Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 8

message: Dear Drs. Bogdanov,
As individuals who have studied the fields of physics, you will undoubtedly be familiar with the work of Richard P. Feynman, the architect of modern quantum electrodynamics and one of the most influential theoretical physicists of the 20th century. My knowledge of physics is only that of an academic minor in computational physics; I have long admired Feynman for his ability to distil very complex and wordy subjects into understandable, plain terms that make sense to an undergrad. The recent discourse on this article and talk page reminded me of an excellent lecture he gave at the Caltech announcement address in 1974 entitled "Cargo Cult Science" . I think the following quotations apply exceptionally well here:
:But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. [...] It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
:Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
With respect, and with no hard feelings on my part, you appear to be trying to do the exact opposite of this - trying to suppress the facts that disagree with your theory by removing them from the article, and questioning the motives and expertise of those who highlight them. Ultimately, your actions here on Wikipedia can be defined more or less as only that. It would be wrong of me to make assumptions on your work outside of Wikipedia based solely on that, because I haven't read your papers (well, I have read abstracts and made cursory examinations of your famous Initial singularity paper, but that isn't enough to make a proper judgement).  That said, I do think this is indicative that you would, both on Wikipedia and in the scientific community at large, do well to take heed of Prof. Feynman's observation and to cultivate that absolute honesty of "bending over backwards" - specifically permitting those observations, and making them yourself, of those points that disagree with your theorem.
Taking another series of Feynman's lectures as an example, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, in that work he was capable of making his ideas understandable to a layman who does not have expertise in the field being taught; that is something else which I urge you to do, and to make your work available in a format that makes sense to those without your physics expertise. Then, nobody could impugn the bona fides of your work, since sound logical reasoning is generally clear regardless of the fields, and it would be possible for all of us comparative laymen to make sense of your work - and, if your work is as watertight to scrutiny as you consider it to be, that should be no problem.
In summary, I do think you would do well to reflect what you are actually doing against this benchmark, and to accept that the issues extend far beyond Wikipedia; just because we have an open editing community here does not mean that Wikipedia is in error by not agreeing with your viewpoint. Feynman is an excellent lead to take in your work.
Thank you, and I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavours.
Yours sincerely,
--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An open letter to the Bogdanov brothers - Feynman and Cargo Cult Science 

message: Testing Wikipedia:Semi-protection here both on the article and the talk page. Fred Bauder 12:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, Fred, at the moment, semi protection is stopping anons from posting to semi protected pages, but it's doing nothing to newly created accounts, so it won't help here for now. However, brion has been informed. I bet it's fixed by the end of the day. I'd keep the tags here for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure this new policy should be used on talk pages. -- Ze miguel 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is, this would probably be the only place it would be. It's an alternative to constantly blocking people. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea. I blocked LaurenceR today because the ban was extended to talk pages and his account is older than 4 days. Otherwise, yep, SP is probably the best way. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: The "HKU" section is a complete mess in this article. First, Hong Kong University and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are completely different institutions, and this article seems to contribute to this confusion. (It's like the difference between University of Massachussetts and MIT). Does anyone have any other sources for this part other than  ? -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HKU and HKUST 

message: In response to a request from Glenzierfoot on 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm going to reprotect it. Too soon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I was just coming back here to do that myself. At least people can't see they were given the opportunity. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting article

message: ...this whole thing is. If I may jump in with some unasked for advice? Here's a tip: nobody -- NOBODY -- is gonna look at this article and say "Gee these Bogdanov brothers are the cat's pajamas! I mean, we are talking about some A-number-1 ace scientists here!" regardlass of what the B-Boys do. Nobody but a complete idiot, and idiots don't matter much. I mean, people can read between the lines. People can get the drift of somebody's case.  So don't worry about it so much. It's not like the B-Boys are gonna get rehabilitated and rise to the Nobel Prize based on what's in this article. They are who they are. Chill y'all. My two cents. Herostratus 10:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough to make a cat laugh... 

