Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eric Lerner: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:20, 10 September 2006 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,450 edits Sole reliable supporter of Eric's book: sorry, that's not good enough.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:22, 15 April 2024 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by Templean1994 - "External links modified (January 2018): " 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start |listas=Lerner, Eric |living=yes |1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Biography
|s&a-work-group=yes
|s&a-priority=low
}}
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Low|bio=yes}}
}}
{{Connected contributor|User1=Elerner|U1-EH=yes|declared=yes
|User2=Posa51|U2-EH=yes}}
{{oldafdfull|page=Eric Lerner|date=13 April 2008|result='''No consensus'''}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{ArbCom Pseudoscience}}


== External links modified (January 2018) ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
{{Notable Wikipedian|Elerner|Lerner, Eric}}


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925150243/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
==NPOV==
''The ideas which Lerner espouses are generally regarded as so outlandish by mainstream physicists that he is essentially ignored in that community.''


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Prove it.


===External links modified (April 2024) ======
-- Deleted it, it's completely unncessary in a discussion of his credentials (as the article now stands).


I have recently added a new external link detailing peer-reviewed research that was
:No actually its a perfectly necessary and relevant little tidbit when talking about {{RPA}} Lerner.--] 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
conducted last year in March 2023. This research was also published in the media
as well. Here is the link: https://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-fossil-fuels-hello-fusion-energy-3718669. If you have any questions please direct them to LPP Fusion
using their email or business website. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I also deleted the external link detailing that LPP Fusion was not close to a working commercial reactor due to the link showing no evidence that this claim is
:gee, I thought there was some rule on wiki about personal attacks, but I gues thsi does not qualify , huh?] 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
based on. The link references a commercial website on plasma technology that has no mention of LPP Fusion at all. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==LPPFusion==
::I agree - I used ]. ] 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi from the notorious subject of this page, not banned from talking. If anyone still edits this, I would like them to update the outdated links. The correct link for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, DBA LPPFusion, is https://lppfusion.com/
:::I disagree. While it is true that in the previous (now removed) comment by me I did in fact refer to Eric Lerner, the subject of this page as "a fucking nutter", my comment expressed my opinion about this page's subject and NOT another editor on wikipedia. In fact Eric Lerner's first edit to wikipedia under the name Elerner would not occur until 4 days after I made the comment and therefore my comment did not in fact constitute a personal attack on another editor since he was not even present or editing Misplaced Pages at the time. I am fully aware of the personal attack rule on wiki and would not have made the comment if he had been present at the time of my post. --] 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:Done by Jonathanischoice, thanks, —]] – 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


== mention pseudoscience/fringe in opening ==
::::Perhaps you think it would be ok to say on a ''talk page'' of an article about a living person that they are suspected of being involved in JFK's assasination? The talkpages are ''published'' and one should be careful with accusations, libel, and generally poisoning the atmosphere. Not to mention the idea that the subject of a biography can be expected to show up sooner or later. Civility is not about talking behind people's back then saying "sorry I didn't know you were listening". ] 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Should the opening graph/lead not mention the lack of credentials and fringe/woo hobby horses? It doesn't get into that until much later in the article.
::::Yes, in fact I do think it would be perfectly ok since talk pages are for expressing uncensored thoughts concerning the subject at hand and are not meant to be part of the actual article for precisely that reason. It also seems worth mentioning that the edit in question above was also made a month before the policy regarding "biographies of living persons" was instituted (apparently by yourself) which advocates removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons" from both the actual article AND the talk page (that last part being an absurdly draconian and unenforceable policy in my view). Anyway, I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth, who said I was sorry? The only reason I would not have used the terms I did on the 5th of Nov. '05 if I knew Lerner were present would be to NOT violate the no personal attack rule. Whatever, in any case I have no plans of continuing to edit this page anymore, there are plenty of other people watching it now who will prevent the usual whitewashing by Lerner et al. --] 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't think "independent plasma researcher" sufficiently conveys the facts. ] (]) 01:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
: No actually its a unnecessary and irrelevant little tidbit ... except to express a ] ... and your comments "total f***ing nutter" exposes your POV (something that I hope you don't edit into articles). Sincerely, ] 19:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


== Rollback ==
::Well, I think Lerner doesn't do himself any favors in the way he goes about things but I don't think he's a total nutter. His fusion technology is unproven, I know nothing about plasma so I'm not going to jump to conclusions (and that would be nonNPOV) so let's see what happens with that. Anyway you're probably calling him a nutter because of his BigBang views. I've noticed some people get very heated when the BigBang is questioned. I personally know cosmologists and they are quite open to discuss alternative models, so why Wikipedians and Slashdotters get so worked up is a mystery to me. ] 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


@] was messed up, so I had to rollback to a previous one. Please have a look at ] and ]. ] (]) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::: Most scientists are quite open ... it's the "fundementalist" that you have to worry about. Sincerely, ]


{{ping|Posa51}} I reverted the page back to an earlier version from September 2023. You added a lot of unsourced or primary sourced material, written with a promotional tone. If you want to further contribute to this article, please provide material that is written from a neutral point of view (see ]) and uses '''reliable secondary sources''' (sources from the subject himself or his company are not relevant), see ]. I would be happy to discuss with you proposed additions in this talk page. ] (]) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
:::: Well, the hydrogen+boron combination is certainly a genuine fusion reaction, so in that respect Lerner is not a "total ****ing nutter". Neither is the 1 billion+ degree temperature achieved using DPF a mirage. As for his ideas about field confinement, well we will have to leave that to the plasma physicists to sort out. Suffice to say I am not about to condemn a bloke who is trying to bring about cheap, plentiful and environmentally-friendly energy for all.]


:1) I was in the process of adding footnotes when you stepped in and inserted a reverted text. Can you at least give me a chance to put the footnotes in? Furthermore there was existing text that I had added to the article that was heavily referenced, principally from the scientific literature. What's your excuse for deleting that text?
http://photoman.bizland.com/lpp/eric_j_lerner.htm
:2) Have you reviewed the reverted text? Several of the links don't exist or never existed. Why don't you scrutinize the reverted text?
:3) Many of the claims in the reverted text are patently false we're almost 20 years out of date. For example: Eric Lerner is a bona fide scientist with 27 articles published in the scientific literature many of them peer reviewed. The nuclear fusion device he developed has been commented upon very favorably by some of the leading lights infusion Energy research. To claim he is merely a "science writer" as the reverted text does is false and accurate and misleading.
:4) It doesn't seem as if you're management of this article has been fair and impartial
:5) May I please have the opportunity to post an accurate and up-to-date text and add the footnotes in a timely fashion? Is that asking so much?
:Peter Catalano ] (]) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that the previous version is not perfect, and that several improvements are needed. The article describes Lerner as "an independent plasma researcher" which I think is the appropriate definition, given he has no affiliation to research institutions.
::If you want to add a mention about his publications in peer reviewed journals, please go ahead. If there are false claims in the article, you can also remove them.
::Just make sure to avoid promotion, ], and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements! And given some of his ideas are controversial, all point of views should be represented in the article, no matter what your own one is. ] (]) 21:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Hey Broc:
:::You wrote, "Just make sure to avoid promotion, puffery, and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements!"
:::Help me unpack that to save us all a lot of time. Lerner has achieved a lot. In science, people establish their cred by publishing findings and explanations. Then other scientists may challenge the data and interpretation. I start by just reporting his findings. That's not puffery. Or self-promotion.
:::Example: The guy invented a fusion energy device that set milestones for things like reaction temperature (> 2 B degrees K). He published results in a big-time, peer reviewed science journal. NO ONE has claimed that his experimental device didn't work or hit that milestone.
:::You want me to invent skepticism where it doesn't exist? Lerner uses a unique design, very different from the (failed) mainstream configurations.
:::You want me to ignore that? Several key figures have commented positively about what he's achieved so far. MIT plasma physicists.
:::Are you saying I can't publish that result just because I can't find someone who says "Lerner's a charlatan"?
:::Cosmology- When a scientist reports findings of an experiment in his lab or an observation through a telescope, he publishes a paper-- often peer reviewed-- then presents at a scientific conference. That's a primary source in science. Quoting the research premise and findings is not self-promoting hype. It's science. That's how science works.
:::You seem to think it's better that a blogger who may or may not understand the experiment and may have his/her own axe to grind, tries to explain the science instead of the scientist himself in an academic paper?
:::Before a critic is introduced, the findings have to be stated first and explained to a lay audience. Then you quote the critics. If there are any. And who they are. And whether they're throwing mud or engaging research data.
:::I stated Lerner was polarizing. You didn't even let me fill in the sections on the reception among his peers. There's a whole faction that's formed in alliance with Lerner. They're not in the mainstream. But the mainstream Big Bang Hypothesis is in crisis. Cosmologists are writing op-ed opinion pieces in the NYTimes about it. (Which I quoted) That's the context readers needs to know about.
:::Where critics exist I'll report that. But even in cosmology few rebuttal papers have been published that repudiate Lerner. And remember, anyone can add comments to a wiki page themselves.
:::So please help me out here. Writing a Wiki article shouldn't be root canal. ] (]) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Puffery would be things like "influential", "significant social activism", "distinct contributions", "strongly challenge" etc. All of these are words you might wish to write in a CV or a journalistic biography or such like, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, so the tone must be encyclopaedic. Again, see ]. Take a look at this article . It has: {{tqb|Lerner has written a few hundred articles as a writer and he is also a scientist of good repute, having co-authored some papers on plasma research in ''The Astrophysical Journal'' and the ''Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.'' }}But even this is not encyclopaedic. "Good repute" is editorialising. It might be okay, because the source says it, but it would be better to rewrite that as: {{tqb|Lerner is a writer and scientist, who has co-authored peer reviewed papers on plasma research.}} Do you see how this takes the factual kernel, and removes all editorialising? ] (]) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::You wrote:
:::::"Lerner is a writer and scientist, who has co-authored peer reviewed papers on plasma research."
:::::Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the guidance. ] (]) 03:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hi {{u|Posa51}}, back to the example you mentioned: {{tqb|The guy invented a fusion energy device that set milestones for things like reaction temperature (> 2 B degrees K)}}
::::::To claim it "set a milestone" you need to provide secondary sources, such as review articles, that recognize this. See: ] Alternatively, if you only have primary sources, such as a peer-reviewed article published by Lerner himself (subject of the page), you might state: {{tqb|In 2017, Lerner published an article on claiming to have reached a reaction temperature above 2 billion Kelvin.}} ] (]) 09:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Whoa. Broc- you deleted a lot of foot-noted text that was published on Wiki in Nov-Dec. I'll rewrite the intro which was deleted before footnotes could be added and was too-long and did not conform to Wiki style guidelines. ( I agree)
:::::::BUT You need to republish the footnoted text which you deleted which was published in Nov-Dec 2023... everything I wrote there is FULLY in COMPLIANCE to Wiki guidelines on sources. According to WIKI's policy publications scientific journals is considered to be IDEAL SOURCES. Every statement that was in the foot-noted text that was published in Wiki during November- December 2023 was an IDEAL source.
:::::::That took a lot of work. Please restore the text that was fully in compliance.
:::::::Furthermore, you're TOTALLY WRONG to say that SECONDARY resources are more important than IDEAL sources ie scientific journals. Anyway I did provide a secondary source in the earlier text from Asia Times. ] (]) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


