The issue isn't mastering content. The issue is performing research. Ignoring things like math, logic, or philosophy--which are largely intellectual pursuits which can be done in one's head--cutting edge research in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc. requires laboratory resources which simply aren't found in your kitchen or garage. The places such resources are found are universities, industrial research labs, and other large institutions which can afford these sorts of things. Even someone like Eric Lerner, who is a serious scientists, has trouble gaining access to these things.

In math or CS, significant results have been achieved outside the normal channels--but it eventually gets published in, or at least referred to by, reliable sources. Academia isn't inherently hostile to research done outside its auspicies; it merely finds that most of it isn't worth much.

The answer, of course, is just this: one goes for the degree because one wants to make money. But this leads to a couple of obvious questions: (1) What does anyone's desire to make money have to do with the worth, notability, and verifiability of anybody else's intellectual productions? (2) Why is a small but highly vocal subset of Wikipedians trying to make sure that no theory or idea qualifies as notable or verifiable without being published in the restricted, profit-oriented academic journals used by academics to hold onto their publish-or-perish jobs, qualify for academic promotions, and win honoraria for which only academics are eligible?

There are many reasons to pursue a degree besides money. Access to academic research facilities are one thing. Again, it may seem unfair, but a university is well within its rights to demand that your name end with "Ph. D", or be enrolled there as a student, before it lets you use its research facilities.

Here's a reality check regarding academic credentials: they don't mean what they used to. Not only have they been massively devalued by the vast number of mediocre intellects to whom they've been indiscriminately awarded, but there are now many PhD's who make their livings selling ads, driving limos, and flipping burgers, bitter over having wasted years of their lives and vast sums of their money on what now looks to them like a glorified pyramid scheme. This trend makes advanced degrees an increasingly shaky investment, and under those circumstances, it is simply ridiculous to maintain that notability should be strictly reserved for the ideas of people reckless enough to purchase them.

Whatever. Notability is often achieved by working in industry, and industrial research programs are often less picky about degrees. They do, however, demand to see results. Someone who sits and home and tells people how clever they are, but has no results to show for it, isn't likely to find a research position in industry, either.

There's no doubt that there are many smart people in academia. However, it is equally true that there are many smart people outside of academia. The notion that every single one of them is too busy watching TV and playing games to be capable of profound original thought is not only one of the goofiest ideas I've ever heard, but its utterance is something of which no self-respecting academic would ever be guilty. Asmodeus 08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the rub. Occasionally, people outside academia do come up with interesting results. But. It gets published. Or referred to. People who produce truly interesting results don't need to come to Wikipedia whining about how unfair the edifice of academia is. Their work is mentioned in Wikipedia without their participation. The inventor of the wiki also is credited with (among others) a software engineering methodology known as extreme programming. All of the initial development of this paradigm was done on a wiki, among an informal group of non-academic programmers. However, academia and industry both took notice, and now XP is a subject of much formal study. There is no doubt that XP is notable; as it is described in published reliable sources independent of its creators.

Subjects which are only described in self-published materials, however, are original research and do not merit publication here. Again, this is longstanding policy, and not something that we're trying to invent as part of this RFArb.

--EngineerScotty 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: I agree with most of what you write, with a few exceptions. I'll allow that technically, the ArbCom does not set policy; however, it determines the proper interpretation of policy, and its determinations are cited right along with policy by editors and administrators trying to justify their actions in a wide variety of related situations. So it's clearly to everybody's advantage to make sure that the ArbCom is well-enough informed to make robust decisions that apply over the full range of contexts in which they will be cited. In particular, participants in an RfA can bring up other situations which, while differing somewhat from the case under consideration, resemble it enough to be of help in clarifying relevant issues or revealing troublesome patterns of behavior.

As it happens, I know of at least one other situation in which some of those involved in this RfA denied that reputable mass-media sources can confer notability on a theory or idea. Specifically, they claimed that only mainstream academic journals are sufficiently reputable and relevant to make a certain philosophical theory notable, in the process asserting that ideas which have not appeared in what they consider to be the right journals should not be the topics of Wikipedia articles. (They also misclassified the theory as "pseudoscience" and tried to claim that it was mentioned by the mass media only because of its author's high IQ.) This, of course, is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and what it establishes is this: when certain people involved in this RfA want to get rid of an idea they haven't heard of, don't like, or don't fully understand, they don't let Wikipedia policy stand in their way. Instead, they interpret policy in a tortured manner that distorts it beyond recognition and causes it to fail. Since these people have bent or broken the rules in the past, it is possible that they've done so here as well.

