Talk:Christopher Langan

Article title

Should this article be at Christopher Michael Langan? That's the name on his PCID and Uncommon Dissent papers, and on his e-book The Art of Knowing. Media usage varies from "Christopher Michael Langan" to "Christopher Langan" to "Chris Langan", but the first is how he signs his essays. Tim Smith 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No one's disagreeing, so I've moved the article to Christopher Michael Langan, leaving Christopher Langan as a redirect. Tim Smith 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to see references for these assertions, moreover what is the relevance of these to this already dubious topic. I removed the "pseudoscience" and "crank" - why did you remove these I thought they helped put everything into context - links from the "See Also" section as they provided no relevant information and amounted to mere name-calling. I added "metaphysics" as that is the discipline to which Langan has said that his theory belongs. It appears to me that the "pseudoscience" and "crank" labels are due more to Langan's politically unwise linking of the explicitly evolutionary CTMU with Intelligent Design (and thus in mainstream opinion, Creationism) than to the merits of the main line of argument of the CTMU.

That said, some of the characterizations of Langan's CTMU in this article seem to be more hopeful assertions than demonstrated facts. This article's characterization of the CTMU as mathematical is only partially borne out by Langan's published writings. The mathematics in the CTMU is only occasionally symbolic, rather it is generally presented in verbal form. Also, the applicability of the CTMU to any specific area of natural science has not been demonstrated or refuted, so far as I have seen. Enon 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I added the "Pseudoscience" and "crank" links is precisely because Langan's ideas are not science, and yet are passed off as such (if one reads the entries for these terms one will see why they fit): while his ideas have certainly not been demonstrated, they are actually fairly easily refuted by anyone with an understanding of what he is on about; the problem is that simply we don't bother, because we have more important work to do than write papers ripping apart pseudoscientific theories. While Langan may claim that his ideas are "metaphysical", they do not conform to the generally accepted norms and standards of rigour for academic metaphysics either, belonging more properly to the sort of "metaphysics" one might pick up in the esoteric section of a bookshop.

Perhaps "crank" is a little over the top, but I really feel that a link should be provided to pseudoscience, perhaps with a proviso included somewhere about how this is how some critics construe his work? If the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate, then surely one must allow the reader the opportunity to evaluate the merits of an individual's claims in the light of current scientific opinion, without being misled?--Byrgenwulf 11:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a biographical sketch. Aside from the obvious fact that the CTMU does not rely on empirical justification and therefore cannot be classified as "pseudoscience", nebulous criticisms of it have no place here.

Byrgenwulf, who hints around that he is an academic expert in the philosophy of physics, should know that in order to credibly criticize Langan's work, he would need to write a well-reasoned paper on the topic, attach his real name to it, and include it in his vitae so that it can be properly associated with him and the academic institution with which he is affiliated and thus exposed to rebuttal. After all, a CTMU paper was published some time ago, and this is how "peer review" is supposed to work. If Byrgenwulf finds the CTMU too "unimportant" to merit this sort of treatment - or if he does not want people to see how coherent his criticisms really are - then he should not be wasting his valuable time carping about the CTMU on Wikipedia, let alone in somebody's bio. DrL 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tags for well-documented items, like the fact that Langan worked as a bar bouncer or has a high IQ. These facts are discussed repeatedly in the reference articles. The fact that Langan owns and operates a horse ranch is common knowledge in the high IQ community. There are photos of his ranch at the megafoundation website as he uses it for get togethers. I would hesitate to link to his ranch website, lest that be seen as an advert. DrL 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, for a change, DrL...but would like to add (as I've seen this comment before) that for encyclopaedic purposes, consensus among the "high IQ community" counts for less than nothing.--Byrgenwulf 11:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Sci

I have added dubious proviso links next to the suspect PopSci articles as per this mention of how they might be forgeries. Byrgenwulf 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, this is a legitimate source. There were two articles in the same issue. One was an article, the other an interview. The issue (October, 2001) should be available at a local library if you wish to check. DrL 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I see Mega Foundation has just been merged here. There is an article on Langan's other IQ club, Ultranet. It has even less merit than the Mega Foundation, and seems even more of an advert. Can it also be merged here? I would summarily do it myself, but I must confess I don't know how...although it would probably be a good skill to learn. Byrgenwulf 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response (1) The Mega Foundation and the Ultranet are not "IQ clubs". One is a registered nonprofit foundation; the other is a project of that Foundation. (2) You are not in a position to pass judgment on the "merit" of Langan, his work, his Foundation, his fora, or the associated Wikipedia entries. Please try to understand this. (3) You are not in a position to "summarily" do anything related to the Wikipedia articles on these topics. Please try to come to grips with this. These misconceptions run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines in fact and in spirit. Asmodeus 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, Asmodeus, you are wrong. See WP:BOLD --KGF0 ( T | C ) 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