=== Sidebar on PRIMARY and SECONDARY ===
President, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics,Inc. advanced technology research, consulting and communications firm.
{{hatnote|Subsection ] from main dicussion; the initial post below is a reply to the 20:45, 3 Feb. comment above.}}
For the purposes of writing an article at Misplaced Pages, Broc is correct that reliable, ] sources are ideal. (To that I would add, ].) Primary sources are far from ideal, and indeed may only be used with a ]. If you believe there is a guideline to the contrary, please quote it and link it. Since secondary sources are ideal, if you can only find primary sources and there there are insufficient reliable, ], secondary sources with ] of ], that may cast doubt on the ] of the topic "Eric Lerner" as suitable for a standalone article about Lerner apart from the existing article about ], and a separate article ]. In that case, the content here should be merged into a section at ], and this article turned into a ]. ] (]) 05:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:What part of this don't you understand?
:"Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies.."
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)
:According to Wiki standards listed above, the Journal of Plasma Physics, is an Ideal source. ] (]) 06:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:: Having worked with these policies and guidelines for over fifteen years I understand them pretty well. Did you see the words, ''comprehensive reviews''? Those and meta-analyses that accurately reflect the current state of knowledge are secondary, and are the gold standard; however the great majority of articles, often 100% of the articles in that journal (or any peer-reviewed scientific journal) are not secondary and not ideal. Please do not use primary sources in this article, except as defined in the list of restrictions; you may use them for bare statements of fact (author, date, location of laboratory, research sponsors, affiliations, etc.) but not for the meat and potatoes of the article, other than brief quotations without comment, summary, or interpretation which *must* come from secondary sources, not from you or any editor.
:: I grant that you have a different interpretation of how a primary source may be used at Misplaced Pages than I or {{u|Broc}} do, but the purpose of this talk page is exclusively to discuss how to improve the article, not to debate how primary sources may be used. There is such a place, though, and it is at ]. ] (for short) is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, the others being ] (NPOV) and ] (V); jointly they determine the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. You are welcome to start a discussion at ] about your view of PRIMARY sources and their role here. Not only that, but since all policies at Misplaced Pages are developed by the community itself—they are not handed down on high from the Wikimedia Foundation—if your view disagrees with the accepted policy, you are free to attempt to change the policy. (Spoiler: imho, that would be a gigantic waste of your time, but it is a path theoretically open to you.)
:: Now, can we please devote further conversation on this page to how to improve the article? Any further discussion about the value of a primary source on this page are both off-topic, and futile. Thanks, ] (]) 08:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::A Self-serving reply from you. You're making up your own rules. This has to be appealed. There was never any intent to make my article "better"... the entire published piece was summarily taken down.
:::You can't find the comment I referring to because my publication was entirely deleted by BROC.
:::If you're serious about making my piece "better", then revert to what I published and we can go through it line by line. I can make changes to the text so it reads as unadorned, declarative sentences.
:::Obviously scientific findings published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal are, as Wiki (science) clearly states, IDEAL sources.
:::You're being argumentative and irrational... you seem quite eager to prevent Eric Lerner's findings, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of the highest professional stature, to be suppressed. So what are your motives? ] (]) 08:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::As for NOR, you're being entirely disingenuous.The NOR policy states:
:::"Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."
:::The Physics of Plasmas qualifies as "reliable, published source" ... basically you're banning any reports in the scientific literature, since presumably ALL scientific research is ORIGINAL. Jeez. ] (]) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::::@] First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted.
::::Now to answer your doubts, hopefully once and for all as I think we are all repeating the same point. As you mentioned earlier: {{tq|Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals}} yet you have failed to provide a mention of Lerner's work in any comprehensive meta-review. Not all peer-reviewed published papers have pages on Misplaced Pages, an for a reason: they are primary sources, and they do not represent the scientific consensus on a topic. Meta-reviews, collecting all previous research on a topic, are usually good secondary sources that could (and perhaps should) be used in a Misplaced Pages article. Please provide such publication and I will be supporting its inclusion in the page.
::::@] I don't think the page should be redirected to ], as the subject is notable as author of ''The Big Bang Never Happened'', in addition to his work on nuclear fusion. I think a good place to gather consensus on this would be an AfD. ] (]) 09:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::::: Posa51, I've responded to behavioral issues that aren't germane here at your Talk page.
::::: Broc, I wasn't advocating a redirect, just pointing out general features of Notability and sourcing. Also, I'm new to the topic and still learning about it; having read some more sources just since I got here, I'm persuaded about Notability already (a lot of it due to negative attention, but that counts just as much). If you're curious, some of my earlier questions about notability were due to the extraordinary number of primary or non-independent sources in the references, but the others are probably sufficient, and I've found even more in the searches I've been able to perform myself. Having said that, simply being a book author wouldn't be enough for ], or every author in the world would be notable; clearly not the case. Neverthless, we've already established notability, so that doesn't matter. ] (]) 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::You rolled back the article... ie deleted what viewers see.
::::::This will be appealed. You're making up your own Wiki rules. ] (]) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Furthermore, the reverted version of the Lerner article is filled with errors, misleading info and vast omissions. Yet you're not at all concerned about the quality and integrity of the publication.
::::::Sounds as though there's a faction at Wiki with their own agenda and are suppressing/ censoring under some cover of legitimacy. ] (]) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As mentioned earlier: we are here to reach consensus as clearly some editors (including me) disagree with the content you added to the page. If you want to make an addition to the page, propose it here and let's discuss it. ] (]) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::We can't discuss content, Broc, if you an a colleague decide to make your own rules about sourcing and disregard WIKI's clear policies on the subject. This has to be settled with appeal, since people are making up their own self-serving rules.
::::::::Definitions on Primary Sources (science) state:
::::::::"A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles. An appropriate primary source is one that was peer reviewed and published by a reputable publisher."
::::::::This exactly describes Eric Lerner and his research. There are no qualifiers about "meta-research" or some such invented criteria. ] (]) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't discuss content then this is not the right place, as an article talk's page is uniquely devoted to discussing the content of the article. Repeating your point over and over will not change anything. Perhaps bring the topic to ].
:::::::::Ping me if you ever want to discuss actual content instead of repeating the same complaint. ] (]) 07:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::"First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted."
:::::People don't go to Wiki to read deleted material archived in History. You're censoring well established research and findings published in high end, peer-reviewed science journal.
:::::I'm more than happy to add a Criticism section to the Lerner article. That was always my intention but BROC deleted everything while I was upgrading the whole article.
:::::So How about you restore the text I published between Nov 23- Jan 24 and I add the Criticism?
:::::But note: Wiki guidelines understand that publication in a peer-reviewed journal by definition means that a scientific observation or experiment has been scrutinized by a reviewer or a committee of reviewers. Errors are caught in this phase. Upon publication other scientists can respond with their own research or by published letters or even demands for retraction.
:::::Lerner's articles have elicited no such response within the profession. Here and there a blog might launch a diatribe. You seem to place great weight on such documents. One article in Wired threw a lot of mud basically saying that the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH) was beyond scientific criticism and anyone who presents evidence that shows failed predictions or paradoxes arising from the theory must be a crank or religious nut. In fact Wired claims that it's dangerous to even criticize the BBH because their author claims it opens the door to religious explanations of cosmology... Lerner, of course, presents an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation of cosmology, which the NYTimes noted in an interviewed statement from Lerner back in the early 90s.
:::::Meanwhile, last Summer the NYTimes published an op-ed: "Is there a crisis in the Big Bang" (spoiler- the authors conclude the answer is "yes"..). That op-ed was written a few weeks after a Canadian scientist Rajendra Gupta from the University of Ottawa in Canada already has found that the universe probably is twice as old as predicted by the BBH ... a finding which upends much of the BBH.
:::::https://www.sciencealert.com/the-entire-universe-could-be-twice-as-old-as-we-thought
:::::And note, Gupta has appeared with Lerner to exchange views on the latest data, much of it gathered from the James Webb Space Telescope. Wiki administrators seem to think these discussions need to be suppressed and deleted. ] (]) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


'''Notice:''' as of ], user Posa51 had been indefinitely blocked. Discussion should continue based on the guidelines for Talk pages and for improving the article. Thanks, ] (]) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Scientific research in plasma physics and desalination


== Criticism ==
Development of fusion energy and x-ray sources based on the dense plasma focus
Originated plasma-based theories of quasars, large-scale structure and other phenomena of the Universe
Author of "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Development of Atomizing Desalination Process
Writing and editing on high technology


I added a new section heading, "Criticism", over existing content in the article; haven't added any new content yet. I debated using a stronger word than ''criticism'', as even Einstein had criticism, pretty much any serious scientist does. But the opposition to Lerner seems a lot stronger than just "criticism", and I wonder if we should use ''controversy'' as a possibly better descriptor? Also, the content does include some criticism, but as I've started to look around and inform myself about this topic, some of the first things I've found, such as "]", or "]" use terms like ''falsehood'' and ''pseudoscientific'' (both of them). (This was from the results of a non-] search for "The Big Bang Never Happened".) The article doesn't mention this word, and if there are sufficient reliable voices that use this term when describing his theories, then we might include it in this section, bearing in mind ]. {{ec}} ] (]) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Over 600 articles published
RESEARCH