You say that except for abstraction-intensive fields like math, logic, and philosophy, the issue isn't mastering content, but performing research. I'll agree that if one is an experimentalist in a field of empirical science, one is likely to need regular access to expensive equipment under academic or corporate control. But given that research is an interplay of theory and observation, there's still room for theory. Sometimes theory outpaces experiment, and the labs play catch-up; sometimes it's the other way around, and it's the experimentalists who publish their results and wait around for the theorists. These lags may be embarrassing, but they make it very clear that theorists don't need constant access to lab equipment. Thus, while universities may be within their rights to demand university credentials of experimentalists using their facilities, they have no right to make demands of any unaffiliated theorist working to explain the data thereby generated. It's open season on the data, and if any non-academic theorist can defy the odds and get some media attention for his work, then that's it...it's notable, and academia can only read or watch it and weep...or not, as it likes.

You assert that people who produce truly interesting results don't need to complain in Wikipedia about the unfairness of academia, because if their work is truly interesting, it automatically becomes notable. If only that were always true! In fact, history shows that academia sometimes misses a beat or two, letting a great idea collect dust for many years before accidentally stumbling across it again and wondering how they all avoided trippiing over it in the dark (Galois theory, for example). Part of the problem is that academia is in many ways a closed shop, and like any exclusive club, it is capable of utterly ignoring what goes on in the outside world. That's great for professional academics; it lets them immerse themselves in their own work with minimal distraction. But what it doesn't let them do is trivialize the ideas of non-academics merely by ignoring them. That would be having their cake and eating it too, right along with everybody else's.

Thus, while Wikipedia should obviously value the contributions of academics, it should not fall into the trap of assuming that there's some sort of causal relationship between good ideas and academic credentials, or notability and academic journals. There's certainly a correlation, but exceptions can and do occur. Wikipedia can't afford to let its experts treat it as nothing more than an academic digest; it must allow for exceptions to the academic rulebook, and discourage those who try to prevent it from doing so. If this makes some of our "pseudoscience"-hating experts want to leave, then so be it - with all due respect, they should stop bellyaching and leave. Better experts, more open-minded and respectful of Wikipedia policy, will surely take their places, and some of them will no doubt come from academia. Asmodeus 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Galois theory was never discovered by the nonacademic world. And the reason why Galois theory wasn't discovered by the academic world for so long is because Galois was dead. Galois or Mendel would never have complained about not getting academic attention; had they been in a position to complain, and had the desire to do so, they could have got academic attention. De Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes, roughly contemporaneous, lists circle-squarers, "had written a book about the signs of the zodiac which all the philosophers in London could not answer," or who believed that "the only bodies of our system are the earth, the sun, and the moon; all the others being illusions, caused by reflection of the sun and moon from the ice of the polar regions." All these got academic attention, at least enough for de Morgan to notice and write about them. --Prosfilaes 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The point, of course, is not that Galois theory was discovered by the non-academic world (to which Galois never got a chance to present it); the point is that it was discovered by a non-academic, who then duly submitted it to the French Academy of Sciences, which then proceeded to lose track of it. Even if one makes excuses for the individual academics involved in this unbelievable snafu, the bottom line is that academia initially failed to recognize Galois theory for what it is, and in fact managed to circular-file it for decades.

While the history of academia offers other illuminating examples of organized stupidity, one glaring example is enough to establish that (1) academics aren't always the ones who find the answers, and (2) sometimes academics don't even recognize the answers when the answers are conveniently fed to them on a silver platter. Evidently, they're too busy doing their own thing in an ivory-tower kind of way. That's why academia can't be trusted as the exclusive final authority on human intellectual progress, and why Wikipedia, and humanity at large, can't afford to pretend otherwise. Asmodeus 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And how is that supposed to work? If another Galois turns up (must happen every couple hundred years, after all), Wikipedia is supposed to identify him, establish his notability (i.e., the correctness of his theory, because on what other grounds would he be notable?), and proclaim his accomplishments to the world? And all that without doing original research or taking a point of view??? Maybe the popular press is a more reliable arbiter of the correctness of a methematical theorem than the academic world? --Art Carlson 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I say, if one defies the odds and gets mass media attention for his work, then that's it - the work is notable. For the purposes of Wikipedia, its correctness is unimportant; Wikipedia does not make validity judgments (in fact, I was repeatedly reminded of this when I effortlessly disposed of misguided CTMU critiques during the CTMU AfD).

In principle, nothing prevents the popular press from occasionally being a more reliable arbiter of the noteworthiness of a new idea than the academic world, particularly where the academic world has unwittingly ignored it, or where the innovator lacks academic credentials and thus faces certain bureaucratic obstacles in getting academic recognition for his work. While a mainstream academic journal may occasionally break down and cede a page or two to a non-academic, it is highly unlikely to do so for a non-academic who claims to have solved too important a problem; after all, there are a lot of cranks out there, and that's what they tend to do.

But of course, we need to remember that this does not preclude the solution of major problems by non-academics. As the sad example of Galois clearly shows, that's exactly what sometimes happens. Asmodeus 15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys (Asmodeus and Prosfilaes) are way too wordy. What were you talking about, anyway?