IQ

I've heard differing accounts of Langans IQ, ranging from a slim 140 to an impressive 195. Which is it? Are we cherry picking the highest number? Jefffire 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see this 140 figure? It is possible that Langan took a lousy IQ test that had a ceiling of 140. All the certified psychologists that have tested Langan, have speculated that he possesses an IQ that approaches 200 (15 points per SD). Regardless of the fact that the CTMU looks like the work of a 15 year old. CDiPoce 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional IQ tests don't go up that high, and those that claim to do so are more dubious and probably measure different things, which is why I'm concerned. Jefffire 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's something that's been worrying me. Something doesn't add up here...the Mega test apparently has a "ceiling" of just less than 5 standard deviations. A standard deviation with IQ is 15 points, which means that it can only accurately (insofar as it is accurate at all) measure up to 175. I was shown a newspaper article about a chap who wrote the Mega test and came away with an IQ of 185. Which means there is something very odd going on about the reporting of scores here; I'm not sure quite what, but the whole thing is very strange. Byrgenwulf 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I said that psychologists have "speculated" 195 is because that IQ would have been extrapolated from a test. However, that does not mean we can disregard the 195 figure. They had made an educated guess, which holds more weight than us just spewing out lower numbers because of our own inadequacies. In the case of the Mega Test, I believe there was some ceiling bumping. CDiPoce 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what we, as editors, think about the reported scores is completely irrelevant. WP:NOR. Report what exists in the secondary sources, which so far as I have been able to find is 195. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, add it, and cite it. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed two links. Note Langan does not control the website that those links lead to. Links are of scans and add color to the article. I also corrected a previous error (wrong link, oops!). DrL 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Errol Morris Documentary

Byrgenwulf, you are attributing comments to Errol Morris that I don't believe were stated by him. Please provide the source of Morris's comments. This was a terrific documentary that won an honorable mention for Morris at the Cannes Film Festival. As far as I know, a transcript does not exist. DrL 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Go here and hover your mouse over Langan's picture on the mosaic. Byrgenwulf 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that it was "hyped" that way by the website; just that Morris never said anything even close to that. Please don't mislead. Watch the documentary. It's very good. DrL 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling for mediation on this one. Please discuss your changes here first. DrL 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, don't you understand? You don't get to decide what Morris said, Morris decides that. And on his own website, Morris makes that comment. I am simply quoting Morris. Simply because it is less than flattering doesn't mean it should not be included, especially since the documentary in question is being used to glorify the subject of this article; this is gross distortion of fact, made clear by the fact that the person who made the documentary describes the subject of this article in a less than flattering way. Byrgenwulf 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you watch the documentary. If you want to attribute a quote to Errol Morris, then look for a quote with a source, signature, or byline. This is a piece of unattributed hype appearing in a rollover on a gif at a website that is not edited by Errol Morris directly. Please...that's hardly a source, particularly when WP:LIVING requires editors to be "very firm about high quality references". I think if you watched the documentary, you might see why Morris chose to submit this at Cannes. In the meantime, please be more responsible in your editing of biographies of living persons. DrL 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not unattributed hype when it appears on the website of the person who made the documentary in question. You have no way of proving who edits Morris' website, or who determines what statements are put there. That statement has all the qualities required of a reliable source. Therefore, I would suggest the following:

"In the description given of the documentary on Morris' website, Langan is bla bla bla (fill in text I had previously posted)."

Whatever can be wrong with that? It is the truth DrL. If that is what appears on Morris's personal website, that is how Morris wishes his documentary to be portrayed, not so? Byrgenwulf 15:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf, there is no indication that this is Errol Morris's "personal website". It looks like the website for a production or media company. I would expect that Morris has little or no involvement in creating or editing the content. He is certainly not listed on WHOIS. The absolute best you could propose would be "In the description given in a rollover caption at www.errolmorris.com, bla bla bla " which is clearly unsourced and cannot be included in a bio per WP:LIVING. It is also insensitive, again per WP:LIVING. DrL 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the official website of his production company. It is considered a reliable source for statements made by the company about the documentary. --Philosophus ^T 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is in fact considered more reliable than a description made by a Wikipedia editor who has watched the documentary. --Philosophus ^T 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent reverts by DrL: the presentation of the text on the website is not relevant. It is the description given there. "Unsourced" makes no sense, since I am not claiming that Morris himself said this. It is, however, on the website of his production company. --Philosophus ^T 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:LIVING - you need a stronger source than this. There is no author listed at the website. No author = no source. But I'm sure you already know that. DrL 05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The author is Fourth Floor Productions. They are a reliable source for a description of a documentary which they produced. LIVING does not override WP:V and WP:RS.--Philosophus ^T 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed "unsourced" and noted that the documentary itself is the primary source. I'm wondering where you found "Fourth Floor Productions". I can't seem to locate that. DrL 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

whois --Philosophus ^T 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, you still had the bit about "rollover gifs" etc. Please don't mislead in the edit summary or the talk page, because what changes you said you made are not the same as the changes you really did make. Byrgenwulf 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. The comment does appear in a rollover on a gif. It's obviously hype. DrL 06:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it like this. There seem to be double standards afoot here. When I wanted it to be explicitly clear that Langan's claims to have a "sum over futures" interpretation of QM were merely mentioned in a diagram caption, it was decided that the exact location of that information should be in a footnote, but the information could be included.