:Thanks Mathglot. The criticism section brings some very necessary balance. I think I would oppose "controversy" because controversy sections are themselves controversial. Criticism will do as long as the facts of the criticism are unvarnished and reflective of what is in the sources. If we have sources saying "pseudoscientific" that would be validly used within that section. Above, you question Lerner's notability at all. I think that he probably is notable, although your comments w.r.t secondary sourcing are, of course, spot on. There are secondary sources about him, but those sources are, as a rule, rather critical (as you would expect). ] (]) 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1995-Present
::@] I am not a fan of "Criticism" sections as mentioned in ]. It seems warranted in this case, though, as the page is placing undue weight on theories not supported by scientific consensus. ] (]) 09:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
::: Honestly, I'm not a fan of the *word* "Criticism" as a section header, because it's suffered a negative taint here at Misplaced Pages a section heading for the reasons you state. Likewise, I agree it seems warranted here, and it was that tension between taint and desirability that made me muse a bit on possible other words for it, and I'm still open to another heading name, if you can find one. ] (]) 10:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:: Sirfurboy, I hope it brings balance, but if so, I can't take credit for any of it, other than the section header itself! But maybe that's enough to call attention to that part of the content (that, and the ToC entry at the top) so maybe even that is a slight improvement in itself. That was certainly part of my motivation for that edit (as well as a place to hang additional expansion, if it happens). ] (]) 10:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't even gotten to the Criticism section though I did mention Lerner was "polarizing" ... you guys deleted everything and then complain that you can't find it. Sounds like Bad Faith ] (]) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:Have you ever written a Wiki article? When the subject matter is vast and technical, the first thing that's needed is to provide a clear statement of a scientist's views. You do that first and document it. You've prevented me from doing that.
:Once the science is presented and explained, a Reception and Criticism section is written.
:You deleted my whole publication before I even got yo that section. Then you complain it's not there. That sounds like bad faith to me. ] (]) 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


How much attention is there to a description as "pseudoscientific" in the sources? I was struck that it came up twice in the top ten results for a non-cherrypicked query; a 20% result population would easily fit the "minority view" threshold of ], and if a typical percentage of all sources would merit some kind of mention in the section. Otoh, if that was a fluke, and there's only those two, then maybe it's more like "tiny minority", and doesn't warrant a mention. What have you all seen, wrt this? ] (]) 10:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Designed experiment to test hypothesis that Dense Plasma Focus could achieve temperatures needed for proton-boron fusion. Developed theoretical model, designed electrodes, designed diagnostic equipment, including x-ray detector and filters, Rogowski coil. Actively participated in experiment including selection of experimental parameters, construction of heating apparatus for decaborane functioning. Analyzed resulting data. Demonstrated achievement of 200keV energies. Developed theory of magnetic effects that show feasibility of proton-boron fusion. Work to develop intense x-ray source for infrastructure inspection. Continued development of plasma cosmology theories.


:@] I'm not sure if you have seen this old discussion: ] ] (]) 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1992-1995
:: I hadn't; thanks for adding that link. ] (]) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

:You need to send your deep concerns about Eric Lerner's psuedo-science to the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner, so the editors at these journals really have to pay close attention. ] (]) 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Designed experiment to test theory of heating in DPF. Designed electrodes, experimental plan, participated in carrying out experiment, analyzed data.
:: Responded to behavioral issues at your Talk page. ] (]) 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

:Pseudoscience should go in the lead. The reason he has a wiki article is because he pushes the widely rejected pseudoscience of "plasma cosmology", and its pov not to mention this. ] (]) 06:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
1986- 1991
::Here's Lerner's scientific bibliography

::https://www.lppfusion.com/peer-reviewed-papers/. I count 30 publications.
Developed an original theory of quasars based on extrapolation from laboratory-scale plasma instabilities in the dense plasma focus.
::I haven't seen any demands in these journals for retractions or any articles repudiating Lerner's scientific findings and observations. Have you? I'd like to see them. I'd also like to see your bona fides that entitles you to be making these judgments about an accomplished scientist and inventor.
Developed detailed theory of function of DPF.
::Of course nothing is stopping you from demanding retractions. Write the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner; this will make the editors at these journals really pay close attention.
Proposed a theory of the origin of the large scale structure of the universe, also from plasma instability theory and the role of force free fila­ments. This theory led to the prediction of supercluster complexes, shortly before their discovery by R. Brent Tully.
::I posed the same challenge to the grandiose editors at Misplaced Pages months ago. Never heard back from them. ] (]) 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Developed an original theory of the microwave background and the origin of light elements, accounting for both without need for a Big Bang. The microwave theory led to the prediction that there is absorp­tion of RF radia­tion by the intergalactic medium, a prediction confirmed by observation in 1990.

BOOK

The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House/Times Books, 1991.

ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang(to be published in IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci.)

Prospects for p11B fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus : New Results (To be published in the Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Current Trends in International Fusion Research), 2002

Lerner, E.J., Peratt, A.L., Final Report, Jet Propulsion Laboratory contract 959962, 1995 (1995).
"Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81
"On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995 p.145-149
"The Case Against the Big Bang" in Progress in New Cosmologies, Halton C. Arp et al, eds., Plenum Press (New York), 1993

"Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207,1993 p.17-26.

"Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938.

"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63-68.

"Prediction of the Submillimeter Spectrum of the Cosmic Back­ground Radiation by a Plasma Model," IEEE Trans­actions on Plasma Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, Feb. 1990, pp. 43-48.
"Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transac­tions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.
"Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

"Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.

"Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.


PATENT

Atomizing Desalination Process (US. Pat 5,207,928)

AWARDS

Aviation Space Writers Association 1993 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Trade Magazines/Space for "GOES NEXT Goes Astray" Aerospace America, May 1992.

Society for Technical Communication 1992 Award of Distinction: "Technology is Teaming", Bellcore Insight, Summer, 1991.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Special Interest/Trade Magazine Category for "Lessons of Flight 665," Aero­space America, April, 1989.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Galileo's Tortuous Journey to Jupiter," Aerospace America, August, 1989.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1988 National Journalism Award: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "FAA: An Agency Besieged", Aerospace America, February-April, 1987.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1985 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "SDI Series", Aerospace America, August-November, 1985.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1984 Journalism Award Northeast Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Mushrooming Vulnerability to EMP", Aerospace America, August 1984.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

IEEE, the American Physical Society and American Astronomical Society.

== Basic biographical information ==

What academic degree does Lerner hold? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs has he held full-time academic employment? Where is he currently employed? --] 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: What academic degree does Lerner hold? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs has he held full-time academic employment? ... Appeal to academia, tsk tsk .... to wit, I ask ... what academic degree before does ] hold (before 1890s that is ...)? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs had Heaviside held full-time academic employment? ... this is plainly an attempt to take a snipe at Lerner.
: Where is he currently employed? Read the bio link ... appearantly you didn't ....
: Sincerely, ] 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::Are you saying that he doesn't have any academic degree, from any university, and has never worked for any university? You seem to think that that is a point in his favor. Shouldn't we report that then? --] 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I think you miss the point ... not only those ].
::: He may have an academic degree, from a university, and may have worked for a university ... but IF he didn't, that ''doesn't'' mean his research is any less valuable.
::: Get a reference Art and then report it.
::: Sincerely, ] 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reddi added that he didn't get a degree, not having done the course work. That was completely unsourced, and its really not clear how it could be sourced (pers comm?). Please indicate source if you want it re-entered. Its not in his biog, that I can see. I added some stuff from his biog.

As for "leading" critic of the big bang... I doubt this. Certainly not supported by his publication record, which is slight. ] 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

==How much of this is real?==
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
and
Focus Fusion Society
11 Calvin Terrace
West Orange, NJ 07052

is located in a residential district on the border of West Orange and Montclair, at the foot of Eagle Rock Reservation. Ten years ago, I walked all around that area. The adress is probably someone's residence. At best, an office. Do these companies exixt only on paper? With no actual current funding aren't they just venture-funding-bait? Shouldn't this article be deleted? Or at least remove what can't be verified as more than just what people are saying about themselves? The more I look into this , the more the whole thing looks fishy. ] 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

] appears to be promoting him. Google and see what I mean. Maybe this does deserve to be an article ... but a quite different one. ] 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell everything personal we have is what he, his "companies", and Allan say about him and his "companies". How much is verifyable? Are these considered useable sources? If so why? ] 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


My, I do seem to get some people upset. Art Carslon, in particular, seems to have nothing better to do with his time than follow me from Wiki page to Wiki page--see "aneutronic fusion" and "plasma cosmology" and I am sure there must be others. I seem to be an obsession of his. Hate to toot my own horn, but I do need to correct those who say no one takes my work seriously. Generally, invitations to present your work at prestigious institutions, getting it reported in the scientific press, etc. is considered evidence that the work is taken seriously. (not of course that it is correct.)] 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:Stop editing your own page using IP sock puppets.--] 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:What an ego! I'm a professional plasma physicist who worked for many years in fusion and now works in cosmology. Where should I feel more at home than editing these articles, as I have been doing long before Eric Lerner showed up? Who's following whom around? --] 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think we need to continue with ]. Include the new problems and make the page active on the list of current User-RfCs. --] 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deglr6328,
*Changing Eric's status from "plasma physicist" and "plasma cosmologist" to "'''associated''' with plasma physics and plasma cosmology", is somewhat insulting. As a peer-reviewed author of nearly , on subjects from cosmology to plasma phsysics, it is pretty clear, and verifiable that he is more than "associated" with the subjects. Alfvén trained as an engineer, but won the Nobel Prize for (plasma) physics... I guess he was just associated with plasma physic too?
*And as for designating his theories as "]", I'm sure you'll have no problems finding a verifiable peer-reviewed citation... that's one of the factors that distinguishes science from pseudoscience --] 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not terribly concerned with how "insulting" it may seem not to refer to him directly as a physicist. The terms physicist and scientist are used most aptly (and frequently) by people to describe themselves when they actually have a PhD. i don't quite know what you're rambling on about with regard to pseudoscience and citations either. Lerner's plasma cosmology/anti-big bang/focus fusion theories are widely regarded as pseudoscientific. end of story. there is no real debate among scientists regarding those subjects.--] 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

::*Since when is a Ph.D a requirement for scientist status? This is elitist garbage. The Wiki article on "]" doesn't mention Ph.D. once.
::*If there is no debate regarding Lerner's work as pseudoscience, then you'll have no problems finding a verifiable peer-reviewed citation. Otherwise it is hearsay. --] 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Like I said, I'm not wasting my time with you debating whether or not plasma cosmology and wacky big bang denialism constitute pseudoscience.--] 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*I'm not asking you to debate it, as I am sure neither one of us cares what the other one has to say. I'm asking you to substantiate YOUR statement that Lerner's material is pseudoscience, which should be easy to provide a verifiable citation if you are right.
:::*Deglr6328, there is no doubt that Lerner's theories are not accepted by the vast majority of scientists. I doubt whether the vast majority of scientists have even read it. Of those scientists that have read it, very few (if any) have submitted their criticisms to peer-review. None of this implies that Lerner's work is pseudoscience. Just like the Big Bang, Lerner's work may turn out to be wrong. Again, this means that the scientific method has done its job, but it does not imply pseudoscience. --] 09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