• Correctness is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Academic recognition of an idea is a sufficient criterion.
• Significant media attention is a sufficient criterion.
• If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, then the response - or lack of response - of the academic community should be reported.

Do either of you disagree with any of these points, or are we just chatting? --Art Carlson 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not either of the two you mentioned, but I do not think the slippery slope of the last contention should be codified: "Lack of response (to some aspect of a notable entry) is notable". IMO, that's a Pandora's box, bordering on WP:BEANS, opening up all kinds of backdoors into jigs and jags of articles. Unless of course, that lack of response in and of itself has been noted in the literature in a reliable source.("XYZ notes in ABC that concept QUUX has not been ....")

--QTJ 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also wasn't involved in this lengthy discussion but I agree on Art's points.

With some hesitation even the last point: Nowadays with electronic tools it's very easy for non-specialists (thus IMO not original research) to quickly check if there were any reactions. Thus also absence of notable reactions could be stated as a matter-of-fact. Not really a slippery slope, but similar to allowing for claims like 23+56=79 without sourcing. Harald88 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Talk about synchronicity! I just added an entry to my "You Know You Need Time Away from Wikipedia When..." list that might shed some light onto that bit of creative arithmetic. -- QTJ 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One major problem with Art's last criterion is that we appear to have a number of users who, while professing expertise in the subject matter of an explicitly philosophical article, are perfectly capable of misclassifying it as "pseudoscience" and then citing its purported lack of mention in academic science journals, in which it does not in fact belong, as proof of their absurd contentions regarding its level of notability. Asmodeus 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have taken some time to read through the related threads and contentious issues, Asmodeus. A proper taxonomy is, indeed, necessary, if one is going to balance one's arguments for or against. As my own expertise is most certainly not in formal philosophy, theory of knowledge, theory of science, in any cogent debate I would have to recuse myself from comment citing my own ignorance of the deep issues. That said (since this is not a cogent debate page, and has a spirit of some informality about it), prima facie, such an article appears to me to fall into epistemology, with a very wide berth given to knowledge in the spirit of Cogito ergo sum, that is: knowledge-tied-to-existence-per se. I have exposed my own ignorance of the deepness of it all by making such a layman's classification, I am certain. However, that said, even having some deeper understanding than many might in the topic area, if I am still unable to do it correct taxonomy -- that tells me something (besides the clear fact that I am a self-professed tyro on the matter). -- QTJ 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the CTMU article, its original categorization was correct. It was explicitly classified as philosophy and metaphysics, neither of which relies on the scientific method, and neither of which thus qualifies as "science" or "pseudoscience". Therefore, the article was inappropriately attacked by the anti-pseudoscience crowd, including ScienceApologist, Pjacobi, and others.

A proper understanding of the categorization requires a little background. The term metaphysics is now interpreted in various ways, but was originally defined to contain three related disciplines: ontology, epistemology, and cosmology. While cosmology is now considered an empirical science and has thus seemingly been divorced from ontology and epistemology, this is misleading, for as relativity and quantum mechanics seem to imply, ontology and epistemology still bear strongly on the fundamental nature of the cosmos. The operative distinction is this: whereas physical cosmology is about comparing and classifying observed large-scale structures and discussing the physical processes by which they may have originated or evolved, philosophical cosmology remains true to the original meaning of the term and thus deals primarily with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the cosmos, including the logical entailments of the observation process itself.

The editors who misclassified the CTMU as "science" or "pseudoscience" were either ignorant of this distinction, or attempting to deceive. In neither case did they have any business attacking the CTMU article, to which this distinction is basic. That being established, I note that plasma cosmology, to which ontology and epistemology are not primary, is more physical in nature. Nevertheless, we need to consider the motives and qualifications of those accusing any particular plasma cosmologist of "pseudoscience". Given that the accusers have erred or deceived before, they may well be doing so again. Asmodeus 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the cites on CTMU referred to it as science, as someone pointed out. That's the basis for which the editors were and should have been working on.--Prosfilaes 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. In all of its publicity, and in its Wikipedia article, the CTMU was explicitly presented as philosophy. The problem, of course, was that it was deliberately misrepresented as "pseudoscience" in order to enlist support for its deletion among a certain militant sector of the Wikipedia population. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before making this kind of misleading statement. Asmodeus 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: anyone can cite 1 as being 2, if they so feel, and who knows how long such misclassifications will stick? The price of edit-this-page is constant diligence. Further to this, see: User:QTJ/Wikipedia_Humor. It quite rigorously (using the latest pseudomatematical methodologies just made up) demonstrates this rhetorically, almost. Maybe. Well, it did 10 seconds ago. -- QTJ 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(returning to margin)

Wow! That's the closest thing to an intelligent and focussed discussion I've seen in a dog's age! I take it no one objects to the first three theses I listed, and no one would object to the fourth if it read simply

• If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, and there is a verifiable response from the academic community, then that response should be reported.

