Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence

message: Here is a primer of the basic ideas that Ian POV-pushes about (from most out-there to most mainstream)
*Electric universe (concept) -- A harebrained idea that dismisses almost all of astrophysics outright in favor of an electrical engineer's wet dream about the way the universe is.
*Intrinsic redshift -- Pie-in-the-sky fantasy (that violated Occam's razor, by the way) of certain non-mainstream cosmology proponents who claim that there is another way redshifts happen other than that which is seen on redshift. Why do they want to do this? Because the Hubble Law matches the expanding universe which, for sundry reasons, they don't like.
*Tired light -- proposed as an alternative in the early days of cosmology, it has popped up from time-to-time only to be knocked down by many different cosmologists. Most famously, Peebles showed that tired light could not account for many of the features observed in our universe and often tired light is mentioned as a pedagogical exercise in what a falsified idea looks like in astrophysics. There are an extreme few who keep trying, and there are those hoping to make their prominence greater on Wikipedia.
*Plasma cosmology -- A very underdeveloped idea that is based in part on Hannes Alfvén's ambiplasma conjecture (but now markedly different), it was revived by a few researchers and today takes the form mainly as a direct assault on the Big Bang without many straightforward predictions of its own. The subject is ignored by most cosmologists and generally poorly considered because of a lack of rigor compared to the standard cosmological paradigm. Eric Lerner, a private researcher from New Jersey who dropped out of grad school is perhaps the most visible internet proponent of this idea (and also edits at Wikipedia).
*nonstandard cosmologies -- the history of cosmology has a dominant conflict between the steady state theory and big bang theory. There still persist a small number of holdouts who support nonstandard cosmologies. There are generally more non-experts who adhere to such things than experts. I recently began rewriting this article from a historical perspective with the hopes of creating an article that was less likely to be spammed by original research
*Halton Arp -- respected observational astronomer who likes to look for oddball associations and weird objects. This obsession has led him to create a catalog that is still used by astronomers today. However, it has also caused him to become a pathological skeptic toward all things in the standard deviation, including standard cosmology, explanations of quasars, black holes, etc. He's most famous for proposing that intrinsic redshifts are associated strongly with quasars that he believes are spit out of the cores of AGN. Very few others take this suggestion seriously. Being out in the tails of the distribution, Arp is fond of pushing the envelope ever towards the fringe. He tends to be championed, therefore, by the usual suspects and is overrepresented at Wikipedia as a result.
*Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.
*Wolf Effect -- An actual effect in optics that the researchers thought might resolve the quasar controversies of the 1970s (now resolved in a completely different way) by actually being the intrinsic redshift non-mainstream researchers were hoping for. However, the research has surpassed what the Wolf Effect people proposed as a mechanism for quasar redshifts. The practical difficulties of getting the coincidences required to produce a Wolf Effect means that it is a curio in physical optics -- an important one but certainly not worthy of more than passing mention on a decent, reliable, verifiable, and NPOV treatment of redshift.
[placed here by ScienceApologist on 19:26, 17 October 2006; author not indicated. Harald88 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primer on some of the subjects of this RfArb

message: By ScienceApologist about a year ago...
::"As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. "--ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Redshift Anomaly