::::How difficult is this for you to understand? incredibly, apparently. The sentance "Lerner's theories are mostly regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community." does NOT state "lerner's theories are pseudoscience" it DOES state that the vast majority of scientists think this is the case however. There is a difference and the completely factual note will stay. --] 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::Forgot to sign in, sorry--I made the last edit to the page.
Deglr, whoever you are, it is purely your personal, unsourced, opinion that "Lerner's theories are mostly regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community." It is that opinion of your that keeps getting deleted, as do the phrases and words that imply that various criticisms are fact. Just curious, but if what you said was true, how do you think I would get my stuff published in peer-reviewed journals, get invited to give presentations at various conferences and research instituions and get funded by various governments?] 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::The sentance refers to your preoccupation with theories such as plasma coslmology and anti-big bang fringe theories. It is not my opinion alone that these theories are pseudoscientific. That is a widely held belief among scientists and it is a statement which needs to be in the article. --] 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Let me remind you that "]". So in talking about what should be in the article we should focus on what we can verify through reliable sources. But that aside, I honestly don't believe you. I agree that the mainstream community, largely, rejects Lerner's theory, and that some have criticized points in it. Generally speaking, scientists have not built on his work. However, the term "pseudoscience" is a lot more critical of the work than this. A ''real'' example of pseudoscience is ]: that is, pretending that creationism is based on science rather than religion. For instance, I don't think Edward Wright thinks Lerner's work is pseudoscience (that is, that it's a disingenuous attempt at science), rather, he just thinks it's wrong. From Wright's tone, I get the feeling he thinks Lerner isn't a very good scientist and that his theories aren't good science, but "pseudoscience" goes a lot farther than that. And in any case, he's just one guy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: I should probably steer clear of this subject, but .... I tend to agree with ]. I think it is important to characterize the degree of Lerner's acceptance in the scientific community, but that is very hard to do in an objective way. I also think the term "pseudoscience" is so vague as to be practically useless and also practically impossible to define objectively. I'm not sure there is a clear difference between bad science and pseudoscience, but if forced to choose, I would call Lerner's work simply bad science. Can't we quote a few judgements from prominent (mainstream) scientists and leave it at that? --] 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::*As I suggested before, however we characterise Lerner's work, (a) it should be verifiable (b) attributable (c) should not infer this is the voice of "the scientific community".
::::::*I can find published and peer reviewed criticism of, for example, the Big Bang without any problems. So if "the scientific community" are equally critical of Lerner's work, it shouldn't be too difficult to find peer reviewed criticism. --] 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed. Unsubstantiated/controversial comments require citations. If you can find reliable citable/notable sources that have been published saying "We think Lerner's work is pseudoscience, and we represent the whole or most of the science community" that is perfectly fine for inclusion. But an unsubstantiated claim that "XXYY believes LErner is engaging in pseudoscience" is hearsay sicne it's NOT backed up by anything but someone's opinion. I suggest that someone tag the statement, if it's recurrent, with the 'Fact' tag. If citatations aren't provided, revert it out, or otherwise remove it. Problem solved, yeah? This is how Misplaced Pages is SUPPOSED to operate. To some degree, controversial statements are subject to the "verify or die" clause. If it's NOT notable and it IS controversial, it shouldn't be included. As I've been foirced to improve my works lately, so should anyone else making unverified claims. Best way to do that is with 'fact' tags or some other way of marking it up and then either adding notable sources to back it or deleting it. See, "I learns gud!" (/end self-deprecating humor) ] 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the template at the top of this page to "]" which is a Misplaced Pages policy page, which reminds us that "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; .. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question" --] 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


ScienceApologist, I've never seen such bias in my life, your edits disgust me, and you have sunk to a new low. How can you remove verifiable quotes to publications such as the Chicago Tribune, while retaining criticism such as Wright's that has never appeared any publication whatsoever, and then have the audacity to remove the link to Lerner's own rebuttal. DIGUSTING. --] 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:Chicago Tribune? What gives the Chicago tribune any weight in evaluating what anyone says about cosmology? Ned Wright is a respected astronomer whose website stands along with Gene Smith's as one of the most trusted and oldest web-based sources of cosmology information available. Just because something appears in print doesn't make it better. Evaulating sources themselves is important. Ned Wright is a notable figure in astronomy and cosmology. The Chicago Tribune is not. Rebuttals don't belong in a criticism section. If Lerner can stand up for himself, then report on it in the section that describes Lerner's work. --] 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::HYPOCRITIC. That's rich coming from someone using a creationist Web sites as source. And when will you learn the definition of POV pushing. Presenting points of view neutrally is not POV pushing. --] 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::For that matter what give YOU any authority in evaluting (a) anything on cosmologu (b) anything that the Chicago Tribune has to say. YOU are unverifiable. The Chicago Tribune stands on its reputation, and is verifiable. --] 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Careful, Ian. You're bordering on ]. Take a breather. We're all editors here trying our best to make editorial decisions. --] 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Then learn the definition of ]; removing ALL the positive criticism while leaving just the negative criticism is POV pushing, not providing a BALANCE of VERIFIABLE views. --] 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored ScienceApologist's HYPOCRTICAL removal of the link to Lerner's reply to Wright. If Wright's Web page is a good enough source (despite it not being peer reviewed) then so is Lerner's reply, and your one-sided editing still DISGUSTS me. --] 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:I consider what you are doing to be POV pushing which "refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent and undermine Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy". --] 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:Lerner's response is included with the Wright criticism. --] 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::Hypocritic! Demoting Lerner's repsonse to the small print in a footnote is not EQUALITY. Your bias is unbelievable. --] 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Chicago Tribune quote, they're more notable and veriable than ScienceApologist. --] 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:I've restored Lerner's status a plasma cosmologist, not "an advocate of plasma cosmology". You might as well have made him "an advocate of plasma physics". --] 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::We've had this argument before Ian. Plasma cosmologist is a neologism. Period. --] 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored the comment on Stenger's critism to put it into context. It is all verifiable, and you can provide any example to show that it is incorrect. But to give the impression that Stenger's critism's are conclusive is BIAS in the extreme --] 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


:I can understand Lerner not wanting his theories to be labeled as pseudoscience (obviously) and the concern Mango and Art voice about the word pseudoscience perhaps being too harsh is valid. However, its alternatives, which are equally true, that is that his theories are simply bad/wrong/crazy are even more intrinsically biased and thus I did not use those. I feel what is hampering progress here is Ian's insistance on using peer-reviewed statements to corroborate the statement here that Lerner's theories are considered wrong/bad/pseudoscience. This is an absurd and disingenuous requirement because Ian knows damn well that no one will ever find such peer reviewed statements. Is this because scientists have no disagreement with Lerner's theories as Ian apparently presupposes must be the case? No. In fact it is the exact opposite which is true. Lerner's theories are considered so nutty and out of the mainstream that no legit scientist will waste his time refuting such blatantly obvious nonsense and submitting it for a peer-review. One quick look at his citation record shows that his papers are barely ever cited by others and when they are the majority of the time they are SELF-citations! The fact that mainstream scientists overwhlemingly believe Lerner's theories to be utterly worthless is not going to be found in any peer reviewed paper but can be found in several (some of which are already noted here) other non-peer reviewed verifiable statements. The reader of this article NEEDS to know how far out and disreputable Lerner's theories really are (widely) considered to be. --] 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::*Yes, and people need to be able to VERIFY what you suggest. From what I recall, one of the criticisms of pseudoscience is that results are not submitted to peer review. Lerner's done that, showing it is of sufficient standard to publish.
::*I also recall that HUNDREDS of scientists and engineers are critical of the Big Bang, (that's VERIFIABLE in a reputable publication), so presumably you'd insist that readers should know?
::*I also checked your statement that "no legit scientist will waste his time refuting such blatantly obvious nonsense" which just goes to show that either you are wrong or Ned Wright is not legit? --] 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Nice try but I'm not getting dragged into that side debate with you. I know, I know, I need to EXPLICITLY spell things out for you lest you take and twist them around to some NEW absurdity; so the sentance should read, "what scientist would want to waste his time refuting such nonsense and taking the time and effort to submit it for peer review". The fact that you even think peer review would ever be used in such a way seems to betray a deep misunderstanding of how the process actually works. Most of the time, obviously wrong papers rife with bad science written by nobodies in a disreputable field are simply ignored. As such they probably should be.--] 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*If you don't submit to peer review, it's pseudoscience. If you do, and it gets in, we won't bother to reply. And that's the scientific method? --] 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

*I see that ScienceApologist has now resorted to providing critical quotes from personal Blogs. Is that better than quoting from book reviews on Creationist Web sites?
*I am surprised that Lerner manages to get ANY work at all, and gets past so many peers with his articles. --] 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::That blog is written by an accredited physicist. That his ideas are expressed in blog venue is irrelevant.--] 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::ScienceApologist remove one of my citations just two days ago because it was not '''peer reviewed''' despite being written by accredited scientists, and has reminded me that as far as he is concerned, "Peer review != notability". But blogs are fine! Looks liked there is one standard for you guys, and another standard for the rest of us. --] 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::Lerner doesn't get much academic work. He spends a lot of his time self-aggrandizing and trying to drum up private donations. His anti-establishment message does gain some traction with a certain set of idealogues, but you won't find him doing controversial things where it will get him into trouble. He won't, for example, present his plasma cosmology ideas at AAS nor does he try to drum up support for his fusion flights-of-fancy at IEEE meetings. That's just sort of his way, you see. --] 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Really? --] 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::::1991 and 1992? Really ''au courant'' of you, Ian. --] 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Joshua--you're back from vacation! Or is this just another assignment from your graduate advisor? You evidently don't read the page you are editing, which contains my conferences in the past five years: the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, 2002: the American Physical Society, 2003 and the XI Latin American Workshop on Plasma Physics, 2005. Lerner was an invited speaker at both the Fifth (2003) and Sixth (2005) Symposia on Current Trends in International Fusion Research, which is sponsored by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And of course there are my seminars on plasma cosmology during that same period at University of Pavia, Goddard Space Flight Center and European Southern Observatory. Also, I notice you are diligently gathering critiques of my book from scientists in the field. But on the plasma cosmology page, you insist that my work is ignored by scientists in the field. Which is it? Or does the truth not matter that much?] 23:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