That means we are debating what to do ...

• If a scientific idea gets in because of media attention, and there is no verifiable response from the academic community, then ...?

QTJ expressed concern that the lack of something is hard to verify. Harald88 suggested that it is indeed possible to verify the lack of a published response from academia by means of an (electronic) literature search. Finally Asmodeus is concerned with misuse and unenforceability of the principle, but, as far as I can tell, does not object to the principle as an ideal. Do you think we can agree that a statement along the lines of "While idea X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no papers either supporting or criticizing the theory have appeared in the scientific literature." is a verifiable, NPOV, and useful assertion in such a case? --Art Carlson 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On its face, that wording is certainly getting close, on some NPOV continuum. Might I suggest: "While idea X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no papers third-party responses either supporting or criticizing the theory [depends on the field which word goes here] have appeared in the scientific relevant literature." -- QTJ 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That sure goes to show you how awful writing can get when you try to make one-size-fits-all boilerplate. You don't really want to use the phrase "third-party responses", accurate though it may be, in any real-live articles do you? Any particular article will choose a formulation that best fits its own circumstances. Plasma cosmology, for instance, says "Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community." and references, not a literature search, but an open letter. As a more generic suggestion, we could say,

• If an idea in the realm of the natural sciences gets in because of media attention, and there is no verifiable response from the relevant academic community, then a statement along the lines of "While X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no peer-reviewed papers either supporting or criticizing the idea (concept/theory/observation) have appeared in the scientific literature." is not forbidden by any policy and may be appropriate for inclusion in the article.

Make your own adjustments for philosophy, history, economics, or any other discipline, as long as it is academic, so that a response from a relevant academic community is possible. --Art Carlson 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"While X has generated considerable interest in the media, as yet no peer-reviewed papers either supporting or criticizing the idea (concept/theory/observation) have appeared in the scientific literature." Indeed, in my opinion, that works for an idea/concept/theory/observation in the physical sciences. Or even more succinctly (in the physical sciences: "While this theory has received considerable treatment in the popular media so as to warrant inclusion due to its notability, it does not appear to have undergone published peer-review." Any physical scientist reading that could then elect to draw his or her own "conclusions" -- without slanting having occurred. (Oh no -- did I just open a can of worms with that wording?) -- QTJ 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about giving more weight to nonacademic sources then they deserve. As a general rule, it's verifiable that they overstate and misstate the significance of academic research published in journals. Even if I believe that important research was being published outside of journals, I see no reason to believe that mass media reports would be reliable sources for the matter.--Prosfilaes 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...and I'm concerned about people who unwittingly equate "deservingness" with academia, and "significance" with academic journals. Many people who hold to this bogus equation aren't even aware that they're engaged in circular reasoning! (By the way, in some cases, the mass media have reported on a theory or idea without referring to academic journals at all...and justifiably so.) Asmodeus 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Possible Cautions in re: Misclassification

This section starts from this diff, not just due to right-margin-drift, but because it's a seperate concern from Academia header.

Asmodeus said (in part, per the diff):

The operative distinction is this: whereas physical cosmology is about comparing and classifying observed large-scale structures and discussing the physical processes by which they may have originated or evolved, philosophical cosmology remains true to the original meaning of the term and thus deals primarily with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the cosmos, including the logical entailments of the observation process itself.

Indeed. Although I do not have the patience to compile the diff's required to substantiate similar concerns (they're on the evidence page, strewn about), I think Asmodeus' concerns have some merit. Take this randomly selected construction, from Logic and Philsophy (Tidman & Kahane, 9^{th ed.): $(x)(y)Fxy\cong (y)(x)Fxy$ (Pardon my L_AT_EX, I don't know the code for the three bar congruency symbol.) That's part of a formalized philosophical treatment, and that's the kind of thing that the untrained eye might call a hard science. While some branches of philosophy (even those concerned with language) do indeed strive towards formal approaches, others don't. (For instance, rhetoric, with its notion of persuasion.) A formal math proof is not about persuading the reader into believing a theorem: QED means Thus it was demonstrated -- that is, thus it is demonstrably absolutely true (in a two-valued truth system that admits not modalities).}

A persuasive methodology (some might call qualitative) does not pretend to be mathematically rigorous, except perhaps by the demonstration of statistical $\chi ^{2}$ methods or preponderance of evidence and or degree of statistical certainty (that admits for outliers). To prove something using empirical methods is not to prove something using formal mathematical methods. One can prove the existence of a canonical Type 0 language in grammar theory, but to actually parade it (the language itself) for inspection requires a very large margin. The call to prove it exists means different things in different branches of research and study.