Now, when it doesn't suit Langan, that kind of information is not relevant, or must be suitably coddled with dismissive provisos in the main text? Really, it can't work both ways to Langan's benefit. Nor is it "hype" just because it is a "gif rollover". Anyway, that is how the site is designed: the gifs make a "table of contents", with the descriptions of each episode appearing when the mouse is over the entry. It is clearly the description those people wished to give of their documentary.

Do not apply double standards, please, do not mislead, and please try to stop letting any personal involvement you might have get in the way of an objectively true description of the content of this article. Byrgenwulf 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, Byrgenwulf. I don't see any "sum over futures" reference on Wikipedia.

Btw, it's hype because that's what it is, not because that's what I say it is. It's not contained in the documentary, just for presentation on the website and, yes, as a gif rollover (that does make a difference). It's simply offhand and would never in a million years be considered a reliable source. I've been teaching research methods for years to people just about your age. Most of my students are probably not as smart as you but they'd pick this one correctly. Please don't pretend you don't know exactly how weak this is as a "source". DrL 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the CTMU article, when I wished to point out that the "sum over futures" claim was made in a diagram caption in order to make it clear how tenuous it was, it was decided that the location of the claim could be put in a footnote, while the claim itself could remain in the article unadulterated.

The information on that site is not "offhand". The page in question gives information on each episode of the documentary series. They could have decided to do it all "text-only", just a list of headings giving titles, with the short paragraphs describing the episode underneath. Instead, in keeping with the general "artsy" feel of the site, it is designed with pictures and the hover command.

The manner in which a website is designed should have no bearing on its reliability as a source. If you teach research methodology, you should know that much: layout may count in terms of giving an impression, but sometimes even the most sloppily presented information is valuable. The reliability of a source is determined by other factors, such as who created it. Since the people creating the source are in a good position to decide what a documentary they have made is about, the information should be included.

I also do not appreciate references to my age, DrL; my age has nothing to do with anything. If I were truly wanting to be objectionable, I could start making a fuss about WP:CIVILITY, but I shan't, because I don't think of myself as a petty person.

As a concession, then, why not put the "gif rollover" proviso in the footnote, like what happened with "sum over futures" in the CTMU article, where the "diagram caption" proviso was similarly shunted to a footnote? Byrgenwulf 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment about "sum over futures" was sarcastic. The article was deleted ... and my comment about age was tongue in cheek, really, my students are all ages - I was just trying to make a point. I hope the edit merits a truce - for now - I don't think it's fair and I'd still like to see what the admin says. DrL 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I took you the wrong way: things have been very tense, here, of course. Anyway, your previous edit is still slanted, because you are including unsourced information, as well as bias and opinion: "the declining state of the world". It is not an established fact that the state of the world is declining. It might be Langan's opinion, but Wikipedia is not Langan's blog. Byrgenwulf 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - it has been tense. Please check your sources, and be absolutely sure about their content and authorship, before editing this page again. So will I. Let's both make a greater effort at NPOV. Thanks. DrL 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

<- unindent

unindent -> NPOV doesn't mean only including the positive parts of the description. Either the description is a reliable source, or it isn't. Since the consensus seems to be that it is, we need to include a balanced sample of it, not just a positive bit of it. It might also be nice if we could find a more detailed description of the documentary in a reliable source to add to the paragraph. --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Just please check your wording so that you don't misrepresent the content of the source. Note that you were the one that originally introduced the quote that's on the page now. DrL 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, what makes it permissible to attribute the claim that Langan has the highest IQ in the world to the website, but not to use information from the very next sentence? Quoting the site directly, as I did, is not misrepresenting the content of it. Please try not to let any personal involvement you might have get in the way of the neutral status of the article.

I also think that distorting the purpose of Philosophus' actions like that is out of line. Byrgenwulf 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting including an additional sentence, that's certainly reasonable. Please use an accurate quote, though. What else would you like to include? DrL 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the version which now stands is pretty much a verbatim quote from the website in question, so I cannot imagine what could be wrong with that. Byrgenwulf 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sudden changes to errolmorris.com

As Anville noted, the text of the description on errolmorris.com abrubtly changed at about the same time that DrL changed her opinion on the reliability of the source and started insisting that the quote be accurate. This is really suspicious. DrL, did you contact the operators of the website about the text? If so, what did you say? --Philosophus ^T 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that word may have gotten back to them regarding how their website was being misused. I still think it's a poor source and the entire paragraph should be removed. Please just try to be responsible editors. DrL 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly, it is a strange day when "quoted" translates to "misused". Anville 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, do not misrepresent old content as being currently displayed at the em.com website. If they removed it, they probably felt it was not accurate. The link to the archive is there so why don't you give it a rest. DrL 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Either that or they received a legal threat, and decided that the easiest option was just to remove the material. --Philosophus ^T 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. I think they just realized that material they had placed on the website as "hype" was being used for unintended purposes. A lot of companies do try to be responsible in that way. DrL 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparing IQ scores