*I've put in a request for Page Protection. And would suggest no further editing until we talk through our differences. --] 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*And I will be away until Monday. --] 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

==Mangojuice mediation?==

Mangojuice, I wonder whether you'd help us mediate this article. Unfortunately I'm away until Monday, but I'm sure Eric can hold his own until then. I would like to see some kind advice on what is considered a suitable source, peer reivew, newspapers, magazines, blogs? And advice on how to word certain phrases neutrally. --] 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Joshua (science apologist) sees fit to remove nearly all the favorable comments on my book, even those from James van Allen, who might perhaps be considered an expert. Very neutral!] 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Joshua is still reverting without justification. He is also is eliminating the fact that I was a visiting astronomer at ESO--this really seems to need censoring, huh, Joshua? Do you really think I would have been there without getting invited by the invitation committee? Why don't you do some actual work rather than trying to cover up mine? Oh right, I forgot, this is your class assignment.] 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm back from my short trip away, and would like to resolve the following issues:
#Lerner's status as a plasma physicist and plasma cosmologist
#Lerner was a "visiting astronomer", or was just "invited" to the European Southern Observatory in Chile
#Selection of critical reviews: what sources are suitable? Chicago Tribune? Personal blogs?
#Selection of critical quotes: positive and negative?
#Comments on critical quotes?
#The view on Lerner's work? Pseudoscience? Wholly rejected? By whom? Verifiability?
#Removal of Lerner's awards and article contributions,
#Use of general critical statements,
#Moving of Lerner's reply to Wright, to footnotes.
--] 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:You know, I think something that might help here is if we could get away from the current style of presenting quotes on BBNH. It's not informative, and it will never present the reception of the book in an appropriate light. On the quotes themselves, I think we can draw the conclusion that there was significant criticism of the book and its theories. I think we can draw the conclusion that the book was well-received by the lay community (cf the Chicago Tribune and the Sapp quote). I believe it's fair to state that Lerner has attempted to respond to any detailed criticism. Beyond that, I don't think there's much we can say. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:(I numbered the points for ease of reference.) One approach is to identify quotes from sources that are considered useable as sources at wikipedia for the issues you just raised. Once it is agreed what the ''basis'' for the article is, the rest falls into place so much easier. Perhaps we could take point number one above, and work on it as a test case. Whatever works well for point number one can then be repeated for the following points. ] 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. The only reliable source is a verifiable, reliable citation. I've already noted that:
::*Lerner is described as a "plasma physicist" by Amazon Editorial Reviews, twice,
::*He is described as a "plasma cosmologist" (A) by H. Ratcliffe, in "The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference", (B) In a Randall Meyers film, (C) In a book by Rem B. Edwards, "What Caused the Big Bang?"
::But I think this boils down to, what constiutes a verifiable, reliable source? --] 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Can I just point out that those two don't contradict each other? Surely, a "plasma cosmologist" is a subtype of "plasma physicist". ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Perhaps, though "cosmologist" also denotes something to do with astronomy which "physicist" does not necessarily? --] 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to write this main article for average readers and put all the hair-splitting details in footnotes. For example, if I could edit the article, the first footnote would now read:

Lerner is described as a "plasma physicist" by Amazon Editorial Reviews, twice, He is described as a "plasma cosmologist" by H. Ratcliffe, in "The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference", in a Randall Meyers film, and in a book by Rem B. Edwards, "What Caused the Big Bang?"

And other editors could add sourced meaningful hair splitting ''to the footnote''. Sources descibing him as a ''poor'' physicist or his theories as psuedoscience need to be in the article and not just footnotes, but being a poor fisherman or whatever doesn't mean you are not one. ] 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:*Isn't this how the article is written now? It begins "Eric J. Lerner is a plasma physicist" and there is a footnote with more information.
:*Are there any sources describing Lerner as a "poor physicist", and if so, do we base this on the sole judgement of an author?
:*Are there any source describing any of Lerner's work as psuedoscience? --] 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IBM says "Eric Lerner is a freelance science writer based in Lawrenceville, New Jersey." ] 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, he does appear to have many strings to his bow.
--] 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::Yes. Let us be positive about the "many strings to his bow". The reader can draw their '''own''' conclusions when faced with his actual contributions and the response (or lack there-of). It is Misplaced Pages policy that we do not "spoon-feed" the reader. ] 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::So are you suggesting that we do, or do not describe Lerner as a (a) plasma physicist (b) plasma cosmologist (c) science writer, and what do you base your answer on? --] 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest only that we present the evidence and let the reader decide. My preference is to give the readers quotes and sources but most wikipedians feel we must summarize the quotes. <small>Screw the majority.</small> ] 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Amazon Editorial Reviews are necessarily the authorities on who is or is not a plasma physicist. I note that most American plasma physicists are members of the Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society, whereas Eric Lerner is not even a member of the APS. Should we conclude that "physicist" is not an accurate description? I don't know, but you are going to have difficulties solving this one in a verifiable way. --] 11:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:This whole dispute seems ''really'' silly to me. If this were ], we could argue about whether to call Einstein a "scientist" or a "physicist", and we'd be able to pull up sources supporting either one, but in the end, both choices are perfectly okay. I say we stick with the first sentence we have. ] does say "Let the facts speak for themselves" but this can't apply to the label we put on Lerner. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::*Yes, I agree that the dispute is actually quite juvenile. I don't think there is any "official" confirmation of whether someone is a physicist or not, and formal education does not necessarily confer scientific status. What we do know, is that Lerner is President of a company that does research into plasma physics, and he has also published papers on plasma cosmology in the peer reviewed journal Transactions on Plasma Science.
::*I don't know any other person on Misplaced Pages whose status is questioned in this way. But as far as I'm converned, if he's a in a job that pays him to do physics, then he's a physicist, and if he's published in peer reviewed journals on plasma cosmologist, then he's a plasma cosmologist. His qualifications are a separate issue. --] 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

], can you point me to the policy page regarding not "spoon feeding" the reader, it sounds like a useful guides that I've missed. --] 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:I looked for that too. What I found was ]... but that really doesn't mean what WAS said it means. On the contrary, ] advocates "summary style" or "newspaper style" both of which sum up details for the reader's convenience. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See ] for what spoon feeding is and ] for what happened to that version and ] for the policy concerning it. When I said "It is Misplaced Pages policy that we do not "spoon-feed" the reader." I was refering to ]. It is standard to (as you say) use ''"summary style" or "newspaper style" both of which sum up details for the reader's convenience.'' But sometimes what is a proper summary is disputed. In those cases sometimes it helps to just present the evidence and let the reader make their own conclusion. Where there is no dispute, summarizing is good. ] 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting. What you're saying is quite appropriate for the whole "pseudoscience" discussion, but really quite impossible for the label (plasma physicist vs. plasma cosmologist) issue. In the lead, you simply have to sum things up; you need to give the context quickly and simply first before getting into it. BTW, Lerner is a member of the APS according to his resume . ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I suggested puting "all the hair-splitting details in footnotes". Someone reads he is a plasma physicist and if they think "says who" they can go to the footnote where all the sources and details that are relevant to making that judgement call are. It's not clear to me that I'm disagreeing with anyone. ] 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:*I think that is what we have now. There is more than enough evidence to support that he '''is''' a plasma physicst, with footnotes perhaps to APS membership, works in plasma physics, publishes in plasma physics journals.
:*Whether he is an "advocate of plasma cosmology" or a "plasma cosmologist", I can see no difference. --] 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Moving on ==

I suggest we move on to the real meat of the disagreement, which is how to cover the response to Lerner's work. I for one am very much against quoting many different sources as the article does now; it makes it unreadable, and we could go on forever finding more and more quotes and it would be very hard to ever agree we'd reached a fair representation of the spectrum of opinions. We should try to find some statements we agree are supported by the criticisms. Thoughts? ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:I agree about the quotes. Do we just says that "Lerner's book has received a number of mixed criticism ", on the grounds that this is a biography, not a criticism of his theories? Certainly half a dozen critics does not reprsent the entire "mainstream community", nor do any of them suggest pseudoscience, and nor do they criticise ALL of his work --] 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think we can read into it a little more carefully than that. The positive reviews tend to be from laypeople, or at best laud the attempt to consider alternate theories. The negative reviews have a lot of specific scientific criticisms; most expert reviews are of this form. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you sure?
<center>
<table border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0>
<tr align=center bgcolor=#eeeeee><td>'''Negative'''</td><td>'''Positive'''</td></tr>
<tr align=center bgcolor=#eeeeee><td colspan=2>Detailed</td></tr>
<tr><td>Ned Wright (UCLA astrophysicist) </td><td>Rebuttal from Lerner </td></tr>
<tr><td>Alec MacAndrew (Ph.D Physics) </td><td>???</td></tr>
<tr align=center bgcolor=#eeeeee><td colspan=2>General</td></tr>
<tr><td>Arno A. Penzias (Nobel Prize Physics)</td><td>James Van Allen (Space scientist)</td></tr>
<tr align=center><td>Victor J. Stenger (Prof.Physics and Astronomy)</td><td>Gregg Sapp (Science Library Head)</td></tr>
<tr><td>???</td><td>Chicago Tribune </td></tr>
<tr align=center bgcolor=#eeeeee><td colspan=2>Peer reviewed citations<br>(Negative/Neutral)</td></tr>
<tr><td>???</td><td>Paul Marmet (Ph.D Physics)</td></tr>
<tr><td>???</td><td>Thomas R. Love (Ph.D. Maths)</td></tr>
<tr><td>???</td><td>Prof. Whitney, C. K.</td></tr>
</table>
</center>

