This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrL (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 14 July 2006 (Restored Joywords content and vote. Please don't delete voters content if you don't agree - make a comment instead.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:27, 14 July 2006 by DrL (talk | contribs) (Restored Joywords content and vote. Please don't delete voters content if you don't agree - make a comment instead.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- This theory is not a generally recognised notable scientific theory. It doesn't meet Misplaced Pages policy for notability for scientific theories, not having been published in a proper scientific journal.
- Moreover, the way it is written is almost completely unintelligible, with too much jargon that is unique to the theory the article is meant to explain.
- See the article's talk page for the concerns that have been raised and the manner in which they have been handled. Edits attempting to "fix" it are simply reverted by ardent proponents of the theory.
- So far as I am aware, this is not the first time either that this article has come up for deletion. However, I do believe that the proponents should be given the opportunity to respond. So over to the community!
- P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: Delete --Byrgenwulf 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's generally advisable to make it explicit in an AfD that's likely to contain a lot of text, as this one already does. :) Tevildo 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Still Neutral. As philosophy, it's just warmed-over Neoplatonism that ignores the past 2000 years of metaphysical thought, but our duty as editors is not to assess it as philosophy, but as an encyclopaedia article. It _does_ assert the notability of the subject adequately, although more than one link to the claimed plethora of media articles and interviews would help. It's rather too POV at the moment, but deletion is not a solution to that problem - see Orcadian for a similar example.The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay.Tevildo 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)- Delete as gibberish. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and the few fragments that seemed coherent enough to read and not statements singing the praise of the inventor were incorrect ("all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic" overlooks fuzzy logic, "the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological" overlooks Gödel's incompleteness theorems if I understand correctly). If the popular press links are valid, they also should be linked from the relevant press sites in any rewrite, not the invetor's mirror. --Christopher Thomas 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. Jefffire 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Do Not Delete - The Misplaced Pages article entitled "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) is subject to ongoing vandalism, largely by one highly dedicated person (and now by others).
- Christopher Langan and his theory, the CTMU, have been the recipients of extensive media coverage. Sources include ABC News, Esquire Magazine, Popular Science, and other journalistic periodicals and television documentaries which seriously investigate and employ fact-checkers regarding the material they cover. Both Langan and the CTMU were featured in virtually every instance. The CTMU is a complex, and in my opinion valid, theory. While some laymen complain that they cannot understand the CTMU, there is no reason to believe that this does not owe at least in part to their own negative attitudes and low level of expertise in its subject matter (logic and metaphysics, with broad implications regarding science in general). While there is no expert consensus on the CTMU, neither has it been found wanting. The theory has been out there for a number of years and is therefore eligible for peer review; if this has thus far been inadequate, that is certainly not the fault of the theory or its author, and does not detract from the theory itself.
- The editor calling himself "Byrgenwulf" appears to be negatively obsessed with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. What began as an offhand attempt to tar the CTMU and its author with misdirected, unverifiable and decidedly non-neutral epithets like "pseudoscience" and "crank" has now seemingly escalated into a full-time vendetta, to the extent that one wonders where Byrgenwulf finds the time to eat and sleep. He appears to have no understanding of Misplaced Pages policy; even when various aspects of this policy are patiently explained to him, he attempts to restore past edits, or rewordings thereof, which have already been found in violation.
- Although Byrgenwulf has repeatedly claimed that he could effortlessly rip the CTMU to shreds were he so-inclined, he has been caught red-handed in a number of critical errors regarding that theory; and although he claims to have thoroughly read Langan's paper in PCID, he has boldly denied that it contains things which it can be plainly seen to contain (sometimes after falsely stating that he has carefully searched for them). Unfortunately, he appears immune to the sort of embarrassment that anyone else would feel under similar circumstances, merely redoubling his destructive efforts in retaliation. In short, he seems to have no idea what the CTMU is, what it does, how it does it, or for that matter why it doesn't do it (if that is indeed the case), and perhaps for these very reasons, appears hell-bent on sabotaging its Misplaced Pages entry.
- As I understand it, Misplaced Pages does not consider this to be acceptable behavior for its contributors. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that I have better things to do than ride this article 24/7 to keep Byrgenwulf from corrupting it, and to reverse the falsehoods, innuendos, and accusations he nevertheless manages to plant in it against Misplaced Pages policy. It seems to me that if the Misplaced Pages moderators were to read this discussion and explore the history of edits, they would quickly verify the truth of everything I've just written, and deal with Byrgenwulf and his accomplices as they deserve. But meanwhile, in apparent denial of this very possibility, Byrgenwulf persists.