message: The reference to Sokal affair is wrong. The article states that the Sokal affair was to prove the shortcomings of peer-reviewing processes in theoretical physics, which is totally wrong. If I remember and understand correctly, the Sokal paper was poking fun at new liberal journals which publish any garbage without properly seeking advice or review from scientists; it's not poking fun at science or process of science itself. Can someone look into this? Temporary account 00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say this?  At the bottom, it says that the Sokal Affair transpired when "the physicist Alan Sokal published a deliberately fraudulent article in the humanities journal Social Text in order to demonstrate the risk of postmodernist academics accepting scientific validation without adequate evaluation."  Emphasize humanities journal and postmodern academics, please. . . .  Ah, I see, under "Origin of the affair", when it talks about Max Niedermaier—but in that sentence, the phrase "written to prove shortcomings in the peer-review system of theoretical physics" refers to the Bogdanovs' "work", not Sokal's. Anville 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to straighten out those sentences in the "Origin" section, just to avoid the chance of confusion.  Also, I nixed the "Fan sites" under External Links; hopefully no one will be too upset about this.  Anville 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I'm intrigued by the claim that the article has become "entangled with the external event", but not intrigued enough to read through the many archives here, and I didn't really see anything about it on the arbitration page.
(I'm assuming that "entangled" means more than merely that persons involved in the affair are editing the article; that's a commonplace. To me "entangled" suggests causality in the other direction; that is, that the article is somehow influencing ongoing events related to the Bogdanovs.)
So could we have a brief summary somewhere of this "entanglement"? --Trovatore 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, see, the original Bogdanov Affair and this article were emitted from the same source at the same time, so their quantum states must be described together even though the two are cyberspatially separated.  Measuring the polarization of this article would affect the probabilities with which the Bogdanov Affair will be polarized, even though the two are at opposite ends of cyberspace.  Of course, one cannot use this cyberwiki-quantical entanglement to transmit information faster than light, but it is still a good example of "arbitration at a distance."  Anville 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Entangled" how?

message: Why did you add one critic more against the Bogdanoff Brothers whereas you removed several sites rather positive for them ?
Silasi 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ? 

message: I commented out the giant notice at the top of the article warning editors that they may be mistaken for sockpuppets. How long has the damn thing been up there? The Arbcom case closed about four months ago. Anyone who tries to edit the article will still see it in the edit box. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not if he edits it from a subject-header link. I guess the worst-case scenario (participant in the external event stumbles on the article not knowing about the arbcom decision, edits it, gets banned without fair warning) is pretty unlikely by now, but still I can see that the notice had a purpose. --Trovatore 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary message at the top of the article

message: *Bogdanov Affair - The Bogdanovs themselves try to put it "right". Currently protected. --Pjacobi 17:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
** Note from PNA reformer User:Alba: Page is now semi-protected, and probably needs review at this point. Alba 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From PNA/Physics

message: I know this article has been subjected  to arbitration etc, anyway I want to give my opinion and purpose some changes. The article is about the Bogdanov Affair, it is not about the Bogdanov brothers. I am quite sure their papers where just an hoax, but still cannot understand the reasons for the following lines
also receiving the same low passing grade of "honorable", one that is seldom given, as told to New York Times science reporter Dennis Overbye by Bogdanov Ph.D. advisor Dr. Daniel Sternheimer. In justifying the conferring of doctoral degrees to the Bogdanovs, Dr. Sternheimer told the Times, "These guys worked for 10 years without pay. They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days.
It seems to me this is afree attack against the brothers, more than an additional info about the Affair. I purpose to change it with (something like) ..."honorable", that is the lowest grade for passing the PhD examination... The current version sounds forced to me. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note—I think you mean "gratuitous attack" rather than "free attack"; the latter doesn't mean much in English. --Trovatore 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is just about the "Affair" 