:::*I don't know the credentials of Gregg Sapp (Science Library Head), nor the author of the Chicago Tribune's piece. The citations to The Big Bang Never Happened are neutral, in that they are not critical.
:::*So I don't think it is as clear-cut as suggested. I would ''guess'' that if you ask most mainstream astrophysicists about Lerner's book, they will not be too positive; I would also ''guess'' that most of them haven't read it. I would ''guess'' that if ask many of the plasma physicists, they will not be negative about the book, and again, I suspect that many of them haven't read it.
:::*The point of all this, is what can we say about Lerner's book that is also verifiable? I am sure that Lerner will also acknowledge that the book has received criticisms. Many scientists also share Lerner's cynicism of the Big Bang, and I would ''guess'' are not negative of his book. --] 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::::*A scientific critique of the book itself is not important anyway. It is for lay people and is thus going to be incorrect, just as QED (Richard Feynman) is inaccurate. I wouldn't even expect to see a critique of the writing style of a book in an encyclopaedic article on the book's author, let alone a critique of the models and theories that it explains - a statement of the writing style should also be relegated to an article on the book itself. There seems to be far too much of a religious influence on the editting and discussion of this article with all sides being desperate (to the point of ridicule - from the PoV of an onlooker) to convince all readers that their personal belief is the one true way - Tristan Wibberley 20:13, 6 August 2006

:::::Pretty much what I suggest on 26 July 2006, above. This is a biogaphy, not a critique of Lerner's theories, which are discussed elsewhere. --] 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::"Science Library Head" implies the man is a librarian, not a physicist, and there's no reason to think the Chicago Tribune piece is written by an expert; it's a popular book, and that's a book review. The three "positives" you have under peer-reviewed publications don't seem to be papers about Lerner's book, but rather simply other papers about plasma cosmology. The Whitney one (the only one I could actually read the text of) barely makes mention of Lerner's book; the context is "The big bang theory is not without doubts (Lerner, 1992);" hardly a "reaction", but in any case as was in the article at one point, lack of peer-reviewed _criticism_ is more likely due to the book never having been taken seriously outside of the plasma physics community. I think a reasonably fair treatment, and one backed up by the reviews we have, is "Lerner's book, while well-received by the general public, has received little attention from scientists outside of the plasma physics community." We could go on to mention Van Allen's opinion (it's a notable exception). We can mention that there has been non-reviewed informal criticism, and responses from Lerner. In terms of whether the lack of peer-reviewed criticism implies a positive or negative reception, I think we should let the facts speak for themselves. Do we know of any peer reviewed papers outside of plasma cosmology/plasma physics that even cite Lerner's book? ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::*Lerner's ''articles'' have '''appeared''' in peer-reviewed non-plasma physics journals such as : Astrophysical Journal Astrophysics and Space Science
:::::*Lerner's articles have been '''cited''' by peer-reviewed non-plasma physics journals such as: Physical Review A , Nature , Astronomy and Astrophysics , Astrophysics and Space Science
:::::Again, this seems very far from the "pseudoscience" allegation. --] 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Articles, sure, I would expect that. What about his book? (BTW, I'm strongly against the "pseudoscience" term, I couldn't find any real substantiation for that.) ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Nope, only the ones in the plasma science citations provided above. --] 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to "I for one am very much against quoting many different sources". I am very much against removing ''any'' source either pro or con (that is a subject of this debate) and would like to propose that any such source be moved to a footnote rather than deleted. ] 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Sources, sure. But there's no need to keep the full quotes; even in references that's unnecessary. - unsigned ]]<sup>]</sup>

It is important whenever a source is provided to give the reader data on what is at the source that is relevant to the aricle. ] 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:Not really. Check out any featured article's references and you'll find very few where the reference is explained any more than simply providing the details of the source. Today's featured article, ], includes quotes in (I think) 3 of 81 references, and of those, none are actually needed. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

==Sole reliable supporter of Eric's book==

There is really only one legitimate supporter of Eric's work mentioned above. Not unsurprisingly, Van Allen, who Eric managed to get to favorably review his very dated book for his dust jacket, isn't exactly trumpeting the fortunes of Eric today. Why did this luminary favorably review Eric's work? It happens that Van Allen is one of the few remaining of a literally dying breed of old-school astrophysicists who were philosophical fans of the steady state model, and never quite got comfortable with what CMB observations were saying about the universe. When Eric's ideas first gained traction in the 1990s, some cosmologists were concerned that the CMB might have no anisotropies at all (which would have meant a terrible problem for the Big Bang model). So while the handwringing began, a lot of these old-time believers came out of the woodwork hoping to salve their wounds from being on the losing side in the great Hoyle v. Gammow bouts back in the 40s, 50s, and into the 60s. For some thirty years, few had been pursuing new leads in cosmological models. Hoyle was still around, but his ideas had grown archaic and weird. Then out of the small corner of people who studied Alfven, Eric emerged to champion a new hope with of all things electricity. Their hope unfortunately proved to be misplaced. First of all, Eric was pretty roundly panned in the astronmical community when he appeared at a few conferences in the early 90s to taunts and jeers. It was soon realized by even the more placating cosmologists nervous about the smoothness of the CMB that Eric's command of physics and astronomy belied that of a student couldn't pass qualifiers in graduate school. Eric had a rather embarassing encounter (sometimes termed a "debate") at Princeton University with David Spergel who put him to shame for his lack of rigor. When COBE discovered the anisotropies, the community breathed a collective sigh of relief and Eric attained official "flash in the pan" status.

What is left of Eric's brush with his great hope of Einstein-like greatness is a dead idea (from a research perpsective) that in no way keeps pace with current understandings of cosmology. Comparing Eric's work to that of Seljak or Hu is like comparing a nursery rhyme to James Joyce. Eric now publishes his work in second-rate astronomy journals from time-to-time claiming with shoddy techniques and innuendo that there are problems with the standard paradigm, but his pleas have fallen mainly on deaf ears. In the last 10 years, the only laudatory comments are from those not directly involved with cosmological research, a state of marginalization admitted to by Eric in his puff-piece "open letter" submitted to New Scientist magazine. The way to describe Eric's work is of brief fringe interest some 15 years ago and now completely dismissed for being no good alternative to the Big Bang.

--] 05:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:*''New Scientist'' published a letter indicating a couple of dozen scientists who might disagree with your summary,. Since then, several HUNDRED other scientists, engineers, and other researchers have added their names. Since then, there has also been an academic conference on "Alternative Cosmologies".
:*Lerner's theories, based on the Alfvén's "Plasma Universe" continues to be investigated, see for example the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" (IEEE TPS) (), a peer-reviewed publication of the IEEE which has some '''30,000 members'''; the American Astronomy Society has but 6500 members,. Another special issue of the IEEE TPS on the Plasma Universe is due in 2007. --] 10:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:*Gary F Moring's book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe" was published in 2002. It includes a section on , and doesn't seem to be as dismissive; I would suggest the description is exemplary in writing '''neutrally''' about controversial subjects. --] 10:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1) By design, there is no way to judge the status of the "dozens of scientists" who were signors of the Open Letter. More than a few have no familiarity with physics. Some don't even have bachelors degrees in scientific disciplines.
2) Eric publishes in out-of-the-way and second-rate journals, yes. That does not make his ideas "investigated" by anyone but his own clique. Yes, he was one of the people at the "alternatice cosmology conference" which had no scientific society affiliation and suffers from the same status problems as the Open Letter.
3) Using an "Idiot's Guide" as a reference is idiotic. Don't do it. I know Moring personally. He is a teacher for University of Phoenix, an online for-profit university of questionable "diploma-mill" repute, and he is basically a science writer, like Lerner, who couldn't cut it in the field. The page linked has no fewer than six distinct errors I caught. The author is not qualified to write the book, it seems. Accuracy is important.

--] 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:And by the same reasoning:
:*there is no way to judge that "There is really only one legitimate supporter of Eric's work mentioned above." Are you psychic?
:*Surely you're not suggesting that The '''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences''' is a second-rate, out-of-the-way journal? There are probably many astronomy journals that I haven't heard of, but I wouldn't dream of calling them second-rate.
:*What do you mean that Moring is "basically a science writer"? Is your only form of criticism to denigrate other scientists? I don't know Moring, but it seems that he has an M.A. from John F. Kennedy University, a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, and a Ph.D. Candidate at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, majoring in Cosmology. And it seems that he has time to write as well... and your ''assumption'' is that he "couldn't cut it in the field". I bow down to your superiour intellect and wisdom, and will make sure that all book publishers check with you first. --] 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::The reference is to the only legitimate supporter verifiably mentioned. IEEE transactions is neither an astrophysics nor a physical cosmology journal (making it out-of-the-way). Eric has a habit of submitting his papers to every journal he can think of because his papers on plasma cosmology tend to be rejected more often than not because of his incompetence. He found modest success with IEEE only because their editors are not familiar with astronomy and one of them is a sincere fan of Alfvèn. California Institute of Integral Studies is not generally considered a reputable institution for astronomical study. Moring is a New Age guru who likes to believe that the "universe" can talk to him in a very esoteric/quasi religious fashion. He would fit right in at the ] article, but he is no scientist. --] 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::IEEE Transactions may well be out-of-the-way for astronomers; It's not for plasma physicists. The implication that "astronomers must no best" is an arrogant conceit. --] 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The assumption is that when someone writes about astronomy, astronomical journals are usually where one does it. --] 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:When someone writes about ''plasma'', it seems equally valid to publish in a journal where people also know about the subject. As Alfvén himself recounted:

::".. it gives me a possibility to approach the phenomena from another point than most astrophysicists do, and it is always fruitful to look at any phenomenon under two different points of view. On the other hand it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the phenomena according to this formalism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers rarely are accepted by the leading US journals. Europe, including the Soviet Union, and Japan are more tolerant of dissidents." ''Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist'', American Scientist, May - June 1988
:Which is not to say that papers aren't published in astronomy journals too,; it's a shame you weren't there to advise them of their folley. --] 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this speaks to the main point of this section. It's clear now that Eric is marginalized, derided, and not accepted by the astronomical community. The article should not pussyfoot around this fact. --] 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:Certain ''people'' may deride Lerner's work, but they don't speak for anyone else but themselves. I'll agree that there is no acceptance by the '''astronomical''' community; but demonstrably, Lerner's work and extended theories are nevertheless STILL discussed in IEEE journals and elsewhere. --] 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:If Jonathan continues to vandalize this page, I will request that it again be protected in the version that it was last protected.] 03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::] defines what vandalism is. My edits do not fall in line with that definition. I suggest you respond to the actual content of the edits themselves. ] is not meant to endorse any specific version of the article. You'll have to work with me to get to a ] or use ] to get to the bottom of your issues. --] 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Having reviewed the article history, accusations of vandalism are clearly false, and a breach of WP:Civility. SA's contributions appear highly useful, and in many cases clearly backed up by Misplaced Pages policy. ] 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, I see there is a conflict of interest from Elerner. I generaly regard it to be a bad idea for Wikipedians to edit there own articles. ] 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