That boring preamble behind us -- to misclassify an ontological/epistemological model as a hard science and hold it to the requirements of an empirical science (for instance, to require it to make a falsifiable prediction) is Popperism taken to the umpteenth degree of absurdity (IMO). The standards of proof in various fields differ. Therefore, the standards of refutation and review also differ. (For instance, the 2 sentences that precede this parenthetical statement are an attempt at persuasion, and may fall or not fall to a logical fallacy in a rhetorical model -- where one is quite well allowed to be convincing and win an argument without being rigorously mathematically true or false in one's assertions. I have made two assertions. Even the "evidence" page under discussion here presents a different type of evidence than one would consider valid in maths or a court of law.)

Who gets to classify? It's critical -- since how a model is classified determines to a very large degree how a model is criticized. Something that does not present itself as an empirical scientific model ought not be subjected to criteria of NPOV that only apply to empirical models, but rather to criteria of NPOV that apply to its particular branch of human knowledge.

I'm shaddup now. --QTJ 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, note quite shaddup now. Here's the above in the Queen's English:

I assert that Wikipedians ought not classify as pseudoscience any model that is not a science, and define as pseudoscience any model with the outward appearance of empirical science that does not hold to the precepts of what is and what is not the empirical scientific method. Any model that does not self-proclaim to be an empirical science is not a candidate for classification as a pseudoscience just as 1 is not a candidate for being 2, as 1 does not self-proclaim itself to be 2, but rather, to be 1.

.

(And to qualify as having self-proclaimed to be empirical science would require that the proclamation have been in a reliable source, not anecdotal or conjectural.)

Let the games begin. --QTJ 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on tommysun

I just wanted to leave a brief note to ask the arbitrators to give Art LaPella's evidence serious consideration. Tommysun, although I have no doubt that he is well-meaning, seems incapable of listening to what other editors have to say and continually hammers home the same points (such as the chestnut "the universe is 99% plasma and the big bang doesn't even take account of it") without considering our responses. Other editors, even those sympathetic to his views, cannot abide his editing and his behavior on talk pages. His contribution has been a tiresome drain on the project. It has been this way from the start and has not shown any evidence of improvement despite many efforts to direct him. –Joke 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideas vs. People - Possible Fork?

I may be out in left field here, but it seems to me as I review evidence, assertions, and so on, there are two issues here:

• Asserted attempts to discredit living people using their biographies (if they happen to have one on WP) as the playing field.
• Asserted attempts to slant articles one way or the other for POV.

One is the manipulation of ideas, the other of people's lives as seen to the general public. My thinking is that some who are seen to slant the bios are less prone to slant the ideas, and vice versa. I am not sure at this point that a unilateral approach is possible. Is there such thing as an arbitration fork? People and ideas (here people meaning BLPs) are getting all muddied in the same tub, IMO, and the tenor of guidelines for each is quite different (for reasons mentioned in WP:BLP). -- QTJ 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to consider as many different issues as I have time and energy for. However, this case probably presents more issues than can be dealt with by our process. Fred Bauder 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My hat off to the center-forces of these things. Your efforts in this regarded do not go unappreciated. Easy to see and point out things, not so easy to {{sofixit}}. -- QTJ 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From the presented evidence I got just the inverse impression. As shown in the evidence section (and as is well known from newsgroups) there is a direct link by association. A cheap but efficient tactic to discredit a person's ideas (when they are disliked), is to attempt to discredit the person. When someone's credibility has been put in doubt, the dismissal of that person's theories is more easily achievable. Harald88 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The cost of that "tactic" is that while "efficient" -- it erodes the very precepts this particular issue revolves around. Attacking the people (via their bios to discredit them, as asserted), also attacks science. Scientists in general try to avoid attacks on the person. Slanting of biographies has potential to harm the people concerned -- not just their amorphous and intangible "credibility". So, while the cost to do it is low for the editor, it's high for the bio subject, and high for scientific decorum in general, IMO. -- QTJ 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree of course. Just wanted to point out that the two issues are sometimes related, and why this is especially the case with biographies of authors of contested theories. Harald88 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how subtle it can be (and not really WP:BEANS, since a form of this has already been asserted on the evidence page), compare:

Jane Generic claims to be a Fellow of the [Insert Respected Society Here].

Jane Generic was elected a Fellow of the [IRSH].

Jane Generic is a Fellow of the [IRSH].

See the subtle slant on each? Claims tends towards the subtle mental response "Claims? What, is she or isn't she?" It subtly hints someone doesn't believer her claim to fellowship. Was elected tends towards ah, accepted by her peers. And is -- well that all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So, what if no reliable source lists JG as a Fellow of [IRSH]? How can Jane prove she is indeed? Is it enough that someone call up and ask? (That's original research.) Can she send in her notice of election to an editor (published only on a sheet of paper -- not notable reliable source). Can she .... You get the idea. It is possible to eliminate her membership in ONE society and focus on the one that DOES get listed in a RS, thereby gaming the system to make her appear to be only accepted by ONE type of society.

