Talk:Eric Lerner

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Non-scientists commenting on Eric Lerner

Let's have the conversation again, since I was informed that the conversation took place on a noticeboard rather than at the article talk page. The fact is that the Chicago Tribune's writers who do not have science degrees are not on parity with the other scientists reviewing the book. Since the Chicago Tribune makes scientific judgments in their review, their review is rejected as being an unreliable source. Only experts should be commenting on the quality of scientific argumentation, not anonymous newspaper writers. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it require a science degree to be on parity with book reviewers on a topic of pseudoscience, as you call it? And why can't you point me at the previous discussion? And why does "parity" trump "balance"? Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since well-known experts commented on the book, it is not a good idea to include the opinions of non-experts as a false means of "balance". It's like writing an article on creationism and quoting biologists who dispute creationists and then a journalist who supports it. See the problem? Science owns this subject, not journalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Once science (and the Wikipedia science project) has disowned a subject, by categorizing it as "pseudoscience" or "fringe science", it no longer owns it - no more than articles on fictional characters - like the Pokémon. Pseudosciense can be written as writing about fiction, as long as it is categorized as such. Besides, this article is about a person, not a sciencific theory. If his books get favorable reviews in the press and it helps him sell more books, then the reviews are notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Science can no more "disown" a subject that is purview to its gaze than can arithmetic omit certain numbers on the number line. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can point you to a previous discussion, but it's not entirely worth it because it has been vandalized by people who came to the discussion months after it concluded. What I need to do is cull through the history of the diffs, which I do not have time to do right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV seal of approval?

Maybe real science articles should have some kind of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science seal of approval to indicate that they present a scientific point-of-view. Content would then be decided not by WP:NPOV but the more restictive rules enforced by SA. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate choice of words to say that science "owns" this subject, even more so because we are at Eric Lerner, not at Plasma cosmology. It is true that Lerner packages his ideas as science and wants them to be considered science, so it is unavoidable to report how science evaluates those ideas. Even if Lerner didn't care what mainstream science thinks, he is making falsifiable statements about the physical world, so we owe it to the reader to show how those statements do or don't fit in with everything else we know about the physical world. I'm not sure exactly what to do with the book reviews here, but at a minimum we need to clearly distinguish between the reaction of the scientific establishment to the content of the book and the reaction of journalists to the style (a la, "right or wrong, a fascinating tale and a good read"). --Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the proposal is totally sarcastic, but it does sound like SA's approach. The trouble is that you can't really do an encyclopedic job of describing the ideas of fringe or marginalized or pseudo science from the science point of view. The ideas need to be communicated first for what they are; then it's fine to say that they're rejected by mainstream science. Nobody has objected to reporting "how science evaluates those ideas," which seems to be Art's worry above. As to the attitude that "he is making falsifiable statements about the physical world, so we owe it to the reader to show how those statements do or don't fit in with everything else we know about the physical world," I couldn't disagree more. We owe it to the world to report reactions in reliable sources; especially falsifications or claims of falsifications. But it's not our job to debunk the ideas. Furthermore, the whole problem with the scientific point of view, which has been elaborated in many books, is that the scientific establishment gets hung up on their paradigmatic interpretations of experimental evidence, to point of being blinded to the possible value of fringe ideas; I'm not saying we should push fringe ideas, but our balance should be based on the historical recognition that every now and then one of these fringe ideas turns out to be right. There's no need to argue over that in every fringe or pseudoscience article; just report what's out there, focusing on the topic, with a reasonable weight given to reactions against it. You can't have a sensible article on Eric Lerner written from the point of view of the scientists that he says are full of it, but certainly do need to include their reactions in the article about Lerner and his ideas. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem reporting Lerner's ideas. There is an issue when he makes dubious assertions that are misleading enough to be of questionable encyclopedic value. In other words, Lerner's book is reliable source for the fact that he has opinions, but the point of this section is that he goes beyond his opinion and begins asserting facts that are false and certainly not verifiable. I guess what I'm saying is, find a better quote that doesn't delve into factual inaccuracies. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Refuses to accept"

SA, your recent wording "refusing to accept" seems appropriate more to you. Can you not accept that a person can have their own opinions? I don't think that the book can be taken as verification that he "refuses to accept" any particular aspect of modern science. Sure, he doesn't accept them, but why call that a refusal? Can't he have his own viewpoint based on Alfvén's plasma physics studies? Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your argument. Are you saying he does accept those aspects of modern science? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not; he explicitly rejects those. But "refuses to accept" makes it sound like someone has been petitioning him and that it has been decided that he's just stubborn, as opposed to being a serious personal with an alternative theory. I know that's what you'd like to to sound like, but if you don't have reliable sources that put it that way, why do you think wikipedia should be spinning it that way? Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now. I didn't intend for Wikipedia to spin it that Lerner was stubborn. He is stubborn, but that's not the reason he doesn't accept evidence for dark matter. He is simply not familiar enough with the literature and the data to understand it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's false. Jon (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anxiously awaiting an explanation

[1] Looks like tit-for-tat editing to me in response to my questioning of the reliability of sources who are not experts in the subject providing reviews. I await Dick's rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tit-for-tat"? Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your tagging with very little in the way of explanation looks to me like it's in response to my tagging of the two non-experts as unreliable. What, praytell, makes New Wright unreliable? I anxiously await your response (Actually, I'll be I know what you're going to say because we've had these discussions on this page for a very long time and there's nothing new that you're doing that hasn't been tried before by supporters of Lerner.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning again

Let's try to frame this discussion in terms of context. What do we want the reader to get away from when reading about Eric's book? I propose the following:

1. Describe the context in which the book was written. We can use Helge Kragh's book as a source.
2. Describe the tone of Eric's book and the public/expert dichotomy in reactions (a classic example of hucksterism, according to Stenger)
3. Describe the essential features of the arguments Eric makes (carefully -- without pandering to any POV. Trying to assert facts rather than opinions).
4. Describe the current state of the book.
5. Avoid direct quotations. They're too acrimonious.