- Needless to say, the personal misgivings and bad feelings of Byrgenwulf et al are not enough to justify repetitive attacks against an accurate, legitimate, and informative Misplaced Pages entry. And now, to make matters worse, after Byrgenwulf has tallied a string of edits the likes of which Misplaced Pages has seldom seen, we have an additional flurry of negative edits, dispute tags, and so on, claiming that, for example, ABC News - which repeatedly ran a 20-minute segment on Langan and his theory - is an "unverifiable source". Such protestations are utterly ridiculous. It seems that a tiny handful of critics (or sockpuppets, or fellow travelers trying to strike a blow for their pet philosophy, or whomever) have taken it upon themselves to change history, declare all of Langan's media coverage one big "unreliable source", pretend that the CTMU was not mentioned in those articles and television segments, and so on ad nauseam.
- This article was carefully reviewed for verifiability and NPOV well prior to Byrgenwulf's initial incursion. It was one of the best sources for a lucid overall introduction to a unique and arguably very promising theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism or "Intelligent Design Creationism" but merely had the misfortune to be published in an ID-sympathetic journal. In fact, as its author states, the theory was intended to give both sides of the evolution debate a common framework for ultimate reconciliation, something which is very badly, and very obviously, needed by all concerned.
- I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. DrL 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:SOAP seems to apply here, apparently. Tevildo 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - Do not delete this page, DrL I think you are by and large correct however if you carfully read the paper by Langan he expressly includes intellegent design as an interesting implication of his theory and Langan is a fellow of an intellegent design movement.--IQ Prophet 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment user has only edited this article, its talk page and this AfD. Anville 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable theory, confusing as heck. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable confusing fringe science gibberish. And before the nominator started editing it, incidentally, it already was gibberish. Sandstein 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE The CTMU is a valuable intellectual contribution which has been erroneously, and in my opinion foolishly, targeted for attack on philosophical and opinionative grounds. It's not easy to understand without the proper background, but that means absolutely nothing, since the same can be said of many of the other legitimate theories covered in Misplaced Pages. For anyone who knows the relevant technical fields, it displays adequate conceptual integrity - probably far more than the vast majority of what one encounters in the paradox-ridden field of analytic philosophy and the modern philosophy of science - and is unquestionably unique in both form and application. On the other hand, if you can't understand it, then why not do everybody a favor and leave it up for those who can? Asmodeus 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Please refrain from personal attacks - WP:NPA refers. Whatever Byrgenwulf's professional qualifications may be, his views appear to be shared by most of the other contributors to this AfD to date. Tevildo 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response I don't want to get bogged down in stupid argument here. Suffice it to say I think Asmodeus has the wrong end of the stick anyway about who I am and what I do, and is both distorting my words and making assumptions. Asmodeus, ad hominems only make you look puerile. What is at issue here anyway is not whether or not the CTMU is a valid theory; what is at issue here is whether the Misplaced Pages article on the CTMU meets the standards and criteria for inclusion. This is the issue. If Asmodeus and DrL wish to indulge in debate on the merits of CTMU as a theory, they are welcome to let me know on my talk page, and we can organise that elsewhere: I think they will find that I am not quite the starry-eyed first year grad student I have been characterised as (LOL). Nonetheless, if my personal qualifications are necessary to make raising a query about a theory, I know I have two nice fancy certificates I can fax to Misplaced Pages: Langan, who came up with the theory under discussion here, seems to be proud of the fact he never completed college.--Byrgenwulf 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, I'm afraid that you got yourself bogged down in an argument about the CTMU itself early on in the discussion (see the Talk page). Nobody forced you to do this. Furthermore, you repeatedly tried to claim that you are a professional philosopher of physics. I believe that you did so dishonestly - you've demonstrated far too thorough a misunderstanding of the theory and its underlying issues for it to be otherwise - and I think that's relevant to this entire dispute. Again, nobody forced your hand when you made that claim. As far Langan is concerned, he is well-known not to have finished college - that's part of what makes him and his theory highly notable (not too many high-IQ "blue-collar cosmologists" out there). By the way, Misplaced Pages is not a venue for contemptuous (and contemptible) displays of academic snobbery; if some notable, verifiable academic wants to rebut the theory and expose himself to rebuttal in turn, he is and always has been free to do so. Until then, negative judgments on the scholarly integrity of the CTMU are worthless. The CTMU is out there, it is notable, and your attacks on it clearly stem from two factors: your personal philosophical leanings, and your highly evident inability to understand the new concepts that it introduces, despite the fact that they are comprehensibly explained in Langan's writings (to some people, anyway). So please dispense with all the posturing. Asmodeus 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Asmodeus, I did not repeatedly claim that, and any literate person who has read the talk page can see this for themselves. I mentioned, once, that I work in the field professionally, which I do (that's where what little money I have comes from), and, if necessary (which is not necessary here) I can prove my claim. So don't misrepresent me. As I say, I am more than willing to indulge you and DrL, and Langan himself if he's so inclined, but elsewhere. This is not the place for that sort of debate, and whether or not my very brief, facetious and playful criticism of it on the discussion page is valid or not is not what is at issue. We are discussing whether this article merits inclusion. It doesn't matter who I am, where I work, or what I said on the talk page. It's that simple. I would love to debate this theory with you elsewhere, though: believe me, I understand it far better than you think. In fact, I see through it.--Byrgenwulf 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, you stated that you "work in the field (the philosophy of physics) professionally", thereby hoping to convey a false impression of knowledge and authority. Admittedly, your statement could mean that you are a professional philosopher of physics, or that you are a secretary for some actual member of the philosophy department, or that you get paid to sweep the floor and carry out the trash after class is over. But only in the first case could you have made this statement in all honesty. Citing the work of Godel, you then launched into a sweeping, misbegotten attack on "theories of everything", in the process displaying serious incomprehension regarding the meaning of that phrase, and regarding the definition of "theory" as used in and with regard to the CTMU. All of this information is relevant to the vote - it was you who called for the vote, and you who intially started this entire brouhaha. By putting the information on this page, we can allow the voters to gauge your level of expertise, emotional involvement, and honesty for themselves, and cast their votes in light of that important information.