message: I am glad that pseudoscience was brought to my attention. 
And sanity in science, according to Korzybski, the general semanticist, is observing first and abstracting second. Unsane science, he says, is to abstract first, then observe. The big bang theory is based on assumptions, abstractions, which observations are then fitted to.
I don't believe that the term pseudoscience applies here as it intended. Pseudoscience is a claim to be science but not using the scientific method. Technically it is an opinion masquerading as fact. Plasma cosmology may or may not be fraught with errors, but being wrong does not make it pseudoscientific. That fact that an error was found fulfills the scientific requirement. 
To label it as pseudoscientific is what a clever pseudoscientist would do. 
I contend that it is the Big Bang theory that is pseudoscientific. It is based on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect, and it is only an opinion that this assumed velocity component indicates expansion.(which Hubble did not share, but SA says that is irelevant) And it is also an assumption that expansion in reverse  must mean it expanded from a point in the past. And it is an assumption that the beginning had to begin at this point in time and space. These assumptions are the abstractions, then come the observations selected to fit. 
But observations didn't fit, and in order to make them fit, the Universe had to be everywhere to start. So how do you get from a point to everywhere? Inflation, not of matter, but of space. Inflation is an abstraction to make the theory fit the observations. (Interestingly, the boudary between Inflation of the physical world as we know it is plasma.) But instead of developing the plasma aspect, the remainder of big bang cosmology is based on gravitational effects. And because it based on gravity, the anomalous galaxy rotation speeds give rise to a strange yet unseen Dark Matter. And the tremendous outflowing matter from galaxies gave rise to a unseen Black hole, which in the popular press is proved whenever there is outflowing matter. And the expanding Universe gives rise to Dark Energy. Not only abstractions, but dark, black, invisible abstracting.
Seems to me that these are the kinds of things real pseudoscientists claim...Creation from nothing, Inflation faster that anything, expansion via invisible Dark Energy.
Tom Van Flandern?
I wonder if you really can dis Tom Van Flandern as you do above. It seems to me that you are the unsane one here, given your abstract then observe position, I have found Tom to be very sensible,[] far more sensible than you SA. Can't you get sued for what you said about Tom, SA? I know, you had me blocked twice for threatening you legally, so I am not threatening you again, but if this were the real world you would be sued.
At any rate, I tangled with Tom, something about how so much of science is a lie, which, unfortunately, I found to be true far too often. 
I had written: "And it is really sad that I have to add, "please tell the truth" ... lies cover the truth up"
And this was Tom's reply:
::In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals.
::Communication between mature adults, at least about intellectual matters, is supposed to maintain respect for the opinions of others, even though you may realize that in the real world people have interests that sometimes compete with their interest in pure truth. They may have been raised with religious beliefs. They may have a job in the field and their income depends on support for certain paradigms. They may need to curry favor with other influential people.
::But you can save your breath and energy unless you just enjoy tilting at windmills. The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life. -|Tom|-"
I don't know what to say. Everyone says it is much better to be a nice guy. But does that work when only one party is being nice? I don't know, in the animal world, they go for the jugular vein right away.
and in a sense, that is what Joshua Schroeder does. Witness his dismissal of Tom Van Flandern by generalizations without any specific evidence. Dismissal, hardly , he was going for the jugular vein. Maybe it is the mature adults part...
 
Joshua Schroeder, did I spell your name right, are you being paid by your Institute of Cosmology  for editing here? What are your working hours? Just curious...
Tommy Mandel 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to stop by my office hours and chat, that would be fine. We do live in the same city, after all. Send me an e-mail and we'll arrange it. --ScienceApologist 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bang is the real pseudoscience

message: The arbitrators are unlikey to rule on content issues, such as whether the Big Bang happened or not.  They are much more likely to deal with editor's behavior problems (if any) so a refocusing of the evidence page and some fresh evidence of behavior, rather than content problems, will probably be helpful. Thatcher131 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If content is not allowed, then conclusions based on content also should not be allowed. Tommy Mandel 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, essentially ArbCom reach conclusions based on behaviour and they avoid making judgements about content. They could for example indicate that someone is pushing a POV and edit warring, however they wouldn't indicate that a theory wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Addhoc 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: On the Evidence page I noticed the remark: 
how can these users coherently oppose "pseudoscience" on Wikipedia when they clearly do not understand what it is, and have no apparent interest in being properly educated regarding it?
Coincidentily I am just now confronted with the following persistent misunderstanding by ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk. On the Pseudoscience project page I recently noticed a confusion between fringe science (= minority scientific POV) and pseudoscience (= fake science) that I had overlooked and which goes as follows: 
For NPOV compliance, there are several guidelines that must be respected:
[...]
    * Clearly and prominently note points of disagreement between the pseudoscientific theory and mainstream science.
   * Cite sources, and clearly acknowledge mainstream reputability or disreputability of sources cited.
The instruction first of all misunderstands the scope of "NPOV compliance", but more seriously, it contrasts pseudoscience with mainstream science and implants the suggestion that mainstream is either "correct" or even "NPOV". Of course, as also the Wikipedia article explains, in reality pseudoscience is at odds with the scientific method, and thus to be contrasted with science instead of with a POV, even if the most popular POV. 
My recent edit  "(some improvements: more neutral formulation and scrap "mainstream" which confuses fringe science with pseudoscience)" was reverted by ScienceApologist as well as FeloniousMonk who amazingly gave as motivation: "rv for non-neutral language Wikiprojects are not for one-sided advocacy".
For the current discussion, see 
I won't need to stress that such misunderstandings and mix-ups on an instruction page cannot but cause problems elsewhere. ScienceApologists insistance on keeping that misleading text as it is may be taken as indirect evidence of misapplication of WP:NPOV. Harald88 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on the confusion between "pseudoscience" and minority POV 

