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.

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)

SA, since you wouldn't help with the problem, I went ahead and moved the paragraph and some of the excess less-reliable sources of criticism. I did it in separate small edits so that it will be easy to address them independently. It still seems that you have a strong focus on debunking in the middle of the section on the book; this is not really necessary; cite a few criticisms instead of trying to teach cosmology. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement you just put back, "Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it," is inherently not sourceable. If someone says that you can link them and attribute it as a opinion or a finding. I took the whole paragraph out as inappropriate teaching in an attempt to debunk; there's no need for such essays when the criticisms are plain on their own. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RSN thread

Regarding Alex Macandrew and talkorigins archive: WP:RSN#Reliable source for a critique of Eric Lerner's book?.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy with text, now on to sources

I am happy with the text, now on to the sources.

Two sources have been removed:

Alec Macandrew's Evolution Pages critique and the TalkOrigins Archive critique. Both of these sources would be valuable for the reader to have available and I do not see them as being unduly weighted since we are not mentioning them specifically. We can handle this in a number of ways: we can use them as references or we can include them as external links.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with ref#30 to Sean Carroll's blog. (1) It does not refer to Lerner's book. (2) It hardly refers to Lerner's theories (3) It appears to criticize (a) just one statement of Lerner's, and (b) a joint statement from several other scientists.

Hence the statement "the book [..] continues to receive unfavorable reviews" also seems inaccurate. All the other sources are from 1991/1992, and there were no unfavourable reviews after then. --213.122.59.214 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two reviews by Macandrew and from TalkOrigins are more recent and they're certainly unfavorable. Plus, Wright's critique is updated as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SA, you took the sources to RS/N trying to get some support for them, but actually got a fair amount of pushback. As I mentioned before, it doesn't really improve the article to "pile on" two self-published blogs from the creation/evolution fights in a list of otherwise reliable published reactions by cosmologists. Why do you want them in there? Why do you put them back after failing to find support for doing so? Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, stop mischaracterizing these sources. They aren't blogs. They are good sources on the subject. I got support for them being reliable from Blueboar and the other two commentators dropped out of the conversation after Blueboar made his determination. The issue is one of weight now, as you put it. If you really think using the two sources as one of dozens of references, you're going to have to explain. They both are excellent essays on the obvious problems with Lerner's work. If you want a reason for keeping them, read the discussion happening just before you jumped in. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant self-published web pages. I agree as I said it's more of a weight issue, which is what my reference to piling on was about. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only one is self-published. If you think there is an issue, I encourage you to take it to WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is manifestly not a violation of WP:SYNTH to state that there "continue to be negative reviews" when reviews that have happened after 1992 or so are clearly available that are negative. If you disagree, WP:NORN is thataway. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Adopting an eternal universe, Lerner's explanation of observed cosmological evolution relied on a proposed a model of thermodynamics attributed in part to the work of Ilya Prigogine under which the universe has no definite age[19] but continually increases in order in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.[20]" What proposed model is this? Reading about Ilya didn't make me smarter. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were discussing the edit I just did. But you can't say "continues" unless there's a continous stream reviews on the book coming out. Perhaps comments, but the time of reviews is over. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)