Byrgenwulf, that is actually inaccurate. Marilyn's 200+ childhood IQ score is equivalent to about IQ 180 adult. IQ batteries for children are typically calculated on a different statistical scale (Marilyn took the Stanford-Binet at the age of 10). This is well-known. Marilyn actually scored lower than Chris on the Mega Test. I would make a neutral correction, acquiescing to probable exaggeration (again the passage is pure "hype" and nothing in the passage should be referenced, IMO), but I don't want to be accused of POV pushing. DrL 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too sure I agree with that reading, DrL. Because while you are right about translating between adult and child scores, there are two other concerns here. First, it is unclear that the Mega Test measures anything like the same construct as the Stanford-Binet. Second, it is also well established in psychometrics that repeatedly taking a test decreases its efficiency, as you no doubt know. Now, it seems that Langan took the Mega Test twice, the first time yielding the absolute bare minimum for admission into the Mega Society; a host of people scored higher than him on his first attempt. The second time, it would appear that he took it under the name of his alter ego, "Eric Hart" or something like that, and scored five points better. Since that fiasco, I believe Dr Hoeflin has had to strongly discourage taking the Mega Test more than once, as many people were abusing the system to artificially inflate their apparent IQ. Don't take me for a fool, DrL. Not everyone is taken in by bluster. Since articles positively filled with bluster and tongue-in-cheek mockery are being used to play up Langan's glory and wonder, a little balance is perhaps called for here, don't you think? Perhaps all of that history pertaining to the measurement of Langan's IQ, and his antics with pseudonyms and things should be mentioned. What do you think? We can reference Noesis, the official journal of the Mega Society, the one which Langan received a court injunction to stop publishing under that name. Does that merit inclusion, perhaps, since it is easy and reliable to reference the findings of the Supreme Court? I would appreciate hearing your opinion about all that stuff. Byrgenwulf 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, reference to Noesis would violate WP:LIVING as the editor has a long-standing and very well-known dispute with Langan. Note that the policy explicitly states:

• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

DrL 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding IQ testing

The whole IQ testing scheme is fraught with difficulty. IQ tests are inadequate. Attempts at "high-end testing have not been successful. For example, there was no restriction on retaking the Mega Test when it first came out so a lot of people took it more than once. After all, there was no time limit and specific feedback was not given with results. It quickly became compromised so probably the only truly accurate results were those early ones. Marilyn's score on the test came after she had been dating Hoeflin! How accurate could that be? DrL 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

Before initiating a content dispute, I would like to see if there is any objection to simply removing the entire Errol Morris paragraph per WP:LIVING, which clearly states:

• Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject

The material, both positive and negative, is clearly hype and exaggeration. DrL 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very good at selectively quoting policy, DrL. This how the paragraph reads in full:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Since the website in question is neither partisan nor self-published (i.e. personal, like a blog, which is what the policy is talking about), it should be a valid source. Otherwise we just have your word to go on when it comes to determining what the documentary says.

Also, I see no reason why Noesis cannot be included, because the proposed information from it is not derogatory. It is merely the documented truth about Langan's claims (I have another source as well, but we'll leave that for now). It doesn't make Langan out to be a fool: it merely explains how he came to have the "measured" IQ that he does. I'm also going to include a bit about how contentious the method of measuring his IQ is, if that's alright: it is also interesting in general, I think. Byrgenwulf 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that WP has already determined Noesis (and the Mega Society) to be a non-notable source. If it was non-notable enough for excision from WP, it is certainly non-notable here. As far as measurement of IQ is concerned, the discussion is probably more suitable to another article. In fact, if you do a little research, I believe that it is discussed already in a couple of WP articles. It is controversial and you could certainly reference that article from here. DrL 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Noesis was never established as a non-notable source. That is nonsense. It is merely not a third party source about the Mega Society. That is why it was not appropriate to establish notability for the Mega Society. But, by that argument, why not delete all the links to documents stored on the Mega Foundation site, since the Mega Foundation isn't notable enough for this encyclopaedia either? Byrgenwulf 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable or not, the editor has a long-standing dispute with Langan, making it inappropriate as a source per WP:LIVING. I'd be happy to request a third opinion on that. Please let me know if you would like me to initiate that discussion. DrL 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor additions

I hope no one will object to the factual inclusions, minor edits, and mention of the CTMU paper published in 2002. DrL 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really - I changed two words, for objectivity's sake, though! Byrgenwulf 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Arthur Rubin

