From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July

Category:Non-mainstream science

This category contains two articles, one of which is already in Category:Pseudophysics. Since the other is also a physical theory, I suggest the category be merged into Category:Pseudophysics. (The defining quality of 'pseudophysics' is "have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community") ---Septentrionalis 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, I agree. Salsb 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per nominator: that definition of pseduophysics is taken from the cat to merge to.? -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the correct term is Pseudoscience (of which pseudophysics would be a subsection). Radiant_>|< 09:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Category:Pseudophysics is already a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, though. -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Do not change this category. There are 2 voluminous archives of discussion on the aetherometry discussion pages - which many people worked on for weeks - on why 'non-mainstream physics' is a perfectly valid and important NPOV category and should not be idealistically merged with, or replaced by, the highly POV category of pseudophysics. I advise you read the archives rather than wasting everyone's time all over again. As the name indicates, pseudophysics is not physics but false physics.
• Merge/delete. The used (highly inprecise) euphemism only tries to wash away reality. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The two articles can simply be recat'ed. Vsmith 22:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• 'Reality'? What kind of a joke is that? Reality of what? Pseudo is pseudo, fake. Non-mainstream is serious - but non-mainstream - science. It's hardly a question of 'euphemisms'. To call it pseudo is only the reality of a biased convention. It has no bearing on the reality of the science. If it is not science, then it is pseudo. If it is science and you call it pseudo, then it is not only wrong, it's also libel. What other meaning, pray tell, does pseudo have? Unless you want to redefine the meaning of words...

• Delete the cat. Both articles are currently also cat'ed into Category:Pseudophysics. FWIW, there is no such thing as non-mainstream science. If its science, its by definition mainstream. If its not mainstream, its not science. linas 05:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Gee, they could have qualified for the linas/Connolley/Salsb/ Pjacobi 'we support the pseudophysics/pseudoscience' tag team club...

• "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)

• "Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)

• "Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)

• "To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)

• "The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)

• "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)

• "Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)

• "But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)

• "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)

• Merge or Delete. Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV. siafu 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• This is an example of a rigged and non-enlightened vote. take the example of Autodynamics. Its claims are no more or less falsifiable than Relativity. The curves and the predictions for acceleration of material particles give essentially the same results. So how does one choose between which of the two theories is the adequate one? To state categorically that "if its science, its by definition mainstream" is patently absurd. It is not a majority that can decide whether Relativity or Autodynamics is more accurate. It is a matter of presenting tests that distinguish between the two hypotheses. Just because most physicists work on the framework of Relativity, does not make the latter truer to physical nature than Autodynamics. Moreover, Autodynamics has been published in mainstream publications, peer-reviewed in grants and publications, and still that does not make it mainstream. So, it is not even true that what is mainstream science is what is published in mainstream journals. Findings, theories, models, may be published in mainstream journals and be peer-reviewed, and not constitute mainstream science. Avoiding the difficulties of the argument is what peremptory declarations are good for. Then it is they who make them that suffer from an incurable POV. It is called dogmatism. And dogmatism is incompatible with the true scientific spirit.Keep this category 216.254.166.86 02:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you genuinely planning to harass each and every opposing viewpoint? (I'm assuming, of course, that you meant "rigid" instead of "rigged") I was sympathetic to the distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", just not to its application to Wikipedia. However, it now seems rather clear that you are more interested in enforcing a POV belief in pseudoscience than maintaining this distinction for its own value. Autodynamics, your example, completely falls on its face when presented with experimental data: it is pseudoscience, and not merely "non-mainstream". Relabelling it as merely outside the mainstream is POV. siafu 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Look 'siafu, I'm not the person above and I don't appreciate having my interventions deleted/censored just because *you* happen to think attempting to introduce some balance which is otherwise lacking in the discussion of pseudo vs non-mainstream is offensive to you personally. But, while we're here, let's see you *demonstrate* how "Autodynamics falls on its face when presented with experimental data:" instead of just stating it as though it were a fact. And here's my text that you deleted 4.231.172.84 13:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more [with 216.254.166.86]. Claims that - "Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV* - is pure POV. Reminds me of that line in Bladerunner: "If you're not police, you're little people." It so happens that another very legitimate POV would claim that much of the very best work done today is being done by those *outside* the hermetically sealed military, corporate, academic pork-barrel granting systems - precisely because the door is closed to research that does not conform to a 'party line' of entrenched interests - be it in physics, biology, toxicology, medicine, climatology, cosmology, geology, etc., etc. And any student of the history of science knows full well that historically, this has most often been the case. Real paradigmatic jumps in our understanding of the functions of nature are initiated from outside of - and not from inside - the box. For the majority of you all to gibly agree that science has to be either mainstream or pseudo, and that there's no place for excellence in non-mainstream science is pure POV, IMHO of the most servile sort. The very fine research, which those promoting removal of the non-mainstream category, are pitching in together willy nilly with obvious a-scientific, mystical nonsense is being done with no other intent than to maliciously discredit it under the disparaging and inaccurate rubrik 'pseudo': fake. Far from being a "noble mission" as this clique claims it is pursuing, it is very arguably, a most ignoble one, more like a cathoic Inquision of purification by way of poisonously discrediting any work that would dare stray from current scientific dogma.

