Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 14

message: Well, I'm giving up on this article, and can't waste any more time on it. The Critiques section is entirely OR as all of those papers predate my paper and have not addressed my experiment at all. Anyone not familiar with the facts of the case would be misled to think that the authors of the cited papers in the reference have indeed written those papers in response to my work. Michael, if you think this is the way to conduct science in Wikipedia, then I will have nothing to do with this sad joke. Goodbye. P.S. Thanks Linas and Looper for the effort. Dndn1011, sadly you are being unwittingly supportive of Michael's OR here, and hence lose credibility in the long run. Just a little heads up...-- Prof. Afshar 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of this.  I assumed that the quoted critiques were responses.  If they are not responses then they do not belong in the article.  It is a shame you are giving up, however, when progress is clearly being made.  The article is after all much less biased now, I feel. Dndn1011 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes are direct responses to Afshar's experiment.  If not then I quite rightly should be banned from here.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also a shame that after much effort and work on my part to try and assist the creation of a more balanced article, Afshar should just dismiss me without thanks, and indeed incorrectly state my position.  I actually agree that the Critiques section has been primarily OR and have been lobbying to have this changed.  In fact I have strongly argued that there was bias and OR and actually made changes to the article on this basis.  But we are trying to reach a concensus here and that can not be done without flexibility and appreciation of other views.  But in the end, my motivations are merely for fairness and clarity, not for recognition or friendship or to advance my career or whatever else.  Thus thanks are not necessary. Dndn1011 12:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Claiming that "all of those papers predate my paper" are by definition OR is wrong.  Analogy time: if I claimed I had a perpetual motion machine would it be OR to point to the 1st law of thermodynamics? --Michael C. Price talk 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your emotions have completely clouded your judgment my man. Your analogy is as flawed as all other logical inference you have made so far. The assumption in the above analogy gives the following equivalence: my experiment = perpetual machine. Well, in contrast to the perpetual machine, my experiment has been verified to work by Harvard faculty and other experts... Since you are fond of logical fallacies, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" P.S. please restore the link to my rebuttals, just in case some fair-minded individual wishes to dig deeper.--Prof. Afshar 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumption is quite incorrect and quite irrelevant to the point of the analogy, which is that dates of sources are irrelevant to the point being elucidated. --Michael C. Price talk 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is that they do NOT talk about my experiment, and are NOT written to do so. You are putting out OR here and you know it.-- Prof. Afshar 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start from the top.  Do you accept that "The Schrodinger wave equation is generally seen [by physicists] as in accordance with Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle."?  In other words would a physicist accept this as true?  Yes or no?  Note that this is a different question from "Is the Schrodinger wave equation in accordance with Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle."?  Although that is also a damn good question. --Michael C. Price talk 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Don't.  This is about creating a fair article.  Please read the notice at the start.  Such discussions belong else where.  Because wikipedia is supposed to be about reporting facts, areas of controversy should be merely noted as such, but not thrashed out here, this is not the place for it. Dndn1011 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first question posed (the one in the article) is not about physics, but about what physicists believe.  I modelled it on the requirement for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where they make an analogy with Earth's elliptical orbit.  The 2nd question is about physics and, although interesting, is not actually relevant to writing the article, I agree.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques is OR