message: On both sides criticism is expressed that the other side suppresses notable facts (see for example Bubba73 and Rednblu). Indeed I also was now and then in the clinch with ScienceApostle because I found certain peer reviewed opinions notable enough for inclusion in an article about the same subject while he disagreed and attempted to delete them . 
The examples by Bubba73 and Rednblu taken together seem to indicate that editors should in general be a little more tolerant of inclusions of facts by others.
Interestingly, ScienceApostle and I agree that a good way is to put a less important POV or side issue on a separate page, with a simple link from the main article - if I remember well, something of the kind was even his proposal, and such an approach may solve part of the editing disputes that are still going on if it is at least a guideline. 
However, ScienceApostle went as far as deleting verifiable WP:V statements and replacing them by unverified statements in order to even suppress traces of minority POV's from articles, such as here: , see also . Such edits go against making a reliable and informative encyclopedia. 
IMO it would be helpful for reducing such counterproductive disputes by improving the guidelines on how to make articles better verifiable as well as how to avoid unnecessary fact suppression . 
In summary, overall I think with Rednblu that ScienceApostle is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but his editing (as well as that of some others) is often needlessly destructive while he appeals to what he claims to be policy. I hope that this arbitration can help to clarify this important issue. Harald88 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on mutual fact suppressions 

message: The topic of this RFA is the actions of the named editors.
This RFA will not decide, or attempt to decide, which (if any) cosmology theories are pseudoscientific.  
What matters is:
* Were edits, or editors, disruptive?
* Are sources reliable?
Arguments that one cosmology or another is pseudoscience, are irrelevant.  
--EngineerScotty 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep in mind 

message: This section starts from this diff, not just due to right-margin-drift, but because it's a seperate concern from Academia header.
Asmodeus said (in part, per the diff):
The operative distinction is this: whereas physical cosmology is about comparing and classifying observed large-scale structures and discussing the physical processes by which they may have originated or evolved, philosophical cosmology remains true to the original meaning of the term and thus deals primarily with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the cosmos, including the logical entailments of the observation process itself. 
Indeed. Although I do not have the patience to compile the diff's required to substantiate similar concerns (they're on the evidence page, strewn about), I think Asmodeus' concerns have some merit. Take this randomly selected construction, from Logic and Philsophy (Tidman & Kahane, 9th ed.): (x)(y)Fxy \cong (y)(x)Fxy (Pardon my LATEX, I don't know the code for the three bar congruency symbol.) That's part of a formalized philosophical treatment, and that's the kind of thing that the untrained eye might call a hard science. While some branches of philosophy (even those concerned with language) do indeed strive towards formal approaches, others don't. (For instance, rhetoric, with its notion of persuasion.) A formal math proof is not about persuading the reader into believing a theorem: QED means Thus it was demonstrated -- that is, thus it is demonstrably absolutely true (in a two-valued truth system that admits not modalities).
A persuasive methodology (some might call qualitative) does not pretend to be mathematically rigorous, except perhaps by the demonstration of statistical \chi^2 methods or preponderance of evidence and or degree of statistical certainty (that admits for outliers). To prove something using empirical methods is not to prove something using formal mathematical methods. One can prove the existence of a canonical Type 0 language in grammar theory, but to actually parade it (the language itself) for inspection requires a very large margin. The call to prove it exists means different things in different branches of research and study.
That boring preamble behind us -- to misclassify an ontological/epistemological model as a hard science and hold it to the requirements of an empirical science (for instance, to require it to make a falsifiable prediction) is Popperism taken to the umpteenth degree of absurdity (IMO). The standards of proof in various fields differ. Therefore, the standards of refutation and review also differ. (For instance, the 2 sentences that precede this parenthetical statement are an attempt at persuasion, and may fall or not fall to a logical fallacy in a rhetorical model -- where one is quite well allowed to be convincing and win an argument without being rigorously mathematically true or false in one's assertions. I have made two assertions. Even the "evidence" page under discussion here presents a different type of evidence than one would consider valid in maths or a court of law.)
Who gets to classify? It's critical -- since how a model is classified determines to a very large degree how a model is criticized. Something that does not present itself as an empirical scientific model ought not be subjected to criteria of NPOV that only apply to empirical models, but rather to criteria of NPOV that apply to its particular branch of human knowledge.
I'm shaddup now.
--QTJ 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a moot point, but a math proof is about persuading the reader. While around 1900, Hilbert and Russell tried to set up mathematics as a completely formal system, few mathematicians work on mathematical proofs that could be checked by computer. Most proofs skim over things that should be obvious ("We professional mathematicians [...] say things like 'by a slight variant of Theorem 3.7 in the paper of Ignatz' or 'using the general approach of Hilbert ...'.", A Mathematician's Survival Guide, Steven G. Krantz) and what's acceptable here is defined by whether the readers buy it or not.--Prosfilaes 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Possible Cautions in re: Misclassification 