Is the lack of mainstream approval, touted like a blind butcher ax by the self-appointed judges of the pseudophysics domain, in and of itself, really sufficient to declare science good or pseudo? I think not.

• Something Rotten at the Core of Science?  (http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm)
• The case against peer-review (http://slate.msn.com/id/2116244)
• Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation (http://nov55.com/prv.html)
• Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html)
• The end of the Peer Show - scientists’ misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem (http://www.mantleplumes.org/Peer)
• Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review (http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev1.htm)
• Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html)
• The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=90156666&dopt=Abstract)
• Peer review is broken.  (http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.142.html)
• Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?  (http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/123/9/1964)
• Suppressing Dissent in Science (http://www.thegreatboycott.net/Dissent_in_Science.html)
• Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system (http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/art96/bere.htm)
• A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7716/7716.html)
• "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine" (http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/lock-difficult-bal_2/index-lcs.html)
• A STUDY IN SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm)
• Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix (http://www.geosociety.org/science/csf/0407gt.htm)
• Proposed Definitions Relating (1) to the Suppression of Research and (2) to the Repression of Research (http://www.iseepi.org/about/ethics.html)
• Suppression of Dissent in Science  (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm)
• Science Versus Science (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Buff_022004,00.html)

I didn't delete anything, though it's possible there was an edit conflict (you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2005_July_11&diff=18798175&oldid=18787155) that there was no deletion in my edit). If so, sorry, but you'll learn how to recognize and handle that with more experience on wikipedia. As for Autodynamics, one can only accept it as true if you ignore all evidence regarding the existence of the neutrino-- but I'll leave you to research that yourself, it's merely tangential to the discussion. I certainly agree that new theories are "non-mainstream", but how exactly are we to use such a distinction here on Wikipedia? I'm certainly not advocating the removal of the material on the topics included in the category, just that wikipedia not attempt to distinguish between what is in the scientific mainstream and that which, while equally valid, is not (which does not include Autodynamics). A good example, perhaps, is Heim Theory, which is not commonly accepted or discussed due to its previously being published only in German. I would personally classify this as "non-mainstream" but not "pseudoscience", but what good is my personal classification? One could just as easily argue that it is "mainstream", though in the minority. Hence, my vote to delete this category-- I don't see a way to seperate articles on scientific theories and phenomena into mainstream or non- without resorting to simple POV. siafu 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory. That doesn't sound to me that it's science at all, mainstream or otherwise. Remember, this isn't a nomination to delete your crackpot theory articles, just the category. --Kbdank71 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is the source for such statement? Whoever you are Kbdank, you do not even realize that you cannot quote as source a statement in a wikipedia entry made by other members of your cabal and without any attribution. Keep this category 209.29.95.52 16:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, while anonymous users are welcome to comment, only users whose accounts existed at the time of the beginning of the poll can cast votes (anon votes are discounted), so continually repeating your keep vote is not meaningful. siafu 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice dictatorial rules you guys got here. So much for genuine interest on topics and seasoned decisions. I'll take my hat off, and ponder how to deal with such rigged, that's RIGGED votes as the ones you administrators carry on with all of your cyberpowers... 209.29.95.52 17:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Two clicks would have gotten you here: [1] (http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20663,00.html) Written by wired news. Gasp! Oh no! Wired news has been taken over by a Cabal!!! Oh, the humanity! (by the way, I'm Kbdank71, please get it right next time). -- Kbdank71 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kbdank71, whoever you are so proud of your tattoed arm: you're so blind you cannot read? The article you mention states: "Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades, and most agree that an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1984 proved the theory wrong." It does NOT say what you wrote, that "Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory"...Can you read your own text? Guess not. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't 'what' me. You wrote what you wrote. In factual error. Cannot admit it? Then you have an incurable lack of objectivity. If you don't give a fig about Autodynamics, and yet classify it as pseudoscience (knee-jerk reaction), ethically you should not be in this discussion. Either you care about science, its truths and the struggle for acceptance of new paradigm shifts, or you should have no business here. 209.29.95.52 17:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• What? Listen, anon, whoever you are, I don't give a rip about Autodynamics, or any other pseudosceintific theory. I'm here to discuss the category, and it's my opinion that it should go. -- Kbdank71 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  
  

Seeing as this discussion is about Category:Non-mainstream science and not Autodynamics, not giving a rat's ass about that particular crackpot theory in now way means that someone doesn't have any business here. If anything, discussing autodynamics itself doesn't belong here; whatever the outcome of this discussion, the content of the autodynamics article will not be affected. Either you care about the category named or you should have no business here; this is not a forum to grandstand about the validity of particular theories. siafu 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• You're a perfect example siafu (little blind ant that can travel fast but doesn't give a "rat's ass" about science, or knowledge for that matter) - of the disaster of wikipedia running amok in the hands of people who neither know the subject matter, nor give a rat's ass about it, yet are aspiring to make decisions about it. Categories, little ant posing as an encyclopedean, must be determined on the basis of what needs to placed into them - so that one doesn't file siafus under astromomy, for example. You see? Or else, following the probably sagacious advice of Larry Sanger, co-founder of wikipedia, they should be thrown out the window altogether. A very good idea, I should think, since they seem to be nothing more than entrenched political footballs. When individuals are incapable of categorizing subject matter, other than on the POVs of strongly opinionated cliques, information is deformed beyond recognition. I will repeat what has already been poined out, pseudo is fake, non-mainstream is non-mainstream science and actually *giving* a rat's ass about the difference is precisely why the non-mainstream category needs to be kept. Anyway you clearly have an astonishing amount of hostility against autodynamics, and who knows, perhaps against anything non-mainstream and would like, in your blind rage to just throw them all under 'pseudo' thereby discredting everything equally. How very democratic of you. How very pseudoencyclopedian of you. 4.227.255.48 KEEP THE NON-MAINSTREAM

Perhaps you are mistaking me for the person who said that he didn't care about Autodynamics; I was simply defending kbdank71's viewpoint by noting that the validity of autodynamics is not specifically relevant to this discussion. I would suggest attacking arguments instead of the people who present them; my point stands that wikipedia is not able to make the determination between mainstream and non-mainstream without resorting to POV, whether it be autodynamics or other theories. Can you demonstrate how this is not the case in a convincing way? If not, then I would also suggest that you refrain from harassing other users and ascribing "hostility" and "blind rage" to their reasoned viewpoints. It seems clear that you very strongly believe that autodynamics is actual science instead of pseudoscience; that discussion belongs on Talk:Autodynamics, and not here, as I indicated above. The category is defined absent of the validity of an individual entry. If you plan on simply continuing the name-calling, I would suggest you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you find yourself banned from editting. siafu 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Siafu, don't waste your time. No matter what you say the anon will come back with something. Just ignore him and he'll have nothing to argue against. -- Kbdank71 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• If Autodynamics is not pseudoscience but an example of non-mainstrema science published in scientific journals, then this discussion belongs where it is. I will not answer to the rest of your provocation. 209.29.95.52 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • by the way, neither wired or wired.com are peer-reviewed scientific publications... They are glossy advertizing. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Freddie Salsbury: at least you acknowledge that non-mainstream science exists and should not be confused with pseudo or false science. But not knowing how to slice the bacon is not reason to throw it in the garbage pail, is it? 209.29.95.52 16:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This whole discussion is so POV-laden that there is no way the change would reflect neutrality or objectivity towards the topics involved - a symptom, I fear, of a far larger problem within Wikipedia on many subjects. Especially considering that Kbdank71 claims to be an admin, and has elsewhere proven his willingness to let his POV guide his site-given perks as such. 12.73.198.43 00:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• It needed a correct definition, neutral and worth voting for. Keep as is now. 216.254.157.191 02:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• The whole concept of "Mainstream science" is bogus. Either it is considered science now or not. Obviously human knowledge will change over the centuries and judgements will change, but this is out of our reach. Category:Pseudophysics better captures the difference between Autodynamics and Special relativity. Delete. -- Pjacobi 08:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)