*I object to ScienceApologist's removal of Lerner's status as an "astronomer" or "scientist", which is verifiable material:
:*This Goddard Space Flight Center page says that Lerner "... was recently a '''visiting astronomer''' at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile", as does "The Space Show" page . The ESO descibes Lerner as a "Visiting Scientist"
:*That Riccardo Scarpa invited Lerner, is irrelevent in a biography on Lerner, and Scarpa's position on the Big Bang and MOND are also nothing to do with Lerner. --] 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::Lerner's major research activity is his own independent work into fusion which is only obliquely related to his plasma cosmology anymore. There is a good argument to be made that his advocacy of plasma cosmology is done to boost his reputation and get funding for his lab. Lerner's credentials are also sorely lacking. --] 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages is not the place to make arguments are debate. It describes verifiable information, and it is verifiable that he was considered a visiting astronomer. --] 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I suppose the question is: What makes someone a scientist or an astronomer? ] 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Being invited by a friend to visit an observatory doesn't make someone necessarily an astronomer. Unless Ian has a source for such a claim. --] 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''." . It is verifiable that Lerner was invited as a visiting astronomer and/or visiting scientist. --] 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But is it verifiable that he ''is'' one? It's our own little demarkation problem. ] 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:That's not for us to decide. That he was visiting astronomer is verifiable, whether he is one or not --] 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::Just because you are invited to visit an observatory doesn't mean that you are a professional astronomer. --] 16:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The sources don't say he was an invited '''professional''' astronomer. The sources say he was invited an "vistiting astronomer"; Lerner could be Santa Claus for all I care, but the sources say he was an invited astronomer. That is verifiable and meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. --] 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::It's also verifiable that he was invited to visit an observatory by a fellow signatory of the Open Letter. Why should we include that he was supposedly an invited "astronomer"? Seems arbitrary to me. --] 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Because the verifiable sources say that he's an invited astronomer. --] 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Just because something is verifiable does not mean that we must include it -- especially if its misleading and there are other points that are verifiable about the same subject as well. --] 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:22, 15 April 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconPhysics: Biographies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus.


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4



This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Lerner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (April 2024) ===

I have recently added a new external link detailing peer-reviewed research that was conducted last year in March 2023. This research was also published in the media as well. Here is the link: https://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-fossil-fuels-hello-fusion-energy-3718669. If you have any questions please direct them to LPP Fusion using their email or business website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Templean1994 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also deleted the external link detailing that LPP Fusion was not close to a working commercial reactor due to the link showing no evidence that this claim is based on. The link references a commercial website on plasma technology that has no mention of LPP Fusion at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Templean1994 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

LPPFusion

Hi from the notorious subject of this page, not banned from talking. If anyone still edits this, I would like them to update the outdated links. The correct link for Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, DBA LPPFusion, is https://lppfusion.com/ Elerner (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Done by Jonathanischoice, thanks, —PaleoNeonate17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

mention pseudoscience/fringe in opening

Should the opening graph/lead not mention the lack of credentials and fringe/woo hobby horses? It doesn't get into that until much later in the article.

I don't think "independent plasma researcher" sufficiently conveys the facts. 76.156.115.193 (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

@Posa51 Your version was messed up, so I had to rollback to a previous one. Please have a look at Help:Footnotes and Help:Section. Jaqen (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Posa51: I reverted the page back to an earlier version from September 2023. You added a lot of unsourced or primary sourced material, written with a promotional tone. If you want to further contribute to this article, please provide material that is written from a neutral point of view (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view) and uses reliable secondary sources (sources from the subject himself or his company are not relevant), see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. I would be happy to discuss with you proposed additions in this talk page. Broc (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

1) I was in the process of adding footnotes when you stepped in and inserted a reverted text. Can you at least give me a chance to put the footnotes in? Furthermore there was existing text that I had added to the article that was heavily referenced, principally from the scientific literature. What's your excuse for deleting that text?
2) Have you reviewed the reverted text? Several of the links don't exist or never existed. Why don't you scrutinize the reverted text?
3) Many of the claims in the reverted text are patently false we're almost 20 years out of date. For example: Eric Lerner is a bona fide scientist with 27 articles published in the scientific literature many of them peer reviewed. The nuclear fusion device he developed has been commented upon very favorably by some of the leading lights infusion Energy research. To claim he is merely a "science writer" as the reverted text does is false and accurate and misleading.
4) It doesn't seem as if you're management of this article has been fair and impartial
5) May I please have the opportunity to post an accurate and up-to-date text and add the footnotes in a timely fashion? Is that asking so much?
Peter Catalano Posa51 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the previous version is not perfect, and that several improvements are needed. The article describes Lerner as "an independent plasma researcher" which I think is the appropriate definition, given he has no affiliation to research institutions.
If you want to add a mention about his publications in peer reviewed journals, please go ahead. If there are false claims in the article, you can also remove them.
Just make sure to avoid promotion, puffery, and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements! And given some of his ideas are controversial, all point of views should be represented in the article, no matter what your own one is. Broc (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey Broc:
You wrote, "Just make sure to avoid promotion, puffery, and to stick to facts that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. This means you should not use articles published by the subject himself to describe his achievements!"
Help me unpack that to save us all a lot of time. Lerner has achieved a lot. In science, people establish their cred by publishing findings and explanations. Then other scientists may challenge the data and interpretation. I start by just reporting his findings. That's not puffery. Or self-promotion.
Example: The guy invented a fusion energy device that set milestones for things like reaction temperature (> 2 B degrees K). He published results in a big-time, peer reviewed science journal. NO ONE has claimed that his experimental device didn't work or hit that milestone.
You want me to invent skepticism where it doesn't exist? Lerner uses a unique design, very different from the (failed) mainstream configurations.
You want me to ignore that? Several key figures have commented positively about what he's achieved so far. MIT plasma physicists.
Are you saying I can't publish that result just because I can't find someone who says "Lerner's a charlatan"?
Cosmology- When a scientist reports findings of an experiment in his lab or an observation through a telescope, he publishes a paper-- often peer reviewed-- then presents at a scientific conference. That's a primary source in science. Quoting the research premise and findings is not self-promoting hype. It's science. That's how science works.
You seem to think it's better that a blogger who may or may not understand the experiment and may have his/her own axe to grind, tries to explain the science instead of the scientist himself in an academic paper?
Before a critic is introduced, the findings have to be stated first and explained to a lay audience. Then you quote the critics. If there are any. And who they are. And whether they're throwing mud or engaging research data.
I stated Lerner was polarizing. You didn't even let me fill in the sections on the reception among his peers. There's a whole faction that's formed in alliance with Lerner. They're not in the mainstream. But the mainstream Big Bang Hypothesis is in crisis. Cosmologists are writing op-ed opinion pieces in the NYTimes about it. (Which I quoted) That's the context readers needs to know about.
Where critics exist I'll report that. But even in cosmology few rebuttal papers have been published that repudiate Lerner. And remember, anyone can add comments to a wiki page themselves.
So please help me out here. Writing a Wiki article shouldn't be root canal. Posa51 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Puffery would be things like "influential", "significant social activism", "distinct contributions", "strongly challenge" etc. All of these are words you might wish to write in a CV or a journalistic biography or such like, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, so the tone must be encyclopaedic. Again, see MOS:PEACOCK. Take a look at this article . It has:

Lerner has written a few hundred articles as a writer and he is also a scientist of good repute, having co-authored some papers on plasma research in The Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

But even this is not encyclopaedic. "Good repute" is editorialising. It might be okay, because the source says it, but it would be better to rewrite that as:

Lerner is a writer and scientist, who has co-authored peer reviewed papers on plasma research.

Do you see how this takes the factual kernel, and removes all editorialising? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You wrote:
"Lerner is a writer and scientist, who has co-authored peer reviewed papers on plasma research."
Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the guidance. Posa51 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Posa51, back to the example you mentioned:

The guy invented a fusion energy device that set milestones for things like reaction temperature (> 2 B degrees K)

To claim it "set a milestone" you need to provide secondary sources, such as review articles, that recognize this. See: Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (science) Alternatively, if you only have primary sources, such as a peer-reviewed article published by Lerner himself (subject of the page), you might state:

In 2017, Lerner published an article on claiming to have reached a reaction temperature above 2 billion Kelvin.

Broc (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Whoa. Broc- you deleted a lot of foot-noted text that was published on Wiki in Nov-Dec. I'll rewrite the intro which was deleted before footnotes could be added and was too-long and did not conform to Wiki style guidelines. ( I agree)
BUT You need to republish the footnoted text which you deleted which was published in Nov-Dec 2023... everything I wrote there is FULLY in COMPLIANCE to Wiki guidelines on sources. According to WIKI's policy publications scientific journals is considered to be IDEAL SOURCES. Every statement that was in the foot-noted text that was published in Wiki during November- December 2023 was an IDEAL source.
That took a lot of work. Please restore the text that was fully in compliance.
Furthermore, you're TOTALLY WRONG to say that SECONDARY resources are more important than IDEAL sources ie scientific journals. Anyway I did provide a secondary source in the earlier text from Asia Times. Posa51 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar on PRIMARY and SECONDARY

Subsection refactored from main dicussion; the initial post below is a reply to the 20:45, 3 Feb. comment above.