Nice of you to stop by, but do you really think that you should be editing this talk? Admin or no, you seem to have some kind of personal involvement with at least one proponent of the CTMU. I wonder about the neutrality of your POV. You voted down the CTMU article without ever having read the paper behind it (which you admit below). You don't even seem to be able to answer a single question about it. Not very responsible, IMO. DrL 04:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to the CTMU paper I mentioned in the discussion on my talk page, itself, qualifies that paper as not scientific (including philosophy as a science). If you (= proponents of keeping the article) wanted to add a pseudo-philosophy tag, I would probably be neutral as to whether it's a notable pseudo-philosophy. If CTMU were notable, it would tend toward making Langan notable. (But I don't remember editing this article except for reverting removal of sourced information which may be considered critical of the subject.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Generically speaking, calling the CTMU "pseudo-philosophy" betrays four (4) distinct kinds of ignorance: (1) ignorance of the fields of philosophy in which the CTMU properly resides; (2) specific ignorance of the CTMU itself; (3) a profound ignorance of how truly awful most of what passes for "real philosophy" is these days; and (4) ignorance of the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to maintain NPOV at all times (as opposed, for example, to letting their personal prejudice hang out all over the place come hell or high water). That being said, the CTMU is definitely notable, because it definitely satisfies WP notability criteria. Please try to contain your obvious resentment of this original, unique, and extremely notable idea. It isn't nice to attack someone else's work without even having bothered to read up on it. Asmodeus 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In regard point (3), are you trying to say that CTMU, although WP:BOLLOCKS, is better than "most of what passes for 'real philosophy'"? To continue, the author of the CTMU paper that I started to read started from intelligent design, and worked out from there. I suppose it's possible it could be a notable derivative theory of intelligent design, but the complexity theory in question is clearly WP:BOLLOCKS (and is not in Wikipedia, for what it's worth). (If the claim is that CTMU is a type of non-self-consistent theory, or a philosophical theory of physical non-self-consistent theories, I didn't see it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to point (3), I am saying that the distinction between "philosophy" and "pseudophilosophy", which you seem to regard as both clear-cut and significant, is no longer meaningful (if it ever was). As the article on that subject states, it is really an opinionative distinction cited by contentious people, e.g. you, who are bent on discrediting others' work. ID "complexity theory" is mentioned on page 2 of the PCID paper, but even a cursory reading of that paper reveals that irreducible and specified complexity - two ideas near and dear to the hearts of the readers of PCID - nowhere figure as CTMU premises. In fact, you may have it backwards. The author merely seems to be suggesting that these concepts would have to be interpreted in the CTMU in order to acquire something they need to this day, namely, an explicit model. (After all, ID critics are constantly complaining that these concepts lack a model, so Langan was merely respecting their demands by discussing that issue.) For present purposes, the claim regarding the CTMU is simply that it is notable and therefore merits an article in Wikipedia. Since this claim has already been very well substantiated, I see no need to argue about it. Asmodeus 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote Asmodeus: "how truly awful most of what passes for "real philosophy" is these days". I think this is the first thing I have seen Asmodeus (or Langan!) write with which I can agree 100%. Unfortunately, the vast majority (but fortunately, not all) of philosophy these days has become bogged down in a quagmire of postmodernism and political correctness.

However, reading this, I feel compelled to add some pertinent information here. The "Intelligent Design" (ID) journal paper propounding the CTMU has an entire section devoted to explicating the compatibility between CTMU and ID. I cannot remember the page numbers offhand, but it's the last section, and anyone who has a .pdf of the paper can read the relevant bits. My point is that Langan seems to go out of his way to illustrate how CTMU can act as a "bridge", as it were, between ID and conventional Darwinism. This is because the CTMU, being "panentheistic", holds that because the universe can be described as a "cognitive entity" which is forming itself through "self-determinacy" (as Langan puts it), all the forms inherent in the universe are necessarily the products of intelligence. Of course, this step that Langan takes in order to explain the entirety of human experience has the side-effect, as it were, that rocks can think, albeit in a fashion different to human beings.

But here's a question for Langan (or Asmodeus). William Dembski, the founder of the self-proclaimed professional society to which Langan belongs, has put forward the idea of "specified complexity": any structure which has less than a certain probability of forming (if I recall it is < 10^-150) must necessarily be the product of an "Intelligent Designer". One of the many, many problems with Dembski's ideas is that this figure is completely ad hoc. If every structure in the universe is the product of some cognitive/computational process (a la CTMU), then the probability of that structure forming ex nihilo must, by Dembski (since the CTMU insists it is compatible with ID) be equal to or less than 10^-150. Can the CTMU (rigorously, i.e. using proper mathematical methods, not polysyllables) prove this idea? If so, can Langan (or Asmodeus) provide a formal proof? Or, alternatively, is Langan (or Asmodeus) prepared to go on record providing a (rigorous) formal refutation of Dembski's "let's pretend" mathematics, and risk censure in the ID club which Dembski founded?

Anyway, the bottom line is that the author of the CTMU idea proclaims that it is entirely compatible with ID. The only venue of publication of any "professional" literature directly pertaining to CTMU is in an ID journal. The only claim to professional authority the author of the CTMU can make, aside from the dubious evaluation of his IQ, is membership of an ID society. In short, the CTMU is so inextricably linked to the ID movement that any claim by its proponents to distance itself from that movement must be seen for what it is: a cheap sleight of hand to try to pull the wool over the eyes of others for purposes of self-aggrandisement and self-glorification (in my not-so-humble opinion, anyway). Byrgenwulf 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. After the PCID paper explains the CTMU from first principles in a self-contained fashion, it goes on to discuss, in the very last section, the relationship between ID theory and the CTMU. This discussion is based on the previously-explained independent structure and dynamics of the CTMU rather than on ID concepts or principles, which are merely interpreted in the preceding explanation.