Gaming the system is one thing. Gaming the system using people's public profile as the playing field, another. Such pseudoskepticism does not do the public face of science any favors: it's downright prejudicial against it -- if in any way the results of such playing around with people's bios are seen to be how reliable sourcing is supposed to work.

-- QTJ 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My ArbCom evidence suggests that certain editors attempt to slant both controversial people and controversial ideas in a pseudoskeptical manner. Controversial scientists become lone fringe scientists or worse, and controversial theories become discredited ideas or concepts, rejected by the whole scientific community. Makes you wonder how their peer reviewed papers were published... ah yes, those refereed journals are marginal, with questionable standards. --Iantresman 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I noted the evidence, and realize it's not necessarily so much the either/or I suggest with the vice versa above and may indeed be an and (or even a neither in the big picture, but I'm not the judge, the jury, or the executioner here and don't pretend to be). I do note, however, that some have focused on the ideas, others on the bios. But I think my understanding of all the evidence presented is skewed by lack of time to fully grok the fullest sense of what's up with all this. I try to remember to have a sense of humor about life these days, having waxed quixotic in my younger days to the determinant of my windmill tipping lance. (Back in the days of yore, when electronic communication was just me and 1 million of my close personal friends, we used to say, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the vagaries of the medium.") -- QTJ 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But something does need to be said about the quality of journals. The average person probably doesn't know that "Nature" and "Science" are highly respected publications, whereas if there's a Physics (journal), it's a minor journal. Is the Illinois Journal of Science a fairly important journal, a decent but minor journal, a mere house organ of University of Ill. publications not worth publishing elsewhere, or published by a crank who gets a few friends to look over submissions? I don't know, and neither will most of our readers. There are marginal journals with questionable standards, and it would be unfair to readers to present articles published in them as if they were published in "Nature" or "Science".--Prosfilaes 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to decide whether the Illinois Journal of Science is "worthy" or not? Certainly not an unaccountable, unverifiable, anonymous Wikipedia editor. At least by citing a journal, a reader can find out more if they wish. Hannes Alfvén said that his "papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals"[79], and he went on to win the Nobel prize. --Iantresman 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now why would Ian bring up dear old dead Hannes at this juncture? Is it because Hannes Alfvén quotations are a totally out-of-the-blue unrelated point and non-sequitors are his way fo confusing issues?. Why would Ian mischaracterize the timeline of the Alfvén quote he included? Alfvén said this AFTER he won the Nobel prize (indicating, perhaps that he had "jumped the shark") not, as Ian insinuates, before. Why would Ian think this flight-of-fancy is relevant at all since Wikipedia's role is not to right the (perceived) wrongs of society? Could it be because he wants to see the minority opinions he loves so dearly and advocates actively on the internet to be trumpeted in Wikipedia? Why oh why?

This is why it is so difficult to work with Ian: many of his talk contributions are so fraught with baiting and tendetious comments that it makes it almost impossible to assume good faith. I try hard, but Ian tests my patience quite a bit.