Does this sound good?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On your final point ("Avoid direct quotations"), not sure whether you mean quotations from Lerner and/or from other sources, but I don't see why quotations are "acrimonious" and I don't think they have to be avoided completely. Having said that, I agree there are too many quotations in the article at present, and its style would be improved if there were fewer. I agree with your other points, which are basically NPOV. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to be avoided completely, but per WP:ASF if we can avoid quotations it may be better. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

SA, thanks for the outline of intentions. My reactions: our reader is not typically going to read the book; what do we want the reader to come away with when reading the article? On your points:

1. Which Helge Kragh book? Conceptions of Cosmos: From Myths to the Accelerating Universe: A History of Cosmology? I find no mention of Eric Lerner in it. Probably you mean some other book? Maybe Cosmology and Controversy? Where he says "In Eric Lerner's attempt to revive interest in Alfvén's plasma cosmology, there are many features resembling the earlier, pre-1948 steady-state theory. Thus Lerner emphasizes the reusing and recycling of energy in processes with no time limits. On the methodological level, he (following Alfvén) stresses the need to keep to empirically confirmed processes and to avoid grand theoretical schemes." That sounds like it would be OK to include. There's more about Alfvén before that, which would also be OK. Or in Matter And Spirit In The Universe: Scientific And Religious Preludes To Modern Cosmology, there's a brief mention of Alfvén's ideas with footnote to Lerner. I haven't checked all his other books.
2. Decribe the dichotomy in the reactions? What source does that? Are you proposing a WP:SYNTH?
3. Yes of course; facts about his opinions, since that's what the book is about.
4. Current state of the book? If it has evolved or has a current new edition, for sure. What sources are you thinking of.
5. Avoid direct quotation? Most don't seem that acrimonious to me. Quotes are useful to convey the true opinions and feelings of the principles better than anything we're likely to write, in many cases. Which quotations are you concerned about? The reviews?

Your opening question is an excellent one we should try to answer.

1. Yeah, Cosmology and Controversy is the one I'm referring to.
2. No, I'm proposing to do a on the one hand, on the other hand comparison. No synthesis.
3. No comment.
4. The sources for the current state of the book would have to be the later commentary that we source from the critics including Carroll etc.
5. I think the problem with direct quotation is that it cannot be properly characterized and it is somewhat arbitrary at the present time. Quotes are useful for a newspaper article, but not for a general encyclopedia article in my opinion. I'm concerned about nearly every quote: quotes from the book and quotes from the reviews. I just don't think including a quote mine is encyclopedic.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I came to look at Eric Lerner's theories after seeing him mentioned in slashdot. However, the criticism section does neither point to a good refutation or reasoning why each of the critics dislike his theory. Unless each of them have done a longer treatise it is not so interesting to the reader to get listed numerous subjective opinions of scientists. I am agnostic to whether Lerner is on the right track here, but the criticism section is totally non-informative to me. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As his theories have no scientific support, it would be a violation of the proposed WP:FRINGE not to include refutations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where that proposed guideline mentions "scientific support", or what source you're using to say that it has none; nonetheless, I agree that it would be improper to not include those refutations that are published in reliable sources. Arther, I hope you recall that I'm often on your side in preventing the inclusion of unsourced nonsense in math and science topics. But this Lerner stuff is sourced; whether he's totally wrong or not, he's trying to be scientific here in representing the ideas of a Nobel-prize-winning plasma physicist. It is not really appropriate to just call it pseudoscience as an excuse to mistreat it, as ScienceApologist does, and as in the policies he proposes. Let's fairly represent the ideas, and the reactions against them, and let it be. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjaminbruheim. What I think needs to happen is a rewrite of the criticism section with an eye on context. I began workshopping some ideas, but got sidelined for a time. I would like to move away from direct quotation and try to write actual prose about the book, the controversy surrounding it, the critical reaction, and the dwindling impact that it has (not) enjoyed. I would like to have everyone here help in this regard. What say ye?

By the way, the BRD revert of Dicklyon was just a concern about WP:WEIGHT and nothing more. I actually don't like the section, but would prefer to keep it properly weighted before the overhaul happens.

I'll wait for other users to comment and then begin a workshop on Talk:Eric Lerner/BBNH section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the weight problem is pretty much in the other direction. There are already plenty of well-sourced negative reviews; there's no need to also include and quote the poorly-sourced (self-published) ones. I believe it's a violation of WP:BLP to leave such a pile of criticism there.

As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view. If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that? Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While hoping for collaboration, due to the seemingly endless desire for debate indicated on this page, I decided to make a bold first pass at the rewrite. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's bold. Actually, not too bad, I confess, except for the big aside about Wrights repudiations that interrupt the description of the book. So I took that out. A brief mention later might be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Wright's repudiations, please don't fall into the particular attribution trap. In particular, though we use Wright as an excellent source for the repudiation, all the other critiques of Lerner proceed along the same lines. I'm fine with rearrangement, but outright removal is NOT okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make it clear that it's not just Wright's repudiations using the citations and taking Wright's unique critique (basic errors) and moving it to Wright's section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work. The linked topics are great for understanding the context and are educational in that they are thematic instead of technical. The arguments instead of judgment makes it easier to understand both the points of Lerner and his critics. I'm almost surprised! Good job again. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)