The author's point seems to be that as a function of CTMU structure and dynamics, the universe is self-selective in the large; that natural selection is merely a biological manifestation of this cosmic self-selection imperative; and that in order to acquire a naturalistic model, ID must, to whatever extent it is valid, involve a species of distributed "intelligence" associated with the entire cosmos. Obviously, this is not the sort of intelligence that an individual college student fancies himself to possess, or which lets "rocks think"; it is large-scale information processing considered as a generalization of cognition rather than a specific form thereof, and it enables inert objects to "think" only in the sense that they internally process their own state transitions.

You complain that "the author of the CTMU idea proclaims that it is entirely compatible with ID." If, as its critics maintain, ID is theology, and theology is independent of reality, then any theory of physical reality "is compatible with ID theory", whether it is formulated on the scientific or philosophical level of discourse. So this can't really be taken as damning evidence against the CTMU, or for that matter any other theory bearing on reality. Regarding William Dembski's universal probability bound, the CTMU nowhere figures in its computation. (The UPB is simply a way of bounding a probability space, and the gist of Dembski's reasoning does not depend on its exact value. In any case, one is obviously better off letting Professor Dembski explain it himself than asking others to put words in his mouth.)

As for "the bottom line", the CTMU does not require publication in any special, academically-approved body of "professional literature" in order to be valid or notable; its validity depends on its content, and the mass media suffice to establish its notability. Nor does its author need any sort of "professional authority" based on membership in academia, the output of which is itself characterized by an extremely low information-to-noise ratio. Prior to becoming notable, Langan does not seem to have been involved in any way with the ID movement, which subsequently did nothing to promote his theory; thus, anyone who claims that the CTMU or its author is a product or even a part of the ID movement is plainly motivated by some combination of prejudice, confusion, and deceit. Needless to say, Wikipedia does not define proper editorial behavior as a function of bias, befuddlement, or dishonesty. Asmodeus 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is very little "mass media" on CTMU; it's almost all on Langan, with CTMU as an example of his megalomania thinking. (Popular Science, I'm afraid, is no longer "popular" nor "science", and may not be a WP:RS...) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, especially when the coverage in Popular Science is considered along with reportage by other large-circulation periodicals and a few major television and radio networks. All of the same sources and links will remain available, and they add up to ten times more than is required. Although they were deemed insufficient the first time around, this was clearly due to a combination of deliberate misrepresentation, solicitation under false pretenses, and contemptible violations of various Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Take that sort of ratmobile out of the garage too often, and it's a sure bet that at some point, the wheels will fall off. My advice would be to just relax and let it happen, because it's certainly going to happen sooner or later. You can't fight the inevitable, and you can't kill an idea whose time has come. Asmodeus 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

The conversation above has been recreated here to illustrate the involvement of Arthur Rubin in this topic and show his insuitability as an editor of this page. It also speaks to a systematic style of editing that has been involved in the Langan article and led to the deletion of the CTMU article. DrL 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste from editors talk pages in such a bad faith and disruptive manner. This is "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" WP:Point, and assuming bad faith. Don't do it. Jefffire 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment As long as Arthur Rubin, who was recently promoted to administrator here at Wikipedia, chooses to involve himself in editing this page (or any other Langan-related page), we need to be aware of any possible bias (non-neutrality) or conflict of interest to which this might speak. This is only fair to the readers of Wikipedia, who might otherwise be misled to the effect that Arthur is in conformance with WP:NPOV. As it happens, the dialogue in question clearly shows that Arthur is flagrantly biased against the CTMU and its author - he mistakenly associates them with "Intelligent Design" - and needs to recuse himself for ethical reasons. Until Arthur does so, this material remains relevant. Therefore, pending Arthur's recusal, I'm adding this LINK to his Talk page. Please do not remove it. Asmodeus 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself from taking administrative actions in regard this page (in the future; if I've taken such actions in the past, I apologize). I will not recuse myself from editing the page. I don't consider myself biased, but I have no objection to DrL and/or Asmodeus linking to my previous opinions that CTMU is WP:BOLLOCKS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for officially recusing yourself, Arthur, and also for gratuitously belaboring your unabashedly ill-informed opinion on the CTMU. (By trying to link the CTMU to WP:BOLLOCKS, you evidently mean to insinuate that it "has only the most tenuous connection to reality". Accordingly, I'll once again point out that you are in no position to make such a claim, and furthermore, that you could be effortlessly dismantled were you ever to do so in any sort of meaningful detail. Feel free to stack that neatly, tie it in a ribbon, and take it to the bank. ;) Asmodeus 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one could argue that philosophy, as a whole, has only the most tenuous connection to reality; so it may be real philosophy, but still WP:BOLLOCKS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet, we see a very great deal of philosophy in Wikipedia, do we not? It would seem to follow that your generally low opinion of it must count for very little indeed, and must be very far removed from WP:POLICY. Asmodeus 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Mass media is not an acceptable source for Langan's IQ, nor are self published websites. Find a WP:RS for this claim please, rather than repeating information a mass media sources has repeated without proof. Jefffire 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The mass media are a perfectly acceptable source for Langan's (or Marilyn vos Savant's, or anybody else's) estimated IQ. Estimated IQ is not "actual measured IQ"; Langan and many others are on record as saying that IQ cannot be reliably measured at this level. In any case, such claims do not pretend to be scientific or mathematical facts, but are merely statements about why the subject is considered notable. That Langan is considered notable for this reason is a well-established fact, and does not require publication of his personal scholastic or medical records. Asmodeus 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, multiple media sources are reliable enough for this "estimate". Based on the McFadden interview alone this is sufficient. 20/20 had Langan tested by a professional neuropsychologist as part of their derivation of this estimate. Although his scores were not released, they were available to 20/20 staff who based their published estimate on this and other information. DrL 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A magazine simply stating that that is his IQ is not a reliable source. If they are deriving it from something, then quote that source. Alternatively reword the sentence into something more neutral. Jefffire 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral wording added and source quoted. Hope that's better. DrL 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO

As a member of WP:BIO I would ask that all editors to this article please review policy on editing bios of living persons. TIA --DrL 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So this includes removing things such as pointing out that creationist organization ISCID's "peer-reviewed journal" is not actually peer-reviewed? WP:BIO does not mean "remove all information that might be a bit embarassing to the subject".

Look see PCID does not like peer review and has redefined it. Now Denyse O'Leary does not like peer review either. PCID does not meet WP:RS. Trying to censor that it does not is cheating. Haldane Fisher 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And neither does DI guy Robert Crowther. (See sour grapes and analysis of sour grapes.)

So, why has Langan not tried to publish this "theory" in a proper peer-reviewed journal? Hey why not ask him? Haldane Fisher 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And why are all the web references to the Mega Foundation site? They provide WP:V that Langan wrote the articles (as he probably has enough control of the Mega Foundation to ensure that they would be correct), but not that they were actually published. (I fixed the PCID reference to point to the PCID site.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, why are all the alleged press articles about this guy also hosted on his own organisation's website? I can understand him hosting his own 'theories', but not using his website to store and reference copies of commercial publications about him. Isn't he violating copyright by doing that?

For verifiability purposes, articles about him should surely also be hosted by third-parties, preferably the actual publications. This article is like an overly flattering author's blurb!

Maybe I can't google properly, but when searching for third-party copies of the articles, most often I can't find them. Why? The Crying Orc 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Most media outfits do not keep their archives up forever. I suppose some exist in the wayback machine (like the popsci article). Anyhow, to have an accurate reference for a print article, a web source is not needed, so whether or not an article facsimile is preserved at one website or another doesn't matter. In fact, those links can be removed. I put those media sources in as a footnote when someone asked for references for the opening statement. Someone else moved them to the article. The list of media sources should probably be changed back to a footnote. --DrL 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cannes

I can find no (online) evidence the the film was made or shown at Cannes. There was an episode of the documentary (TV) series First Person (IMDB entry on series, TV.com entry on episode) which featured Langan. I believe that section needs to be removed unless sourced. (The reference is a plausible publisher, but, without a film title, even off-line checking would be impossible.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is not good. User:DrL and occassionally User:Asmodeus are taking one extreme POV, and most of the other editors, including User:FeloniousMonk, User:ScienceApologist, and User:Jim62sch are taking another POV; less extreme, but still not allowable under WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I am trying to keep a neutral footing here. Why don't we discuss your objections to my edits? I am certainly not edit warring. I am trying to improve the flow of the article. As far as I know Asmodeus has not edited this article so what are you talking about? Will be happy to negotiate changes. --DrL 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the editing behavior on the article, I am sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV. Please review my changes and notes in the edit boxes. I really don't think the drum needs to be beat so heavily to make certain points. For example, it should be sufficient to say that one is an autodidact and has little formal education to make that point. Obviously he doesn't have any college degrees. Likewise, the ID connection has been sufficiently noted. Langan is actually not involved in the ID movement as far as I know, other than to have published a paper in PCID and accept appointment as a "fellow" in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. Some things for you all to think about. TIA for your consideration. --DrL 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to explain your changes bit by bit, rather than saying "please review my changes". What is it about the ID issue that makes you feel it should be removed? Why do you discount direct quote from Langan? Given the context, it's more useful to say that the person has no formal training in the fields in which he is a self-proclaimed "expert" than it is to say how much college education he has. As for the ID thing - you removed references to his contributions to ISCID and his writings on ID. The "political vs scholarly" angle on ID is a red herring - that isn't what the text you removed addresses, and more importantly, since the ID movement has yet to produce any science, how can you separate "scholarly" from "political" in an overwhelmingly political movement? Guettarda 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I explained changes in the edit boxes. I did not have a problem with the direct quote, but I did have a problem with all my edits being reverted wholesale, including a neutral description of the contents of the paper. --DrL 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, without a detailed consideration of Guettarda's comment) Thinking about it, I withraw my suggestion that User:DrL is taking an extreme POV (any more; some of the earlier edits reflect at least a misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NPOV); however the fact that he's a fellow of ISCID must occur before his paper in PCID, or we have to report that he's a fellow twice, as the fact that he's a "fellow" is relevant to the degree of peer-review that they would take. I also would appreciate a cite, although I don't think it's possible, that he's a fellow in the scholarly, rather than political, sense. I'm not sure that ISCID has sufficient scholarly attributes that there's a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ISCID is not a scholarly organization, not in any meaningful sense of the term scholarly like the NAS or the AAAS. Rather it is group of like-minded individuals who share notion that is considered by the courts and scientific community to be pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree about ISCID being a scholarly organization. I believe it very much is. I don't deny that there are political overtones. I have never read anything to indicate that Langan is politically involved in the ID movement. --DrL 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course everybody thinks they are the ones trying to maintain a NPOV. Edit warring starts with the first revert, not the changes it removes.