--ScienceApologist 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If Alfven said it after winning the Nobel Prize, then that makes it even more significant...it reflects hindsight, and is not mere sour grapes from some disgruntled "crank" pissed off at the journals. [By the way, if "Wikipedia's role is not to right the (perceived) wrongs of society", it is also not to commit and propagate wrongs of its own. One might want to remember this before once again taking as gospel any false accusations he might hear regarding the topic of a Wikipedia article, and then confusedly attacking both it and its author.] Asmodeus 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More baiting from the peanut gallery. Do I need to remind Asmodeus that CTMU was deleted? Do I need to remind Asmodeus that CTMU is not peer-reviewed and its only claim to fame is that it was discussed in the popular media? Do I need to remind Asmodeus that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and promotion of Langan's musings are rightly excluded from this work? This is more baiting and more non-sequitors. It's borderline harassment. --ScienceApologist 17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite "the peanut gallery", I'm afraid - more like somebody who has watched you and your "anti-pseudoscience" crew in action, was extensively harassed by you, and sees the need for Wikipedia to curtail your abuses. Incidentally, according to Wikipedia policy, the popular media qualify as reputable sources, so if you want to exclude "Langan's musings" from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia also needs to exclude the "musings" of everyone else whose ideas have been discussed in the popular media (in contradistinction to some lily-white subset of academic journals). Asmodeus 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That's why CTMU is not an article. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The CTMU "is not an article" because you and your cronies twisted and distorted that aspect of Wikipedia policy which makes it notable, i.e., the part which says quite clearly that reputable sources in the mass media qualify for purposes of verification. You've caused a big problem for Wikipedia in this respect. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is not the last such problem that you will cause if left entirely to your own devices. That's why I'm here - not because I'm trying to restore the CTMU article, which you unjustifiably attacked and deleted, but because I, along with many others, regard you and your cronies as a major problem for this encyclopedia. I'm not kidding about that, and I'm not going to desist. Something needs to be done about you, and I'm going to do my own small part to make sure that this happens (using only the proper official channels, of course). Asmodeus 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help if you didn't look so much like you had an axe to grind. When you start talking about "you and your cronies twisted and distorted", you're at least approaching WP:NPA, and you're not impressing me and suspect many other people with your calm rationality. Let the CTMU article be water under the bridge and keep to the issues, and it will be a lot more impressive.--Prosfilaes 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from. However, it's a natural fact that ScienceApologist and [insert your preferred term here, e.g., "friends"] bent (and thereby distorted) the rules of Wikipedia in their deletional attack on an informative and well-written article on a notable theory that they erroneously tagged as "pseudoscience". That's simply what happened, and there isn't any rational argument to the contrary. If mentioning this fact is "grinding an axe", then mea culpa; on the other hand, since this fact is characteristic of SA's problematic "anti-pseudoscience" behavior here at Wikipedia, it is highly relevant to this RfA, and pointing it out is hardly a violation of WP:NPA. As far as the CTMU is concerned...well, that's what SA and company were attacking when they bent the rules, and that's why it's getting mentioned (as opposed to being treated as "water under the bridge"). I hope you understand. Asmodeus 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to such phrases as "baiting" and "peanut gallery" and "borderline harassment" with "harassment" as the edit summary, it's aggravated, when one considers those in the context of a response about the comment about the Nobel recipient, which was neutral in tone while conveying a pertinent point, IMO. Where does the "buck stop"? In a perfect world, I've never responded to taunts such as those. In the imperfect world, indeed, I have lost my cool. Publicly, under my own name. One of the systemic flaws of all anonymized communities is that they take away the cost of many things, or shift it drastically. For instance, in a biography, the cost of slanting goes away from the person who does the slanting edit, and transfers it to the subject of the biography itself. The biography's subject pays for the alteration, not the person doing the alteration. One might say the person doing the alteration pays: in the form of the kind of arbitration that is currently being witnessed -- however -- the cost of mitigating that is simply to vanish and come back under a new moniker: the subject of such a modified biography, however, pays intangibly and tangibly without such recourse. If I lose my cool or do something untoward here, having elected to use my meatspace identity to do it, I pay the cost personally. The economics of competitive and non-competitive games, and all that, you know, rely on certain assumptions. Anonymity-without-accountability screws up those economic models -- and there's probably a Nobel in Economics (to get back to Nobel prizes) for anyone willing to do that all up in formal Greek and Germanic higher order lettering. -- QTJ 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Alfvéns' 1988 quote is after his won the Nobel Prize in 1970, and refers to his papers that were not accepted by the leading US journals before (and probably after) he won the Nobel Prize. --Iantresman 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And what has this to do with Wikipedia? --ScienceApologist 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A reader can always find out more if they want. There's no need for Wikipedia to exist for a reader to find out more if they want. And the jabs about "an unaccountable, unverifiable, anonymous Wikipedia editor" are a little pointless; that's the nature of Wikipedia. We need to give readers some context as to the strength of the claim even if they are incapable of judging the science itself. We would expect that same Wikipedia editor to understand the value of the Nobel Prize, to the point that it would probably go in the introduction; why can't we expect them to appropriately understand the relative value of the journals?--Prosfilaes 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[Jump to left hand side] "...X's musings..." ScienceApologist, I realize this is not a formally submitted paper (your comment above, that is), but you do realize that a habit that must be reinforced within oneself as a scientist is the separation of Person and Idea (the title of this subsection). Loaded words like "musings" have connotations, and in juxtaposition to the name of the person putting forth those idea, one muddies the waters between those lines, IMO. In computer science, when one does this: As shown by [Bloggs 1992]... one does it not in reference to Bloggs the person, but a particular set of published results that Bloggs just happens to have compiled. It's a convention that happens to use the name of the person, but does not refer to the person; it refers to a particular set of results. By juxtaposing "X" and "musings" in the manner you have in the above sentence, however, the distinction becomes one of immense cloudiness, and science is not a cloudy endeavor. Your moniker suggests that you (the person) have a strong mission to uphold the tenets of the scientific method and culture (apologetics is a cultural, often rhetorical, rather than formally methodological method, after all). I refer you to GLeng's statement in evidence: "These are well meaning, but IMO they are pseodoskeptics whose activities in defence of science are, instead, harmful to it, and intensely harmful to WP." The risk one entails when one muddies the waters between person are numerous, but I believe GLeng said it best in that statement.

As to WP not being a soapbox -- exactly right. Is not apologetics itself a form of soapboxing? Indeed, the very statements I am making now are "soapboxing" for the courtesy afforded not by the scientific method, but the scientific demeanor. There are so many matras, so little time. So many of those mantras that they have been reduced to WP:XYZ pages.