message: I just wanted to leave a brief note to ask the arbitrators to give Art LaPella's evidence serious consideration. Tommysun, although I have no doubt that he is well-meaning, seems incapable of listening to what other editors have to say and continually hammers home the same points (such as the chestnut "the universe is 99% plasma and the big bang doesn't even take account of it") without considering our responses. Other editors, even those sympathetic to his views, cannot abide his editing and his behavior on talk pages. His contribution has been a tiresome drain on the project. It has been this way from the start and has not shown any evidence of improvement despite many efforts to direct him. –Joke 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: 'Heselhoff' was a mis-spelling of Eltjo Haselhoff, who is not a reliable reference.  Tommysun also likes to rely on personal attacks, because most of his reasoning in recent posts for his being correct is my lack of knowledge of physics. Michaelbusch 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide diffs for these supposed personal attacks? Addhoc 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Talk:Crop circle: [], [] and User talk:Tommysun: [], [].  I would not usually be bothered by these statements, given that this is Wikipedia, but they form part of a pattern (i.e. Joke's statement above).  I have dissected all of his statements Talk:Crop circle and all of his references have been discredited, so his logic relies on my not being able to review any physics.  That is somewhat insulting to me, but more importantly, it shows a person who seems to lack the ability to restrain himself or to compromise. Michaelbusch 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these diffs show personal attacks, I would suggest you have a look at WP:PA for clarification. Addhoc 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I confused WP:PA personal attack with Ad hominem arguments. Michaelbusch 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on tommysun 

message: Hi Joke. I am not a person who is directed, sorrry if I disappointed you. You might want to visit my talk page  to get the inside view of how I deal with other editors. Please keep in mind that I am not a Wikipedian, I an a reader of your encyclopedia who happens to know a little bit, and that little bit that I do know tells me that a whole lot of what is in Wikipedia is just the opinion of some editor. Besides, it is obvious if the opinion comes from the writer. For example, when I came here a year ago, the introduction to plasma cosmology stated that plasma is "free flowing electrons" At that time I knew better. I didn't know then why that definition was stated that way. Now I know better...  
It wasn't I who first noticed that the big bang derived from Einstein's Theory of Gravitation leaves out electric and magnetic forces. It used to be a hunch I had, now confirmed. The theory of gravitation (General Relativity) does not take into account electromagnetic forces (Plasma). Sure, the big bang acknowledges a state prior to reheating in which matter is a plasma, but after recombination, it is all gravity again. I wonder, I made one heck of a lot of objective statements during this aritration hearing, and the only rebuttal I know of is a comment about my 99.something% plasma figure.
::Oh I get it now, what used to be 99. something % plasma is now Dark Energy, and plasma, compared to this Dark energy and the rest is only four percent. Neat trick. However, is expansion the only evidence for this Dark Energy? Tommy Mandel 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let me see. What is the quickest, easiest way I could find a summary of the evidence for dark energy. I know! I'll try Wikipedia: Dark energy#Evidence for dark energy. --Art Carlson 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Joke from Tommysun 

message: I've rollbacked an IP contribution  as my connection timed on the attempt to do a normal revert. The IP didn't sign an included two signed entries which may or may not be forged. --Pjacobi 20:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for rollback 

message: Firstly, I'm not going to provide evidence on the project page, largely because the accusations against Tommysun appear to be fairly trivial. In my honest opinion the none of the evidence provided regarding any of the editors would be sufficient to sustain a RfC. The principal charges of POV pushing on both sides don't appear to be supported by sufficient diffs to establish a pattern of meaningful disruption. 
Regarding the views expressed, I would comment the pseudoscience debate is heavily polarized. The 'skeptics' attempt to interpret WP:NPOV#Undue weight in such a manner they are only required to give coverage to the most established theory. On the opposing side, editors attempt to stretch WP:NPOV#Undue weight in such a way that minor theories would be given virtually equal coverage. For experienced editors to suggest that either side represents WP:NPOV is slightly disappointing. Addhoc 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost. Those of us trying to describe some minority peer-reviewed scientific theories do not expect mainstream articles to give equal coverage; that would be POV pushing. But I do not expect no coverage; that is also POV pushing. The diffs in my evidence show that 'skeptics" are attempting to remove all coverage of some minority scientific views. --Iantresman 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] in the capacity of advocate for [[User:Tommysun|Tommysun]]