- Response Asmodeus, I did not repeatedly claim that, and any literate person who has read the talk page can see this for themselves. I mentioned, once, that I work in the field professionally, which I do (that's where what little money I have comes from), and, if necessary (which is not necessary here) I can prove my claim. So don't misrepresent me. As I say, I am more than willing to indulge you and DrL, and Langan himself if he's so inclined, but elsewhere. This is not the place for that sort of debate, and whether or not my very brief, facetious and playful criticism of it on the discussion page is valid or not is not what is at issue. We are discussing whether this article merits inclusion. It doesn't matter who I am, where I work, or what I said on the talk page. It's that simple. I would love to debate this theory with you elsewhere, though: believe me, I understand it far better than you think. In fact, I see through it.--Byrgenwulf 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, I'm afraid that you got yourself bogged down in an argument about the CTMU itself early on in the discussion (see the Talk page). Nobody forced you to do this. Furthermore, you repeatedly tried to claim that you are a professional philosopher of physics. I believe that you did so dishonestly - you've demonstrated far too thorough a misunderstanding of the theory and its underlying issues for it to be otherwise - and I think that's relevant to this entire dispute. Again, nobody forced your hand when you made that claim. As far Langan is concerned, he is well-known not to have finished college - that's part of what makes him and his theory highly notable (not too many high-IQ "blue-collar cosmologists" out there). By the way, Misplaced Pages is not a venue for contemptuous (and contemptible) displays of academic snobbery; if some notable, verifiable academic wants to rebut the theory and expose himself to rebuttal in turn, he is and always has been free to do so. Until then, negative judgments on the scholarly integrity of the CTMU are worthless. The CTMU is out there, it is notable, and your attacks on it clearly stem from two factors: your personal philosophical leanings, and your highly evident inability to understand the new concepts that it introduces, despite the fact that they are comprehensibly explained in Langan's writings (to some people, anyway). So please dispense with all the posturing. Asmodeus 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response I don't want to get bogged down in stupid argument here. Suffice it to say I think Asmodeus has the wrong end of the stick anyway about who I am and what I do, and is both distorting my words and making assumptions. Asmodeus, ad hominems only make you look puerile. What is at issue here anyway is not whether or not the CTMU is a valid theory; what is at issue here is whether the Misplaced Pages article on the CTMU meets the standards and criteria for inclusion. This is the issue. If Asmodeus and DrL wish to indulge in debate on the merits of CTMU as a theory, they are welcome to let me know on my talk page, and we can organise that elsewhere: I think they will find that I am not quite the starry-eyed first year grad student I have been characterised as (LOL). Nonetheless, if my personal qualifications are necessary to make raising a query about a theory, I know I have two nice fancy certificates I can fax to Misplaced Pages: Langan, who came up with the theory under discussion here, seems to be proud of the fact he never completed college.--Byrgenwulf 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- GWO
- Do Not Delete - Its controversial nature is already noted in the article itself, and the text of the article reinforces this notice through the use of Langan's name throughout it. I don't know why the author's carefulness with regard to highlighting the controversial status of the CTMU through the body of the article itself should be held up as a strike against both it and him. What has not been noted in the argument over this article is whether or not Progress In Information, Complexity And Design is a peer reviewed journal, regardless of what institute publishes it. If McDonald's, for whatever reason, began publishing a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, its mathematical contents would still be peer-reviewed. I don't know why complaints which amount to a request for recategorization have to take the form of a motion for deletion. As far as the jargon issue is concerned, the external links should supply the needed information. I would, however, advise that the link to the "20/20" interview be removed, as its text is somewhat inconsistent with the content of the CTMU itself. --Danielmryan 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User's only edit. Tevildo 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- To quote Alan Sokal, "As a physicist, I am not impressed." Delete as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. Anville 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly the piece is openly a hypothesis and intelligent people can read and make up their own mind about its relevance or cogency. Enough people find it cogent and relevant enough to warrant its insertion. I vote not to delete it and to let time be the ultimate vote, i.e. the amount of attention it actually gets from serious people about the themes presented in his work.joywords --Joywords 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)