Sometimes one cannot win for losing. -- QTJ 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We all soapbox in discussions about Wikipedia, but the point about Wikipedia not being a soapbox applies mostly to the articles themselves. The point of Wikipedia not being a soapbox is that articles shouldn't be "promotional" but rather should be informative with respect to the information generally accepted in the mainstream as important to know. Langan is not a scientist nor is CTMU a scientific proposal, though it was dressed up as such in the article which is with us no longer. There is no reason for us to take Langan's pet theories seriously here at Wikipedia. There is no reason for us to have articles about his flights-of-fancy. Moderate amounts of fame do not entitle one to have a corner of Wikipedia roped off for publication/promotion of one's own original research, however high one's IQ may be. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a few minor corrections, if you don't mind. (1) Once an idea has been mentioned by several major sources in the mass media, it's notable, and Wikipedia takes it seriously enough to support an article on it ("flight of fancy" or not). That's a matter of policy. (2) Given the notability of their topics, the authors of Wikipedia articles are encouraged to consult primary sources for information. This is not "original research", but "source-based research", and it's perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. (3) Once again, the CTMU was not "dressed up" as a "scientific proposal" in its Wikipedia article, but was explicitly introduced as philosophy. Only somebody who didn't read the original article, or who has trouble with the science-philosophy distinction, could be confused about that. Asmodeus 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you're wrong on point 1) because the community consensus was to not include a needlessly long-winded article on CTMU. Saying something is a "matter of policy" is ridiculous because Wikipedia doesn't run like a government based on policy: it is a community built on consensus. You're also wrong on point 2) It is in many ways preferable to rely on secondary sources instead of primary sources because of the summary style of the encyclopedia. You are also wrong on point 3) inasmuch as CTMU was claiming to be about subjects that are considered scientific, it was being dressed up by editors such as yourself as scientific fact. I'll point out that CTMU was also not accepted for publication in respected philosophy journals either, and Langan's amateur status means that his ideas are unlikely candidates for future inclusion here. I'm sorry you're so confused on these matters, but I wish you the best of luck in your tilting at the windmills. --ScienceApologist 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, ScienceApologist. The "consensus" of which you sanctimoniously write was not representative of the community at large, but only of a militant segment of the community which was actively recruited by means of deception. [1, 2] Descriptive (as opposed to interpretative) use of primary sources is explicity allowed by WP:OR. And if you perceived the CTMU as a proposed example of science rather than philosophy, which is how it was explicitly presented, then that merely confirms what I've been saying about your evident confusion regarding the meaning of "pseudoscience".

Let's go into that in a bit more detail. You seem to hold some combination of the following beliefs: (1) There is no distinction between a theory of science and a theory about science. (2) If a theory says anything at all about the observable universe, even by way of interpreting a scientific theory, then it implicitly purports to be science (i.e., science has a monopoly on the observable universe and everything which bears on it). (3) Even an exclusively deductive theory which nowhere relies on the scientific method, and which explicitly calls itself philosophical, is being "presented as science" (provided that it anywhere contains the word "science", or says anything that might bear on the observable universe). All three of these beliefs are erroneous.

I'm willing to allow that your basic intentions may be good. After all, science is important and worth defending. All I'm asking is that you stop mindlessly attacking ideas you don't understand on erroneous premises you can't justify. Obviously, that kind of unreasoning behavior has a far greater potential to damage Wikipedia than to help it. Lord knows, there are plenty of legitimate targets out there for those who have the knowledge to identify them. Why not step back, take a deep breath, look long and hard at your personal beliefs and behaviors, and try to do a better job of upholding the scientific values you hold so dear? It's never too late to turn over a new leaf. Asmodeus 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen, if CTMU were just a theory about how science worked, it wouldn't make grandiose claims about being a Theory of Everything which is a scientific subject. The problem was that there were huge sections of the article that commented on scientific theories and presented interpretations as plain fact when they were in fact contrary to mainstream scientifists' opinions on the matter. That makes CTMU a pseudoscience, but this in-and-of-itself was not the reason I supported its deletion. Pseudoscience can be a legitimate topic on Wikipedia and be afforded its own article, however ideas promoted by single individuals which have little to no outside commentary and whose only promotion comes from mention (not explication) in the mainstream media fail notability for inclusion as separate articles. CTMU is dealt with appropriate to its notability in the Langan article now and this basically is the end of the story. Sour grapes make people complain and pucker their faces, but they don't make the grapes any less sour. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'll recuse myself from further comment or offering anything into evidence or pursuing this discussion, since (as mentioned on the evidence page) that particular person is a friend of mine, and although it's entirely possible for me to internally maintain objectivity, the appearance of such will vanish to infinitesimal in the face of expressions such as "flights-of-fancy". That said, good luck with the arbitration. -- QTJ 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)