Prior to my arrival at this article yesterday it read like a Langan hagiography; it even failed to mention in the intro what he is, that he is an autodidact promoting several notions on scientific topics, that he has little to no formal education on these topics, or how his notions on matters scientific are received by the scientific community. That simply will not fly by Wikipedia standards. Any article on Langan that ommits or glosses over these points will simply be incomplete. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some parts of the article are an improvement but others are lacking. For example: "He has no or little formal education in these fields, and no diplomas or certificates, [...]"

It is already stated that Langan is an autodidact. It is later stated that he has little education ("With only a small amount of college, Langan has held a variety of labor-intensive jobs "). This sentence brings in no new information and is an example of a pattern of edits designed to portray him in a negative light by repeating and emphasizing certain pieces of information over others. --DrL 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur

Thanks for your editing advice. I've made several content edits and many format edits to properly align the references, etc. I hope that you find the article improved and NPOV. Constructive feedback welcomed. --DrL 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally involved editors and WP:AUTO & WP:COI

Without mentioning any names, it's been brought to my attention that an active editor on this page has a personal stake in the topic of this article. The edits of this contributor are suspect, and so I'm asking that contributors with personal interests in this topic limit their participation at this article to comments on this talk page and not edit the article per WP:AUTO and WP:COI. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who edits an article as long as the edits reflect a NPOV. While it is frowned upon to edit one's own biography, it is encouraged that the subject correct errors and historical information. Even then it's allowed because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". It's really not up to editors to contend or accuse other editors of having a "personal stake" in one topic or another. The important thing is to strive for a factual, neutral presentation of the material. As long as we don't lose sight of that and have a willingness to work with other editors, then Wikipedia may have a chance of succeeding. --DrL 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No Edit Warring, Please!

Please make constructive changes in collaboration with other editors. Also, please assume good faith! encourage editor collaboration and discussion. I am perfectly willing to work with the other editors and would suggest that changes that are too POV one way or the other, positive or negative, be discussed by interested editors before being inserted into the article. --DrL 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Your incessant reverting and biased edits here demonstrate that you're more interested in paying lip service to constructive collaboration. WP:AGF says "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. " and your pattern of inserting and emphasizing details favorable to Langan while deleting or minimizing properly sourced facts that are unfavorable belie your appeal to good faith. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Although User:DrL may be related to the subject of the article, most of his/her edits have been improvements toward NPOV. Please do not globally revert his/her changes. I'm going to be away for a few hours, at least, but I hope that some resolution of the questions of the exact nature of ISCID and whether the quote User:FeloniousMonk has been inserting really supports the claim that that Langan is really an intelligent design proponent. (I, personally, don't think it's adquate without additional context, and DrL doesn't think it supports the issue at all.).

Other issues include the double-listing of the PCID paper, the summary of intelligent design (which seems unnecessary to me), and the claim that CTMU is a form of meta-Darwinism (it claims to be, but I'm not convinced we should take its own word on the issue.)

I won't protect the page, as I'm involved, but I think a request for page protection might be seriously considered by an uninvolved Admin. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Arthur, I have cleaned up the article and removed the double references, formatting errors and a typo or two. Thanks for your input. --DrL 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Although DrL may be related to the subject of the article, most of his/her edits have been improvements toward NPOV." I disagree, DrL's contributions promote an overly rosy depiticion of Langan and his "scientific" notions while minimizing or removing altogether how they have been received by the scientific community, something WP:NPOV specifically calls for (a point you should already know as a fellow admin.) Any article on Langan that omits properly sourced mention that he advocates a particular form of ID and plays a role in the ID movement is simply incomplete, either by design or by chance. The former appears the case here, rather than the latter. BTW, WP:AUTO absolutely precludes editors from editing articles about themselves as controversially as DrL has. Skirting policies and guidelines by hiding behind anonymity is an act of bad faith by definition. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"BTW, WP:AUTO absolutely precludes editors from editing articles about themselves as controversially as DrL has"

Aside from your being just plain wrong about what WP:AUTO does or does not "preclude", this article is not about me. Even if it were, I would still be "allowed" to edit out any misleading or disparaging comments. Langan does not advocate "a particular form of intelligent design". ID theory purports to be empirical science; its statements are subject to verification by the scientific method. Langan's theory, being philosophical in nature, is subject to verification by deduction alone. If you had read his writing with the care it warrants, this would be perfectly clear to you. Moreover, the CTMU article written by Tim Smith explicitly presented the CTMU as philosophy, specifically metaphysics. You are engaged in the deliberate misrepresentation of the ideas and belief of a Wikipedia biography subject in stark violation of WP:LIVING. (The only criterion for being a fellow of ISCID is to have done significant work pertaining to complex systems. No candidate is required to embrace ID as a condition of appointment.) --DrL 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)