message: How old are they ? Have they really been TV presenters for a "few decades", which must be more than two ?  -- Beardo 08:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are born in 1948 and began their TV shows in 1978. They almost completely stopped in the 90's (because they were busy trying to do physics...) and came back in 2002. Alain Riazuelo 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: The picture caption is very long. Is there the need for the detail about the big bang in this article? --Robdurbar 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sockpuppets complained about some possible errors in the previous caption (I do not remember which). In order to insure that they would not complain anymore I added a bigger and more detailed caption. With the present caption, there is at least something interesting in the article. Also, if you compare the caption with the brothers' claims, you easily see that they do not really know what they are talking about. Alain Riazuelo 16:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

message: The following comes from the 1 November 2004 Lire, p. 107 No. 330, by Jean Audouze: 
:Contrairement à leurs affirmations, Igor et Grichka Bogdanov ne sont pas les premiers à proposer un modèle d'Univers décrivant ce qui aurait pu exister avant le Big Bang. C'est l'un des principaux sujets de recherche des physiciens et des astrophysiciens ces dix dernières années. Ainsi les travaux des Américains Neil Turok, de l'université de Cambridge, et Paul Steinhardt, de Princeton, qui proposent un scénario assimilant notre Univers à une "brane", sorte de lamelle flottant près d'autres branes, dans un espace de dimensions supérieures à celui que nous connaissons. Les Bogdanov n'évoquent pas les dernières missions visant à collecter des informations sur les événements qui ont suivi le Big Bang. Ils citent à tort et à travers le programme Wmap américain, sans en décrire le fonctionnement. Par contre, ils oublient la mission Planck-Surveyor, indispensable pour détecter les signes des mini-irrégularités du rayonnement qui remplit l'Univers. Ce qui permettra de vérifier les hypothèses de Turok et Steinhardt. Surtout, les Bogdanov n'ont pas inventé les scénarios faisant intervenir un nombre de dimensions supérieures à quatre. Comme s'ils voulaient escamoter les débats qui agitent les astrophysiciens. Il est piquant que les jumeaux tentent si maladroitement de s'attaquer à la théorie des cordes — où l'on substitue à un modèle de particules élémentaires un système de filaments très fins. Tels deux paons, ils publient, en fin d'ouvrage, les félicitations de scientifiques reconnus. David Fossé, dans la revue Ciel et Espace d'octobre, montre que ces citations, manipulées, constituaient, dans leur intégralité, des critiques sévères sur les textes Bogdanov. Pour faire le point sur le cosmos, mieux vaut suivre les cours de Gabriele Veneziano, professeur au Collège de France, ou se procurer les actes des conférences consacrées à la théorie des cordes.
I particularly like the characterization of the brothers as "two peacocks".
Oh, and this one is short and sweet.  It comes from a review in Le Télégramme (8 October 2004), in which Samuel Uguen has some kind words for the Griffons la science educational festival. He starts by saying, "Le goût de la science doit s'acquérir très jeune avant que les chiffres, les formules ou les frères Bogdanov viennent pervertir tout cela."  This translates as "The taste for science must be acquired very young, before figures, formulas or the Bogdanov brothers come to pervert it."  Funny, funny stuff!
Anville 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found via Lexis-Nexis

message: Ahem.  To all the anon IPs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets complaining about the CQG e-mail, note that we don't get it from Baez's website, but from Greg Kuperberg via sci.physics.research.  I note that none of them has complained about the referee reports for Classical and Quantum Gravity, the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics and the Chinese Journal of Physics which do come from Baez's website — hmmm, the plot thickens.  Furthermore, each of these acts of sockpuppet theater remove thoroughly cited material from multiple mainstream, well-regarded news organizations.  This is considered vandalism.  Anville 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CQG, encore une fois

message: It appears we have moved beyond the CQG-related sockpuppetry into a brave new world of théâtre de faux-nez!  Now the issue is over "censored web sites".  In my view, the External Links guideline would rule these out even if they weren't being pushed by sockpuppets, but that's a debate for a different day.  In the meantime, here is the dramatis personae so far:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Be seeing you.  Anville 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress!