To AKRONOS Main Page To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance |
To Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines |
Revision
as of 06:19, 26 June 2005 209.29.93.65 factual correction ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 06:24, 26 June 2005 Natalinasmpf sentence structure - basically, you can post all the theory you want, as long as the language makes it sound that its a CLAIM, not asserting it as fact, if you can do that for us it would be great, Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they created, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and to go beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies ([[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, etc) and claims to explain the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation (Orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, Cold Fusion). Main philosophical influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], pioneer defender of alternative energy, became a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry. | + | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies, among them the [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, while claiming its explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation <!-- not sure what was meant by this statement, clarify --> such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and the concept of [[cold fusion]]. Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, is a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. |
Revision
as of 06:52, 26 June 2005 209.29.93.65 factual reference; Natalinas: Cold Fusion is accepted term; concept of Cold Fusion is biased POV; don't revert ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 06:55, 26 June 2005 209.29.93.65 natalinas:stop being a moron: Mallove was a supporter; he was murdered a year ago. Don't change back; it is stupid Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies (such as [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment), and claims to explain controversial theories or controversial fields of minor scientific investigation (such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s theory of matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and [[cold fusion]]). Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, is a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. | + | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies (such as [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment), and claims to explain controversial theories or controversial fields of minor scientific investigation (such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s theory of matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and [[cold fusion]]). Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. |
Revision
as of 06:55, 26 June 2005 209.29.93.65 natalinas:stop being a moron: Mallove was a supporter; he was murdered a year ago. Don't change back; it is stupid ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 06:59, 26 June 2005 Katefan0 revert POV edits Newer edit → |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|
|
||
- | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies (such as [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment), and claims to explain controversial theories or controversial fields of minor scientific investigation (such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s theory of matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and [[cold fusion]]). Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. | + | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies, among them the [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, while claiming its explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation <!-- not sure what was meant by this statement, clarify --> such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and the concept of [[cold fusion]]. Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, is a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. |
Revision
as of 06:59, 26 June 2005 Katefan0 revert POV edits ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 07:13, 26 June 2005 209.29.93.65 Katefan0:stop making corrections that destroy sentence sense; remark that Mallove is not a supporter but WAS a supporter: Mallove is dead, was supporter until he WAS murdered! Newer edit → |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |
<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|
|
||
- | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies, among them the [[Kirlian photography]], Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, and the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, while claiming its explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation <!-- not sure what was meant by this statement, clarify --> such as orgonomy, [[De Broglie hypothesis|De Broglie]]'s matter waves, [[LeSage (gravity)|LeSage]]-type theory of gravity, and the concept of [[cold fusion]]. Main [[philosophical]] influences claimed by aetherometry are [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Camillo Berneri]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Wilhelm Reich]], [[Harold Aspden]] and [[René Thom]]. [[Eugene Mallove]], a pioneer and a proponent of alternative energy, is a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. | + | "'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]] coined by Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the analytical system they defined, the goal of which is the precise experimental and theoretical study of massfree energy (the metrics of the [[massfree aether]]). The system claims to explain accepted [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biophysics]], and that it goes beyond them by adoption of a novel paradigm. It also addresses little-known anomalies (Kirlian photography, Tesla-coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, etc) and claims to explain the failures of controversial theories or controversial fields of investigation (Orgonomy, De Broglie's matter waves, LeSage-type theory of gravity, Cold Fusion). Main philosophical influences claimed by Aetherometry are Friedrich Nietzsche, Camillo Berneri and Gilles Deleuze. Main scientific influences claimed by Aetherometry are Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, Harold Aspden and René Thom. Eugene Mallove, pioneer defender of alternative energy, became a public supporter of Aetherometry, and was one of the founding members of the '''International Society of the Friends of Aetherometry'''. |
A note to the anons editing this article: Please refrain from calling other editors stupid, moron, etc. It is unbecoming and besides which, it is against Wikipedia's policies (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility). Disagree with peoples' editing if you must, but please do not insult people. You can be penalized for repeated violations of these policies. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Read the record of my edits and compare. Check the language and compare. Figure out why you keep removing the qualifier 'minor scientific' from "investigation", you're a big girl, no? And 'improvise the failures of controversial theories"...what kinda nonsense is that, female reporter from Washington? People like you people just are not worth the bother. you'd like to hear my case...gimme a break. Stop making nonsense edits, that's all! 209.29.93.65, 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're undermining your own case. You're attacking us for trying to improve the sense of how your claims sound? For grammatical construction - parantheses are not supposed to be excessively used in an encylopedia. If you think it sounds funny, make appropriate changes, not revert the entire revision! I did ask you to clarify. As for grammar, the irony, you just used a double negative in the last sentence, if you really want an eye for an eye tactic in response to your nitpicking. It was awkward before, so I changed it. Talk about assuming good faith, I made that edit with no hostility towards you. As for "just arrived and mangled a text", apparently you don't get what a wiki is. An editor passes by, notices something and changes it, and shouldn't be prevented from doing so, and deserves to have things discussed with just like every other editor, because it is a peer encylopedia. If she ever arrived, she arrived a long time ago, in terms of being on an encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf, 08:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
yeah, an editor passes by with a belly full of beer and pronto, the dead now become alive, past tenses become present, "explanations improvise the failures of controversial theories", blah blah, and I'm supposed to put up with this? You've had lesson enough Natalinas. Now you can go back and vandalize again. 209.29.93.65, 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then, at last, something dawns on the self-proclaimed minor, and henceforth, "is" becomes "was":
4.2. But harassment also serves other purposes than itself. Perhaps the most egregious is harassment which aims at suppressing facts, such as the repeated removal, from the Aetherometry article, of references to in situ peer-review by independent scientists, so that the parallel 'work' of classifying the entry as Pseudoscience or Pseudophysics would 'stick'. Consider the following:
← Older edit |
Revision
as of 09:34, 2 July 2005 80.168.224.145 rm uncited Newer edit → |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|
|||
|
|
||
- | Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in ''Infinite Energy'', which specializes in unorthodox topics such as cold fusion, "vast energy sources from the vacuum state", and energy sources requiring "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics" [http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html]. Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Tilley (BSc), David Pratt, Tom Bearden, Michael Carrell. | + | Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in ''Infinite Energy'', which specializes in unorthodox topics such as cold fusion, "vast energy sources from the vacuum state", and energy sources requiring "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics" [http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html]. |
|
|
Now, to add spice to this event, the IP 80.168.224.145 resolves to a connection from adsl-solo-80-168-224-145.claranet.co.uk in London, which, by coincidence, is also the provider of Anome's IP 213.253.39.xxx; and, also by coincidence, the very same IP started to appear in the Akronos Publishing weblog on June 25, the day when Theresa Knott entered the fray...
To spare no punches, this little bit of administrative sock-puppetry is closely followed by the timely return of the Singaporean minor, who gloats over having "finally" found (!) "a reasonable IP contributor"
in anon 80.168.224.145:
Revision
as of 09:34, 2 July 2005 80.168.224.145 rm uncited ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 09:38, 2 July 2005 Natalinasmpf copyedit (finally, a reasonable IP contributor!) Newer edit → |
||
It's comedy-hour at Wikipedia - a chance for all the good 'Pedians to be in on a joke whose target are all those who wanted to construct an entry that was accurate and informative. And why this particular charade? The answer is clear: remove the evidence for peer-review and third party testing - evidence that clearly indicates the willingness of Aetherometry's creators to have its various experiments and technologies tested and assessed by outsiders - and the injurious tag Pseudoscience will stick; that's the purpose of the harassment.
The next removal of the same information was carried out by Karada, another administrator:
Revision
as of 13:27, 2 July 2005 209.183.22.11 ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 13:40, 2 July 2005 Karada Last editor failed to give a cite for reviewers, as per talk request. Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in ''Infinite Energy'', which specializes in unorthodox topics such as cold fusion, "vast energy sources from the vacuum state", and energy sources requiring "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics" [http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html]. Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Tilley (BSc), David Pratt, Tom Bearden, Michael Carrell. | + | Papers about aetherometry have not been published in any major scientific journals, although articles about aetherometry have been published in ''Infinite Energy'', which specializes in unorthodox topics such as cold fusion, "vast energy sources from the vacuum state", and energy sources requiring "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics" [http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html]. |
Then, at the next return of the independent-review passage, the cabal convened a brief executive meeting (in Aetherometry Talk) to discuss how to "handle" it, and decided to leave it alone. The rubric is titled "To address this lack of external peer review...":
The paragraph starting with:
looks rather odd as encyclopedic content. Of course it could preserved as witness of the misunderstandings of the peer review process. But otherwise? First, we should get rid of the medical doctors. Their vote on physics is irrelevant and should be treated with caution. The counting PhDs. If they got their PhD for something that make them important witnesses of Aethermetries [sic] merits, they are most likely relevant enough, to get a small biography article here, so that everybody can reproduce this assessment. Pjacobi, July 4, 2005 20:05 (UTC)
Why do we need to touch the para? To the aetherometrists, it puffs up their claims, so they are happy. For the rest of us, its clearly labelled as their claims, and (to be frank) it makes them look silly. Everyone wins! William M. Connolley, 2005-07-04 21:41:49 (UTC).
Revision
as of 03:06, 14 July 2005 Salsb ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 07:27, 14 July 2005 Karada no need for the list of names; give a cite instead Newer edit → |
||
|
|||
|
|
||
- | To address the lack of peer review by mainstream scientific journals, the aetherometry website claims that work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD). | + | To address the lack of peer review by mainstream scientific journals, the aetherometry website claims that work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by a number of scientists (including six physicists) and medical doctors. |
Revision
as of 18:17, 16 July 2005 William M. Connolley Delete De Broglie: irrelevant. Re-insert no-sci-publ. ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 18:31, 16 July 2005 Karada removing the list Newer edit → |
||
- | |||
- | + | ||
- | Work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists and two engineers) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Carrell (P. Eng.). Note that some of the scientists on this list have become friends and coworkers of the Correas after reviewing their extensive work. | + |
Revision
as of 19:27, 16 July 2005 4.233.124.110 Keep capitalization of T ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 20:01, 16 July 2005 Salsb rv back to Karada undoing 4.2 Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
- | Work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists and two engineers) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Carrell (P. Eng.). Note that some of the scientists on this list have become friends and coworkers of the Correas after reviewing their extensive work. | + | Answering the criticism of lack of peer review, aetherometry supporters state that their work has been reviewed and approved by a number of PhD credentialled scientists and medical doctors. |
|
|
Revision
as of 11:30, 17 July 2005 The Anome rm protected notice ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 13:58, 17 July 2005 The Anome don't cut'n'paste from external sources when you can cite Newer edit → |
||
|
|||
|
|
||
- | Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists and two engineers) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Carrell (P. Eng.). Note that some of the scientists on this list have become friends of the Correas after reviewing their work. Professor A. Axelrad was Dr. Correa's doctoral supervisor and Dr. M. Askanas became their coworker. | + | According to aetherometry's supporters, work in aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by a number of scientists and medical doctors. The Correas' website provides a set of references to aetherometry reseatch, with most citations coming from publications associated with alternative energy theories. |
4.3. Harassment can also take the form of alterations especially crafted so as to cast aspersion on the subject matter or the people involved with it . Consider this sequence of acrobatics by Theresa Knott - she is clueless, but desperately wants a condemnation of some sort to stick to Aetherometry in the name of 'mainstream science':
Revision
as of 02:13, 30 June 2005 GangofOne fix link, better description ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 03:51, 30 June 2005 Theresa knott Better description of the state of affairs wrt mainstream science Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry. | + | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry at the moment.It has been ignored. This is probably because the Correas have not published thier experimental results in any of the mainstream journals, choosing instead to use thier own press Akros publishing. This approach bypasses the normal peer review system employed by scientific journals. |
Revision
as of 03:51, 30 June 2005 Theresa knott Better description of the state of affairs wrt mainstream science ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 03:59, 30 June 2005 Theresa knott Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry at the moment.It has been ignored. This is probably because the Correas have not published thier experimental results in any of the mainstream journals, choosing instead to use thier own press Akros publishing. This approach bypasses the normal peer review system employed by scientific journals. | + | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry at the moment.It has been ignored. This is probably because the Correas have not published thier experimental results in any of the mainstream journals, choosing instead to use thier own press Akronos publishing. This approach bypasses the normal peer review system employed by scientific journals, and therefore ensures that most mainstream scientist will never read the papers. (Mainstream science relies heavily on the process of [[peer review]] to weed out sloppy science, mistakes, theories that are not born out by experiment, and crackpot ideas). |
Revision
as of 04:06, 30 June 2005 Theresa knott ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 04:34, 30 June 2005 Theresa knott Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry at the moment.It has been ignored. This is probably because the Correas have not published thier experimental results in any of the mainstream journals, choosing instead to use thier own press Akronos publishing. This approach bypasses the normal peer review system employed by scientific journals, and therefore ensures that most mainstream scientist will never read the papers. (Mainstream science relies heavily on the process of [[peer review]] to weed out sloppy science, mistakes, theories that are not born out by experiment, and crackpot ideas. Of course a few brilliant new ideas may get weeded out too.) | + | Mainstream science appears indifferent to aetherometry at the moment. It has been ignored. This is probably because the Correas have not published their experimental results in any of the mainstream journals, choosing instead to use their own press Akronos publishing. This approach bypasses the normal peer review system employed by scientific journals, and therefore ensures that most mainstream scientist will never read the papers. (Mainstream science relies heavily on the process of [[peer review]] to weed out sloppy science, mistakes, theories that are not born out by experiment, and crackpot ideas. Of course a few brilliant new ideas may get weeded out too.) It is not clear whether the Correas tried and failed to get their results offically published in a mainstream journal, or if they never even tried. |
4.4. Harassment can also take on the form of persistently insinuated value-judgements intended as injurious:
Revision
as of 04:43, 4 July 2005 Theresa knott Reverted edits by Theresa knott to last version by 209.183.20.149 ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 04:45, 4 July 2005 Theresa knott let's try that again (I must have been editing and old version before) Newer edit → |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
- | Most of the research monographs and other materials relating to aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners. This approach bypasses the established [[peer review]] system employed by scientific journals. Proponents of aetherometry state that one cannot judge the scientific merits of a new science that has arisen outside the institutional framework and which challenges accepted notions, by the fact that it has not been accepted by the mainstream. | + | Most of the research monographs and other materials relating to aetherometry are published by Akronos Publishing, in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are partners. This approach bypasses the established [[peer review]] system employed by scientific journals. Proponents of aetherometry state that one cannot judge the scientific merits of a new science that has arisen outside the institutional framework and which challenges accepted notions, by the fact that it has not been accepted by the mainstream. However it will never be accepted by the mainstream unless it gets published in a scientific journal. By not submitting their work to mainstream journals the Correas ensure that that mainstream scientists continue to ignore them. |
In another "contribution", Theresa Knott impugns the credibility of the cited independent reviewers: seeing the fact that most (almost all, in fact) of the reviewers became friends of the Correas at some point after the evaluation (peer-review or independent field testing), she insinuates that this friendship is a sign of the partiality of these reviews or tests. Once again falsification becomes the "evidence" for pernicious or injurious value-judgements decided upon a priori:
Revision
as of 22:01, 16 July 2005 Rich Farmbrough ← Older edit |
Revision
as of 22:17, 16 July 2005 Theresa knott pretty extensive edit Newer edit → |
||
- | |||
|
|
||
- | Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists and two engineers) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Carrell (P. Eng.). Note that some of the scientists on this list have become friends and coworkers of the Correas after reviewing their extensive work. | + | Work in Aetherometry, including plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed by the following scientists (including six physicists and two engineers) and medical doctors: Eugene Mallove (PhD), Harold Aspden (PhD, P. Eng), Uri Soudak (P. Eng, MSc), Dr. M. Askanas (PhD), Professor Emeritus A. Axelrad (MD, PhD), Professor Emeritus William Tiller (PhD), Luis Balula (M.Arch, PhD), Howard Brinton (MD), Vitaly Bard (MD), Lev Sapogin (PhD), George Egely (PhD), Prof. Emeritus Herman Branover (PhD), Michael Carrell (P. Eng.). Note that some of the scientists on this list have become friends and coworkers of the Correas after reviewing their extensive work, and s o therefore cannot be considered truly independent. |
It is perhaps time to ask whether Wikipedia has any defined internal policy regarding scientific views dissenting from official science, and in what way the perisistent harassment we have seen in the case of the Aetherometry entry - the ignorant alterations, the suppression of facts, the blocking of any evidence of peer-review and third-party testing, the casting of aspersions and denigration - fits in with this policy. Given that the normal administrative procedure within Wikipedia is to classify valid dissenting views as Pseudoscience, and lumping them together with all else that is not science, here are the relevant sections of one of Wikipedia's most sacred policy documents, the document defining the "Neutral Point of View":
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience."
But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
Note the ignorance, bias, and non-neutrality that are built right into these foundational Wikipedia directives for Neutrality. The directives unqualifiedly identify "majority view" with "scientific view", as if everything that the majority-view-du-jour regards as "scientific" sprang into existence by a divine fiat, a daily direct divine update of the "what is science" databases inside the minds of "official scientists"; and they unhesitatingly and with utter insouciance identify "minority view" with "pseudo", i.e. fake (obviously the otherwise unsupported little qualifier "sometimes" in the phrase "sometimes pseudoscientific" wormed its way into this document as one of Wikipedia's moronic devices for "consensus building"). No acknowledgement is made of the fact that every significant thought or discovery that ultimately made it into the catalog of things "scientific", was once a minority view that emerged in obscurity and against opposition of the contemporary mainstream, and had to struggle for recognition. No sign is given of any understanding that science, and knowledge in general, are man-made endeavors that take place within man-made structures of power and finance, and are subject to all the perturbations inherent in such a framework. Doesn't the policy-making body within Wikipedia feel that a major problem before an editorship of an encyclopedia is that the new - new thought, new discoveries, new approaches - is precisely that, new, and cannot be judged "neutrally" (that is, assuming one attempts to interpret the word with any degree of honesty) by the standards of the majoritarian institutions of the time? No, it doesn't and it couldn't possibly - because Wikipedia itself is conceived, down to its deepest foundations, as such a majoritarian institution, and the glorification of "majority consensus" as a path to Truth and Knowledge is Wikipedia's morality, its ideological life's blood. It is inconceivable that there could be a Wikipedia policy document acknowledging that actual knowledge is always wrenched singularly and against the "consensus" of the day, when Wikipedia is a project dedicated to precisely the denial of this fact, and presided over by the maxim "through mediocrity to excellence". The existence of a Wikipedia Science Police, the systematic malice, harassment, and falsification which is accorded by Wikipedia "editors" to dissenting and pioneering scientific views, the falsification of the very process of thought and discovery, are nothing but necessary consequences of Wikipedia's rationale, guiding ideology, and modus operandi. In its very depths, Wikipedia is anti-knowledge. That one can have an encyclopedia built on such a foundation is a sign that a Brave New World has indeed arrived, and its cadre of Brave New Scientists is formed by people like William Michael Connolley and Freddie Salsbury.
Wikipedia's notion of Pseudoscience is so fundamentally flawed and misinformed that it's hard to believe that any organization in the public eye would openly promote it as an acceptable working premise. A majority view on anything, has never ipso facto made that view right. There is no majority view of science that would make it unalterably 'right'. Science is conventional by the simple fact that it is a convention, a conventional sum-total and integration of various fields of knowledge, a convention which is taught in schools, a convention which, by virtue of being such, is able to find official and corporate grants for research, and is so widely taken for granted that it may be encapsulated in 'shorthand truisms' as mass-media content. But there are, in fact, no democratic majorities anywhere voting on what is, and what is not, science, and the invocation of a 'majority' is simply an ideologically charged, populist spin on the fact that a given convention determined what an epoch thought about a subject, specifically what the institutions of an epoch thought about a subject. Historically, such dogmatically unquestioned conventions have repeatedly proved to be disastrously wrong.
Wikipedians have the same notion of what a majority is that bureaucrats have always had: a majority is what you make it out to be, what you manufacture as an institutional 'fact'. In the present case, it really means a majority of those Wikipedia Administrators who have made it their project to promote a certain view of science. And to present itself, somehow, as fair, this majority, in writing its policy, goes as far as conceding to its own minority that if the views of science cannot be explained to believers in pseudoscience, then maybe Wikipedia should adopt a scientific point of view...ie upgrade its stamp from NPOV to SPOV!
This alone should make one pause and wonder if this Wikipedian project of a monopoly of falsified knowledge is not one of the major new elements of a pervasive fascism, to be exposed and taken down by whatever means possible. A fascism of falsified knowledge, intent on representing the entirety of knowledge with the stamps "majoritarian" and "scientific", smacking of a still more mediocre form of Lysenkoism, and unable to provide any factual content. And we are supposed to feel relieved to hear that the neo-Lysenkoists in Wikipedia are a minority in the majority:
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view"
Can or should one try to argue with fascists, even when they are in positions of power? Or...??
Here is an attempt to do the former, from Aetherometry Talk:
Mel Etitis and Theresa knott: If you intend to continue Mr. Connolley's proxy project of stamping the just-now-created pseudo category of 'pseudophysics' on this entry - then I presume you have studied the concept of pseudo a little better than Ms. Knott has learned to spell the word "irrelevant". That's "irrelevant", Ms. Knott - not "irrelavent". The Funk and Wagnalls dictionary defines pseudo as
If you are going to mule-headedly insist on recategorizing the Aetherometry entry into this POV(lovian) category, then, BEFORE doing so again, please defend - in detail - and provide cited references as to how the physics of Aetherometry - as well as the extensive work in physics of Mills, Tesla and Carezani etc., - conforms to the official dictionary definition of "pseudo". 4.233.120.63, 3 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
Exactly. It's pseudophysics because it's not physics. So that would be 2), 3) and 4) of the definition above. The reason i say it's not physics is because it hasn't been peer reviewed by physisists [sic], it's never been published in a physics journal. The reason I say it's pseudophysics is because to someone without an education in physics it resembles physics.What does a term like "massfree energy" say to a layman if not physics? The catagory [sic] lets the casual reader know not to trust the physics sounding words, this is not the same sort of thing as say relativity or quantum mechanics. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 3 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Yes, Knott appears to be a wanabe physi-sissie who knows her 'catagories'... Another mind-bender from the same thread:
"Pseudo" signals to the "casual reader" that the thusly-labeled activity has been reviewed, and has been found to be not real physics, but counterfeit and phoney. Just because something has not been peer-reviewed doesn't make it counterfeit or phoney. If you want a category for not-peer-reviewed scientific endeavours, then call the category "scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed", or "scientific claims that the Wikipedia community cannot evaluate fairly". "Pseudo" is not an NPOV designation. 216.254.161.129, 3 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
Perhaps the reader should be reminded, at this point, that Wikipedia determines what is Science, by counting the number of Google hits...
Next: THE TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES OF THE WIKIPEDIA SCIENCE-PURIFICATION CABAL
Previous: RAMPANT ADMINISTRATOR ABUSES