For the purposes of writing an article at Misplaced Pages, Broc is correct that reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources are ideal. (To that I would add, independent.) Primary sources are far from ideal, and indeed may only be used with a great deal of restrictions. If you believe there is a guideline to the contrary, please quote it and link it. Since secondary sources are ideal, if you can only find primary sources and there there are insufficient reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of Eric Lerner, that may cast doubt on the WP:Notability of the topic "Eric Lerner" as suitable for a standalone article about Lerner apart from the existing article about Plasma cosmology, and a separate article may be unwarranted. In that case, the content here should be merged into a section at Plasma cosmology, and this article turned into a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What part of this don't you understand?
"Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)
According to Wiki standards listed above, the Journal of Plasma Physics, is an Ideal source. Posa51 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Having worked with these policies and guidelines for over fifteen years I understand them pretty well. Did you see the words, comprehensive reviews? Those and meta-analyses that accurately reflect the current state of knowledge are secondary, and are the gold standard; however the great majority of articles, often 100% of the articles in that journal (or any peer-reviewed scientific journal) are not secondary and not ideal. Please do not use primary sources in this article, except as defined in the list of restrictions; you may use them for bare statements of fact (author, date, location of laboratory, research sponsors, affiliations, etc.) but not for the meat and potatoes of the article, other than brief quotations without comment, summary, or interpretation which *must* come from secondary sources, not from you or any editor.
I grant that you have a different interpretation of how a primary source may be used at Misplaced Pages than I or Broc do, but the purpose of this talk page is exclusively to discuss how to improve the article, not to debate how primary sources may be used. There is such a place, though, and it is at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. NOR (for short) is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, the others being Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiability (V); jointly they determine the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. You are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NOR about your view of PRIMARY sources and their role here. Not only that, but since all policies at Misplaced Pages are developed by the community itself—they are not handed down on high from the Wikimedia Foundation—if your view disagrees with the accepted policy, you are free to attempt to change the policy. (Spoiler: imho, that would be a gigantic waste of your time, but it is a path theoretically open to you.)
Now, can we please devote further conversation on this page to how to improve the article? Any further discussion about the value of a primary source on this page are both off-topic, and futile. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
A Self-serving reply from you. You're making up your own rules. This has to be appealed. There was never any intent to make my article "better"... the entire published piece was summarily taken down.
You can't find the comment I referring to because my publication was entirely deleted by BROC.
If you're serious about making my piece "better", then revert to what I published and we can go through it line by line. I can make changes to the text so it reads as unadorned, declarative sentences.
Obviously scientific findings published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal are, as Wiki (science) clearly states, IDEAL sources.
You're being argumentative and irrational... you seem quite eager to prevent Eric Lerner's findings, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of the highest professional stature, to be suppressed. So what are your motives? Posa51 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
As for NOR, you're being entirely disingenuous.The NOR policy states:
"Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."
The Physics of Plasmas qualifies as "reliable, published source" ... basically you're banning any reports in the scientific literature, since presumably ALL scientific research is ORIGINAL. Jeez. Posa51 (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Posa51 First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted.
Now to answer your doubts, hopefully once and for all as I think we are all repeating the same point. As you mentioned earlier: Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals yet you have failed to provide a mention of Lerner's work in any comprehensive meta-review. Not all peer-reviewed published papers have pages on Misplaced Pages, an for a reason: they are primary sources, and they do not represent the scientific consensus on a topic. Meta-reviews, collecting all previous research on a topic, are usually good secondary sources that could (and perhaps should) be used in a Misplaced Pages article. Please provide such publication and I will be supporting its inclusion in the page.
@Mathglot I don't think the page should be redirected to Plasma cosmology, as the subject is notable as author of The Big Bang Never Happened, in addition to his work on nuclear fusion. I think a good place to gather consensus on this would be an AfD. Broc (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Posa51, I've responded to behavioral issues that aren't germane here at your Talk page.
Broc, I wasn't advocating a redirect, just pointing out general features of Notability and sourcing. Also, I'm new to the topic and still learning about it; having read some more sources just since I got here, I'm persuaded about Notability already (a lot of it due to negative attention, but that counts just as much). If you're curious, some of my earlier questions about notability were due to the extraordinary number of primary or non-independent sources in the references, but the others are probably sufficient, and I've found even more in the searches I've been able to perform myself. Having said that, simply being a book author wouldn't be enough for WP:NAUTHOR, or every author in the world would be notable; clearly not the case. Neverthless, we've already established notability, so that doesn't matter. Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
You rolled back the article... ie deleted what viewers see.
This will be appealed. You're making up your own Wiki rules. Posa51 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, the reverted version of the Lerner article is filled with errors, misleading info and vast omissions. Yet you're not at all concerned about the quality and integrity of the publication.
Sounds as though there's a faction at Wiki with their own agenda and are suppressing/ censoring under some cover of legitimacy. Posa51 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier: we are here to reach consensus as clearly some editors (including me) disagree with the content you added to the page. If you want to make an addition to the page, propose it here and let's discuss it. Broc (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
We can't discuss content, Broc, if you an a colleague decide to make your own rules about sourcing and disregard WIKI's clear policies on the subject. This has to be settled with appeal, since people are making up their own self-serving rules.
Definitions on Primary Sources (science) state:
"A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles. An appropriate primary source is one that was peer reviewed and published by a reputable publisher."
This exactly describes Eric Lerner and his research. There are no qualifiers about "meta-research" or some such invented criteria. Posa51 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
If we can't discuss content then this is not the right place, as an article talk's page is uniquely devoted to discussing the content of the article. Repeating your point over and over will not change anything. Perhaps bring the topic to WP:FTN.
Ping me if you ever want to discuss actual content instead of repeating the same complaint. Broc (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
"First of all, note that your edits are all visible in the article's history, nothing was deleted."
People don't go to Wiki to read deleted material archived in History. You're censoring well established research and findings published in high end, peer-reviewed science journal.
I'm more than happy to add a Criticism section to the Lerner article. That was always my intention but BROC deleted everything while I was upgrading the whole article.
So How about you restore the text I published between Nov 23- Jan 24 and I add the Criticism?
But note: Wiki guidelines understand that publication in a peer-reviewed journal by definition means that a scientific observation or experiment has been scrutinized by a reviewer or a committee of reviewers. Errors are caught in this phase. Upon publication other scientists can respond with their own research or by published letters or even demands for retraction.
Lerner's articles have elicited no such response within the profession. Here and there a blog might launch a diatribe. You seem to place great weight on such documents. One article in Wired threw a lot of mud basically saying that the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH) was beyond scientific criticism and anyone who presents evidence that shows failed predictions or paradoxes arising from the theory must be a crank or religious nut. In fact Wired claims that it's dangerous to even criticize the BBH because their author claims it opens the door to religious explanations of cosmology... Lerner, of course, presents an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation of cosmology, which the NYTimes noted in an interviewed statement from Lerner back in the early 90s.
Meanwhile, last Summer the NYTimes published an op-ed: "Is there a crisis in the Big Bang" (spoiler- the authors conclude the answer is "yes"..). That op-ed was written a few weeks after a Canadian scientist Rajendra Gupta from the University of Ottawa in Canada already has found that the universe probably is twice as old as predicted by the BBH ... a finding which upends much of the BBH.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-entire-universe-could-be-twice-as-old-as-we-thought
And note, Gupta has appeared with Lerner to exchange views on the latest data, much of it gathered from the James Webb Space Telescope. Wiki administrators seem to think these discussions need to be suppressed and deleted. Posa51 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice: as of this edit, user Posa51 had been indefinitely blocked. Discussion should continue based on the guidelines for Talk pages and for improving the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

I added a new section heading, "Criticism", over existing content in the article; haven't added any new content yet. I debated using a stronger word than criticism, as even Einstein had criticism, pretty much any serious scientist does. But the opposition to Lerner seems a lot stronger than just "criticism", and I wonder if we should use controversy as a possibly better descriptor? Also, the content does include some criticism, but as I've started to look around and inform myself about this topic, some of the first things I've found, such as "", or "" use terms like falsehood and pseudoscientific (both of them). (This was from the results of a non-cherrypicked search for "The Big Bang Never Happened".) The article doesn't mention this word, and if there are sufficient reliable voices that use this term when describing his theories, then we might include it in this section, bearing in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. The criticism section brings some very necessary balance. I think I would oppose "controversy" because controversy sections are themselves controversial. Criticism will do as long as the facts of the criticism are unvarnished and reflective of what is in the sources. If we have sources saying "pseudoscientific" that would be validly used within that section. Above, you question Lerner's notability at all. I think that he probably is notable, although your comments w.r.t secondary sourcing are, of course, spot on. There are secondary sources about him, but those sources are, as a rule, rather critical (as you would expect). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot I am not a fan of "Criticism" sections as mentioned in WP:CRITS. It seems warranted in this case, though, as the page is placing undue weight on theories not supported by scientific consensus. Broc (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not a fan of the *word* "Criticism" as a section header, because it's suffered a negative taint here at Misplaced Pages a section heading for the reasons you state. Likewise, I agree it seems warranted here, and it was that tension between taint and desirability that made me muse a bit on possible other words for it, and I'm still open to another heading name, if you can find one. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Sirfurboy, I hope it brings balance, but if so, I can't take credit for any of it, other than the section header itself! But maybe that's enough to call attention to that part of the content (that, and the ToC entry at the top) so maybe even that is a slight improvement in itself. That was certainly part of my motivation for that edit (as well as a place to hang additional expansion, if it happens). Mathglot (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I haven't even gotten to the Criticism section though I did mention Lerner was "polarizing" ... you guys deleted everything and then complain that you can't find it. Sounds like Bad Faith Posa51 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you ever written a Wiki article? When the subject matter is vast and technical, the first thing that's needed is to provide a clear statement of a scientist's views. You do that first and document it. You've prevented me from doing that.
Once the science is presented and explained, a Reception and Criticism section is written.
You deleted my whole publication before I even got yo that section. Then you complain it's not there. That sounds like bad faith to me. Posa51 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How much attention is there to a description as "pseudoscientific" in the sources? I was struck that it came up twice in the top ten results for a non-cherrypicked query; a 20% result population would easily fit the "minority view" threshold of WP:DUEWEIGHT, and if a typical percentage of all sources would merit some kind of mention in the section. Otoh, if that was a fluke, and there's only those two, then maybe it's more like "tiny minority", and doesn't warrant a mention. What have you all seen, wrt this? Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'm not sure if you have seen this old discussion: Talk:Eric Lerner/Archive 2#What do cosmologists say about Eric Lerner? Broc (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't; thanks for adding that link. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
You need to send your deep concerns about Eric Lerner's psuedo-science to the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner, so the editors at these journals really have to pay close attention. Posa51 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Responded to behavioral issues at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience should go in the lead. The reason he has a wiki article is because he pushes the widely rejected pseudoscience of "plasma cosmology", and its pov not to mention this. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's Lerner's scientific bibliography
https://www.lppfusion.com/peer-reviewed-papers/. I count 30 publications.
I haven't seen any demands in these journals for retractions or any articles repudiating Lerner's scientific findings and observations. Have you? I'd like to see them. I'd also like to see your bona fides that entitles you to be making these judgments about an accomplished scientist and inventor.
Of course nothing is stopping you from demanding retractions. Write the Astrophysical Journal, The British Royal Society, the Physics of Plasmas etc. Ask them why they're all printing Eric Lerner's psuedo-science. Tell them that you read some anonymous blogger or YouTube influencer slinging mud about Eric Lerner; this will make the editors at these journals really pay close attention.
I posed the same challenge to the grandiose editors at Misplaced Pages months ago. Never heard back from them. 74.221.178.245 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: