Comment by User:ScienceApologist
Comment by User:Iantresman
-- Iantresman 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
'Comment by User:DavidRussell'
ScienceApologist consistently deletes any passages that refer to alternative interpretations of redshift. He then falsely claims that the redshift articles which already exist cover concepts that he has in fact deleted in previous attempts. For example, in the Redshift article at one time there was a section on Redshift in non-standard cosmologies. I included the following passage on Halton Arp's hypothesis for intrinsic redshifts:
"Another critique of cosmological redshift also came from Halton C. Arp, who continues to find empirical support in the existence of apparently connected objects with very different redshifts. Arp has interpreted these connections to mean that these objects are in fact physically connected. He has further hypothesized that the higher redshift objects are ejected from the lower redshift objects - which are usually active galactic nuclei (AGN)- and that the large observed redshifts of these "ejected" objects is dominated by a non-cosmological (intrinsic) component. Conventional cosmological models regard these as chance alignments and Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters within the research community."
ScienceApologist (as Joshua Schroeder) saw fit to delete this passage claiming that it was not NPOV. I include this here as an example of the sort of comment that Joshua consistently claims is POV-pushing. Unfortunately, his constant steamrolling of any effort to include NPOV comments on alternative ideas corrupts the value of these Wikipedia articles. I personally find it ridiculous that a single individual consistently disrupts the whole process.
In this latest case IanTresman started a new article on Intrinsic Redshifts. Within 24 hours Science Apologist nominated it for deletion! Joshua could not even be patient enough to let people such as myself that have published research on Intrinsic Redshifts in the research journals work to improve the article. After several days of arguments over that topic he took the liberty of completely deleting Ian's content in that article and providing his own version that he felt was an appropriate description of Intrinsic Redshift. I think it is very instructive to look at Joshua's version if one wishes to understand how he allows his own narrow view of the topic to distort what he considers to be NPOV. The article is supposed to be about Intrinsic Redshifts, but it says little about Intrinsic Redshifts and is instead largely a critique of Halton Arp.
It is Joshua that is unable to present a neutral point of view -but rather allows opinions to slip into his writing. Notice how in my passage above which he deleted I made sure to emphasize that Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters among the research community- which is an accurate statement. But in Joshua's version of Intrinsic Redshifts he feels it necessary to say: "Arp ... does not accept the general consensus due to what he perceives as systematic bias in the scientific community." I do not believe that Joshua's perceptions of what he thinks Arp's perceptions are is in any way relevant.
In short, Science Apologist is disruptive to a fair Wikipedia process. -- DavidRussell 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by User:Art Carlson
For the most part this scuffle is not about content or NPOV formulation but rather the appropriate space to give to minority views. Science Apologist (apparently) works professionally in the field and thus has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas. Ian Tresman is not a science professional but is able to find a handful of citations, some from peer reviewed publications, on some of these topics. Ian's view is generally that, as long as a citation for an idea can be found, it has a place in Wikipedia. The position of "Science" is that an encyclopedia should reflect the importance of ideas by the space allotted to them, so that many ideas should be given little or no space, even if they are citeable. Although there are difficulties in weighting ideas according to their importance, I tend to side with Science Apologist on this one. I am interested to hear the oracle of the Cabal.
Complicating the discussion is a clash of personalities. Science Apologist can be brusk, although very rarely impolite. Ian Tresman sometimes comes across as a crusader, although he tries very hard to explain his point of view. Together they are like fire and water.
Harald88 wants Someone not involved [to] try to explain [to Science Apologist about] NPOV and fair play. In my opinion he already understands and abides by these principles.
-- Art Carlson 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment by User:Harald88
The comments by Art Carlson confirm my impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV rule: Suggesting that "ScienceApologist has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas" apparently implies that according to Art, the Wikipedia POV should equal mainstream "science" POV (whereby those colleagues are "mainstream", and by chance not former friends of Grote Reber or friends of Halton Arp!). Art, NPOV is not "mainstream" POV! "(mainstream) science" doesn't have a word to say in what Wikipedia should contain; instead it's the Wikipedia community that accomodates all POV's. And note that in the Tired light article we are discussing something else: to either give a false impression to the readers that all such ideas have been completely disproved, or to fairly present the state of the art. My invitation to present papers that debunk the more modern variants have only been met with weak excuses and deletions. To selectively present only theories that are claimed to have been disproved but at the same time refusing to mention similar more modern theories that so far apparently have not been disproved, is strawman tactics, and not according to NPOV. But thanks for admitting that you simply follow "ScienceApologist". Harald88 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Grey
I'll mention that the initial catalyst for the dispute seems to relate to a specific addition to the page, claiming to give an example of a tired light model, and probably giving it more weight than it really deserves. I believe that the particulars of that model are not taken seriously by anyone other than the author of the page to which it referred. As such, it seems that Ashmore was really using the tired light article to advertise his own ideas, rather than to report neutrally about an alternate theory.
-- Grey 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Jon
The infuriatingly stubborn and irrational behaviour of Joshua Schroeder is pretty much the principal reason I can't be bothered participating in Wikipedia much these days. He is not actually capable of reasonable debate and seems to have a pretty narrow view of the world, and a seemingly a strange agenda to paint sciencific theories as some sort of replacement creation mythology.
"I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." - Samuel Johnson
Good luck getting to the bottom of it, sorry I don't have the strength and spare time to help. Jon 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by
User:iantresman
It has just come to my attention that User:ScienceApologist has just added an "unknown theory" to the redshift article page [11] for which " belief" is suggested as the criteria for its inclusion. In other words, an "unknown theory" (ie no theory, no science) gets precedence over peer-reviewed minority theories. Neutral point of view? -- Iantresman 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the following questions, please address your question to me only, not the other party.
Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:
Please do not respond to the answers of others. thanks, SteveMc 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:
Query: Steve, are you asking in Q1 for our general source of information, or, that which we would use to answer Q2? -- Iantresman 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1. For a "correct" definiton of "Tired light", I have no independent source; instead I so far rely on "Tired light" being as defined in the article, by others. However, since yesterday ScienceApologist even disagrees that the subject is as general as the article suggests to me.
2. It's almost certainly true for the standard old proposed scatter mechanisms. It is IMO an open question for Marmet's bremsstrahlung mechanism, which also may be regarded as a kind of scattering. Thus, that sentence is lacking in precision.
3. I already do so, as can easily be seen from the way I formulate things. At one point when deleting my text, ScienceApostel even kept some of my negative comments.
4. AFAIK is Marmet's proposed mechanism not very well known but at the same time also not rejected by the physics community; and it should be noted that it does not suggest to fully account for cosmological redshift, but anomalous redshifts in particular. I don't know if Zwicky's proposed mechanism was better known among physicists.
5. Peer reviewed articles only.
Harald88 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply from Ian Tresman
1. My sources are several. But I think that more importantly is (a) providing the source since "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" [12], (b) Noting that there are many kinds of sources (primary, secondary and non-scientific) since Wikipedia does not "adopt a 'scientific point of view' [13]" (c) Not judging a source, except perhaps by comment with another source.
My sources include:
2. Scattering will indeed blur distant objects. Since blurring is generally not observed, then this would imply that there are no scattering processes (and by implication, tired light effects) of light from distance objects. Nevertheless, this has not stopped a number of scientists from suggesting otherwise [14]. Arguably, this is where it gets interesting. Why would a scientist propose a scattering or tired light mechanism "knowing" that scattering processes blur images which is not seen? In 1929, Fritz Zwicky proposed a "tired light" mechanism [15], which has been criticised by Ned Wright as in error [16]. Wright may well be correct in his criticism; but it seems that there are a other types of tired light mechanisms proposed [17] [18] [19]. Do the criticisms apply to all classes of tired light mechanism? I don't know, but at least I have some references to help me find out. This is science in action!
3. There is no "enemy" to write for, though I know what you mean. If I was writing for a prestigious scientific journal on "tired light", I have a pretty good idea what could be included, and what could not. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and as a result there is a little more latitude in content. So I could write an article on tired light, and the criticisms against it (the enemy point of view?). I could also write an example on tired light explaining the reasons supporting it (the counterview). Or I could write a balanced article giving both views which should keep everyone happy.
4. Minority view depends very much on the context of an article. There is no doubt that tired light is a minority view, so I would expect little mention in a general article on, for example, redshift. But I would not expect its complete exclusion. On the other hand, I would expect an article on "tired light" to focus more on the subject, including the history of tired lights, classes of tired light, reasons it is proposed, and reasons it receives criticism. For those people involved in tired light, it is not a minority subject.
5. The quality of the source depends on the nature of the information being verified. A scientific statement may require a peer reviewed scientific source. However, I note that I have also provided Ned Wright's Website [20] as a source above, despite him not being peer reviewed. But then I have also provide peer reviewed sources which have been judged by other editors and dismissed for all manner of reasons [21]. -- Iantresman 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I am awaiting a couple of books that I have requested through inter-library loan. They should be available near the end of this week. Since I am not a physics person, it will take me a while to learn the material. If you can get someone else interested, please do, it will not hurt my feelings, and I will happily withdraw. Otherwise, I will have to do some reading and learning, which will take me a while to complete. Thanks, SteveMc 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if I have got this half-way correct:
Let me know! SteveMc 04:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Who disputes the page right now, Harald or Apologist?
SteveMc
04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Very enlightening, at least I am getting to the bottom of this. Some more questions though:
-- SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-- SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Steve for your efforts in researching the subject. I think you've summarised the views accurately. I don't think that your point (1) is an issue; No-one is disputing User:ScienceApologist's statements on the mainstream view of "tired light". But as you wrote in your point (2): "... the dispute here seems to be about including other "possible" explanations of "tired light". And I think this is related to the reason the mediation case was started: a dissatisfaction with the assessment of " Neutral Point of View" by User:ScienceApologist.
Neutral point of view applies to two aspects of an article: (1) The representation of facts in a fair and neutral manner (2) The selection of facts in proportion to their significance. If User:ScienceApologist was writing for a prestigeous peer-reviewed scientific journal, I might agree more with his selection and rejection of information. But Wikipedia has not adopted the scientific point of view [26].
The inclusion of "alternative" theories in any article does not imply their support. It merely acknowledges that there are alternative theories for whatever reason. For example, we all recognise that the " Flat Earth" theory is passé; I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on the subject, nor any non-scientific papers that seriously support the theory. And yet the article on the " Flat Earth" is written from a neutral point of view.
Likewise, Zwicky's Tired light has probably been disproven beyond doubt [27]. But it is important know why Zwicky argued in its favour. And then the big questions: Are there any other theories on tired light, and are they significant? If there was just one or two such theories since Zwicky, published in non-scientific publications, then User:ScienceApologist would be justified by suggesting [ Weight] (ie. insignificance). In a general article on Cosmology, such obscure theories would have no place. But in an article specifically on tired light, alternative theories are indeed relevant. I note from the NASA ADS Database, that there have been a couple of suggested theories over the years [28] [29] [30], and others have suggested other papers.
With all due respect to User:ScienceApologist, I don't think it is up to editors to judge and decide upon the correctness of other people's theories (otherwise there'd be no article on the Flat Earth), and certainly not our place to decide whether certain scientists are "fringe". There are peer-reviewed papers presenting evidence against tired-light theories [31] [32]. But the scientific method allows for criticism of the status quo.
So it begs the questions why User:ScienceApologist will still not allow the article on Redshift to include alternative theories on Redshift (beyond general scattering theories), and even a proposed article on "Alternative redshift theories" (currently named Intrinsic redshift), has also had all alternative theories removed before after (I acknowledge that some of these may not be actual redshift theories). -- Iantresman 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
SA,
-- SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(I would like to ask the users to only add text at the bottom of the page, it makes it hard to find all the edits, and it breaks up other users edits. I am going to sign some of the now threaded posts. Thanks, SteveMc 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC))
-- Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one? Are we to trust you on this one? Isn't that original research? SteveMc 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my reference that many have proposed tired light ideas (and thus focusing on Marmet constitutes undue weight) is here. These were in reference to ideas held before Marmet ever did his work. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
one more thing, if Ian's "axe" is grinding, I cannot see the sparks. What is so clear to you that I cannot see, i.e. what do you claim to be the "axe" he is grinding? -- SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian is a promoter of outside-the-mainstream ideas who revels in contradicting (or providing reference to contradictions to) understanding from mainstream scientific cosmology. This is his major axe to grind. In particular, he wants to see articles on subjects relating to science include points that are well-outside the scientific mainstream in order to further his agenda (and the general agenda of such advocates) of creating the appearance of a larger controversy when there really is none. Such promotion of his POV has been opposed by me in a wide range of articles including the Big Bang, nonstandard cosmologies, plasma cosmology, redshift, intrinsic redshifts, Electric Universe (concept) and other points. He has started a few RfArbs inappropriately against me and is now devoting much of his time to try to change Wikipedia policy so that it will be easier for him to further his aims. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApostel is strangely mistaken about "the original research position of those that claim that Marmet's comparisons of his ideas to Zwicky's tired light"; there is nothing " WP:OR about Marmet's published mechanism. Such misunderstandings of Wikipedia principles were my primary reason for this arbitration demand. -- quoth User:Harald88
My point is that 1) there is some indication that Marmet's idea really doesn't function as tired light was initially outlined by Zwicky so it probably doesn't belong on the page, 2) Marmet's ideas are not worthy of special discussion as there are many similar ideas involving scattering redshift mechanisms available and choosing Marmet is an editorial bad decision, 3) Marmet's ideas could easily be included on a page dedicated to his ideas (e.g. Paul Marmet). I do consider Harald88's advocacy to border on original research because it is so far out on a limb to claim Marmet's ideas represent a major portion of tired light understanding in physics/astronomy. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, "tired light" is not a trademark for Zwicky's preferred mechanism either (and who claims that Marmet's mechanism would be "uniquely representative" of tired light?!), see [40]. -- quoth User:Harald88
Trademark is, of course, a term not relevant to this discussion. And as I've said many times in the past, Zwicky never proposed a mechanism. But Zwicky's idea is foundational to tired light. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Marmet's mechanism that results in a tired light effect is itself not cosmology but physics. If cosmologists choose to ignore this physics ("cosmologists don't read physics journals"?!), that's not Wikipedia's problem -- but this can of course be mentioned if we have a source for it. Harald88 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There hasn't been any indication that tired light is used outside of the context of cosmology, despite this being the third time for me to ask for an indication of such. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Editors shouldn't judge who or what is "kooky", nor what is "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"; we report what we find. --quoth User:Iantresman
Marmet is peer reviwed [41]. Arp is peer reviewed [42]. And to label subjects such as Plasma cosmology as "pathological science" [43] or even as "pseudoscience" [44], is insulting to the scientists who currently research the subject, such as Eric Lerner (also peer reviewed [45]) -- quoth User:Iantresman
These are labels that are applied because of evidence - just as calling a scientist's work discredited or based on faulty methods is allowed on talkpages (and even in articles with proper references) so are the shorthand labels associated with such accusations allowed on the talkpages. They aren't simply judgements made for amusement. The evidence has been presented, the fact that Lerner and Marmet are ignorant (either willfully or not) of certain aspects of cosmology is documented even on these pages. That Lerner continues to promote his ideas in spite of this may be described as a pathology, for example. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Wikipedia does not have "science pages", it has "encyclopedic" pages which may contain science and other views. -- Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Pages about scientific subjects cover the subjects subject to WP:NPOV and in particular according to the sections on pseudoscience and undue weight. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, there we go threading remarks in and among those of others, making it very difficult to know who says what to whom. Please stop. Thanks, SteveMc 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Steve I think that the picture is clear now, but some more comments on the above may still be useful.
Nothing more from me, although I'm tempted to find an axe to sharpen, I'm reminded that the pen is mightier than the sword, and inclusivity is fairer than exclusivity. -- Iantresman 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One other point that I had overlooked: above ScienceApologist included original research in this discussion, which isn't correct; moreover, his conclusion was incorrect as well. For the details see the Talk page, "Marmet's physics". Harald88 12:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be nothing more than an outrageous and unsubstantiated accusation that has no basis in fact. Nowhere has Harald shown me to be in error in this discussion. Nowhere has he shown there to be any original research on my part. I'm not sure what details in Talk:Tired light#Marmet's physics are supposed to show Harald's points. All I see is a misunderstanding and accusations involving statements I made and vague references to Marmet's paper about photon scattering explaining redshifts. -- ScienceApologist 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Precision: I referred to SA's remark above that "Anyone who considers Reber and Marmet to be "cogent" obviously has a chip on his shoulder. Look at the very "cogent" point made by Art Carlson on the talkpage regarding the so-called "theory" of Reber and Marmet. In particular, the two of them poorly considered the physics involving their situation." - There is no evidence for the correctness of this conclusion of SA which refers to the "original research" discussion on the Talk page that Art Carlsson initiated and to which I responded in part insofar as he seemed to misunderstand the theory.
Meanwhile, I demand SA to remove his threaded comments from my comments and to order them at a separate place below, as Steve demanded. Also for me it's difficult to keep track of all those additional comments in-between mine. Tomorrow evening I'll put all remaining comments that are still threaded inside mine, outside of my comments. Harald88 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to: - SA's unsustained claim that "Reber and Marmet are not familar with Thomson scattering" ;
- SA's mixing up of Wikipedia editors with Wikipedia sources.
Greetings all, I cannot contribute regularly to Wikipedia right now. I am gladly willing to let this case go to another mediator. Please request a new mediator, with my regrets. SteveMc 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Steve has asked back in January for input. Is this case dead? Jbolden1517 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by User:ScienceApologist
Comment by User:Iantresman
-- Iantresman 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
'Comment by User:DavidRussell'
ScienceApologist consistently deletes any passages that refer to alternative interpretations of redshift. He then falsely claims that the redshift articles which already exist cover concepts that he has in fact deleted in previous attempts. For example, in the Redshift article at one time there was a section on Redshift in non-standard cosmologies. I included the following passage on Halton Arp's hypothesis for intrinsic redshifts:
"Another critique of cosmological redshift also came from Halton C. Arp, who continues to find empirical support in the existence of apparently connected objects with very different redshifts. Arp has interpreted these connections to mean that these objects are in fact physically connected. He has further hypothesized that the higher redshift objects are ejected from the lower redshift objects - which are usually active galactic nuclei (AGN)- and that the large observed redshifts of these "ejected" objects is dominated by a non-cosmological (intrinsic) component. Conventional cosmological models regard these as chance alignments and Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters within the research community."
ScienceApologist (as Joshua Schroeder) saw fit to delete this passage claiming that it was not NPOV. I include this here as an example of the sort of comment that Joshua consistently claims is POV-pushing. Unfortunately, his constant steamrolling of any effort to include NPOV comments on alternative ideas corrupts the value of these Wikipedia articles. I personally find it ridiculous that a single individual consistently disrupts the whole process.
In this latest case IanTresman started a new article on Intrinsic Redshifts. Within 24 hours Science Apologist nominated it for deletion! Joshua could not even be patient enough to let people such as myself that have published research on Intrinsic Redshifts in the research journals work to improve the article. After several days of arguments over that topic he took the liberty of completely deleting Ian's content in that article and providing his own version that he felt was an appropriate description of Intrinsic Redshift. I think it is very instructive to look at Joshua's version if one wishes to understand how he allows his own narrow view of the topic to distort what he considers to be NPOV. The article is supposed to be about Intrinsic Redshifts, but it says little about Intrinsic Redshifts and is instead largely a critique of Halton Arp.
It is Joshua that is unable to present a neutral point of view -but rather allows opinions to slip into his writing. Notice how in my passage above which he deleted I made sure to emphasize that Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters among the research community- which is an accurate statement. But in Joshua's version of Intrinsic Redshifts he feels it necessary to say: "Arp ... does not accept the general consensus due to what he perceives as systematic bias in the scientific community." I do not believe that Joshua's perceptions of what he thinks Arp's perceptions are is in any way relevant.
In short, Science Apologist is disruptive to a fair Wikipedia process. -- DavidRussell 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by User:Art Carlson
For the most part this scuffle is not about content or NPOV formulation but rather the appropriate space to give to minority views. Science Apologist (apparently) works professionally in the field and thus has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas. Ian Tresman is not a science professional but is able to find a handful of citations, some from peer reviewed publications, on some of these topics. Ian's view is generally that, as long as a citation for an idea can be found, it has a place in Wikipedia. The position of "Science" is that an encyclopedia should reflect the importance of ideas by the space allotted to them, so that many ideas should be given little or no space, even if they are citeable. Although there are difficulties in weighting ideas according to their importance, I tend to side with Science Apologist on this one. I am interested to hear the oracle of the Cabal.
Complicating the discussion is a clash of personalities. Science Apologist can be brusk, although very rarely impolite. Ian Tresman sometimes comes across as a crusader, although he tries very hard to explain his point of view. Together they are like fire and water.
Harald88 wants Someone not involved [to] try to explain [to Science Apologist about] NPOV and fair play. In my opinion he already understands and abides by these principles.
-- Art Carlson 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment by User:Harald88
The comments by Art Carlson confirm my impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV rule: Suggesting that "ScienceApologist has a feel for how seriously his colleagues take various ideas" apparently implies that according to Art, the Wikipedia POV should equal mainstream "science" POV (whereby those colleagues are "mainstream", and by chance not former friends of Grote Reber or friends of Halton Arp!). Art, NPOV is not "mainstream" POV! "(mainstream) science" doesn't have a word to say in what Wikipedia should contain; instead it's the Wikipedia community that accomodates all POV's. And note that in the Tired light article we are discussing something else: to either give a false impression to the readers that all such ideas have been completely disproved, or to fairly present the state of the art. My invitation to present papers that debunk the more modern variants have only been met with weak excuses and deletions. To selectively present only theories that are claimed to have been disproved but at the same time refusing to mention similar more modern theories that so far apparently have not been disproved, is strawman tactics, and not according to NPOV. But thanks for admitting that you simply follow "ScienceApologist". Harald88 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Grey
I'll mention that the initial catalyst for the dispute seems to relate to a specific addition to the page, claiming to give an example of a tired light model, and probably giving it more weight than it really deserves. I believe that the particulars of that model are not taken seriously by anyone other than the author of the page to which it referred. As such, it seems that Ashmore was really using the tired light article to advertise his own ideas, rather than to report neutrally about an alternate theory.
-- Grey 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Jon
The infuriatingly stubborn and irrational behaviour of Joshua Schroeder is pretty much the principal reason I can't be bothered participating in Wikipedia much these days. He is not actually capable of reasonable debate and seems to have a pretty narrow view of the world, and a seemingly a strange agenda to paint sciencific theories as some sort of replacement creation mythology.
"I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." - Samuel Johnson
Good luck getting to the bottom of it, sorry I don't have the strength and spare time to help. Jon 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by
User:iantresman
It has just come to my attention that User:ScienceApologist has just added an "unknown theory" to the redshift article page [11] for which " belief" is suggested as the criteria for its inclusion. In other words, an "unknown theory" (ie no theory, no science) gets precedence over peer-reviewed minority theories. Neutral point of view? -- Iantresman 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the following questions, please address your question to me only, not the other party.
Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:
Please do not respond to the answers of others. thanks, SteveMc 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on what I have read so far, I would like to ask the following:
Query: Steve, are you asking in Q1 for our general source of information, or, that which we would use to answer Q2? -- Iantresman 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1. For a "correct" definiton of "Tired light", I have no independent source; instead I so far rely on "Tired light" being as defined in the article, by others. However, since yesterday ScienceApologist even disagrees that the subject is as general as the article suggests to me.
2. It's almost certainly true for the standard old proposed scatter mechanisms. It is IMO an open question for Marmet's bremsstrahlung mechanism, which also may be regarded as a kind of scattering. Thus, that sentence is lacking in precision.
3. I already do so, as can easily be seen from the way I formulate things. At one point when deleting my text, ScienceApostel even kept some of my negative comments.
4. AFAIK is Marmet's proposed mechanism not very well known but at the same time also not rejected by the physics community; and it should be noted that it does not suggest to fully account for cosmological redshift, but anomalous redshifts in particular. I don't know if Zwicky's proposed mechanism was better known among physicists.
5. Peer reviewed articles only.
Harald88 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply from Ian Tresman
1. My sources are several. But I think that more importantly is (a) providing the source since "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" [12], (b) Noting that there are many kinds of sources (primary, secondary and non-scientific) since Wikipedia does not "adopt a 'scientific point of view' [13]" (c) Not judging a source, except perhaps by comment with another source.
My sources include:
2. Scattering will indeed blur distant objects. Since blurring is generally not observed, then this would imply that there are no scattering processes (and by implication, tired light effects) of light from distance objects. Nevertheless, this has not stopped a number of scientists from suggesting otherwise [14]. Arguably, this is where it gets interesting. Why would a scientist propose a scattering or tired light mechanism "knowing" that scattering processes blur images which is not seen? In 1929, Fritz Zwicky proposed a "tired light" mechanism [15], which has been criticised by Ned Wright as in error [16]. Wright may well be correct in his criticism; but it seems that there are a other types of tired light mechanisms proposed [17] [18] [19]. Do the criticisms apply to all classes of tired light mechanism? I don't know, but at least I have some references to help me find out. This is science in action!
3. There is no "enemy" to write for, though I know what you mean. If I was writing for a prestigious scientific journal on "tired light", I have a pretty good idea what could be included, and what could not. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and as a result there is a little more latitude in content. So I could write an article on tired light, and the criticisms against it (the enemy point of view?). I could also write an example on tired light explaining the reasons supporting it (the counterview). Or I could write a balanced article giving both views which should keep everyone happy.
4. Minority view depends very much on the context of an article. There is no doubt that tired light is a minority view, so I would expect little mention in a general article on, for example, redshift. But I would not expect its complete exclusion. On the other hand, I would expect an article on "tired light" to focus more on the subject, including the history of tired lights, classes of tired light, reasons it is proposed, and reasons it receives criticism. For those people involved in tired light, it is not a minority subject.
5. The quality of the source depends on the nature of the information being verified. A scientific statement may require a peer reviewed scientific source. However, I note that I have also provided Ned Wright's Website [20] as a source above, despite him not being peer reviewed. But then I have also provide peer reviewed sources which have been judged by other editors and dismissed for all manner of reasons [21]. -- Iantresman 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I am awaiting a couple of books that I have requested through inter-library loan. They should be available near the end of this week. Since I am not a physics person, it will take me a while to learn the material. If you can get someone else interested, please do, it will not hurt my feelings, and I will happily withdraw. Otherwise, I will have to do some reading and learning, which will take me a while to complete. Thanks, SteveMc 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if I have got this half-way correct:
Let me know! SteveMc 04:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Who disputes the page right now, Harald or Apologist?
SteveMc
04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Very enlightening, at least I am getting to the bottom of this. Some more questions though:
-- SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-- SteveMc 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Steve for your efforts in researching the subject. I think you've summarised the views accurately. I don't think that your point (1) is an issue; No-one is disputing User:ScienceApologist's statements on the mainstream view of "tired light". But as you wrote in your point (2): "... the dispute here seems to be about including other "possible" explanations of "tired light". And I think this is related to the reason the mediation case was started: a dissatisfaction with the assessment of " Neutral Point of View" by User:ScienceApologist.
Neutral point of view applies to two aspects of an article: (1) The representation of facts in a fair and neutral manner (2) The selection of facts in proportion to their significance. If User:ScienceApologist was writing for a prestigeous peer-reviewed scientific journal, I might agree more with his selection and rejection of information. But Wikipedia has not adopted the scientific point of view [26].
The inclusion of "alternative" theories in any article does not imply their support. It merely acknowledges that there are alternative theories for whatever reason. For example, we all recognise that the " Flat Earth" theory is passé; I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on the subject, nor any non-scientific papers that seriously support the theory. And yet the article on the " Flat Earth" is written from a neutral point of view.
Likewise, Zwicky's Tired light has probably been disproven beyond doubt [27]. But it is important know why Zwicky argued in its favour. And then the big questions: Are there any other theories on tired light, and are they significant? If there was just one or two such theories since Zwicky, published in non-scientific publications, then User:ScienceApologist would be justified by suggesting [ Weight] (ie. insignificance). In a general article on Cosmology, such obscure theories would have no place. But in an article specifically on tired light, alternative theories are indeed relevant. I note from the NASA ADS Database, that there have been a couple of suggested theories over the years [28] [29] [30], and others have suggested other papers.
With all due respect to User:ScienceApologist, I don't think it is up to editors to judge and decide upon the correctness of other people's theories (otherwise there'd be no article on the Flat Earth), and certainly not our place to decide whether certain scientists are "fringe". There are peer-reviewed papers presenting evidence against tired-light theories [31] [32]. But the scientific method allows for criticism of the status quo.
So it begs the questions why User:ScienceApologist will still not allow the article on Redshift to include alternative theories on Redshift (beyond general scattering theories), and even a proposed article on "Alternative redshift theories" (currently named Intrinsic redshift), has also had all alternative theories removed before after (I acknowledge that some of these may not be actual redshift theories). -- Iantresman 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
SA,
-- SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(I would like to ask the users to only add text at the bottom of the page, it makes it hard to find all the edits, and it breaks up other users edits. I am going to sign some of the now threaded posts. Thanks, SteveMc 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC))
-- Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one? Are we to trust you on this one? Isn't that original research? SteveMc 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my reference that many have proposed tired light ideas (and thus focusing on Marmet constitutes undue weight) is here. These were in reference to ideas held before Marmet ever did his work. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
one more thing, if Ian's "axe" is grinding, I cannot see the sparks. What is so clear to you that I cannot see, i.e. what do you claim to be the "axe" he is grinding? -- SteveMc 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian is a promoter of outside-the-mainstream ideas who revels in contradicting (or providing reference to contradictions to) understanding from mainstream scientific cosmology. This is his major axe to grind. In particular, he wants to see articles on subjects relating to science include points that are well-outside the scientific mainstream in order to further his agenda (and the general agenda of such advocates) of creating the appearance of a larger controversy when there really is none. Such promotion of his POV has been opposed by me in a wide range of articles including the Big Bang, nonstandard cosmologies, plasma cosmology, redshift, intrinsic redshifts, Electric Universe (concept) and other points. He has started a few RfArbs inappropriately against me and is now devoting much of his time to try to change Wikipedia policy so that it will be easier for him to further his aims. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApostel is strangely mistaken about "the original research position of those that claim that Marmet's comparisons of his ideas to Zwicky's tired light"; there is nothing " WP:OR about Marmet's published mechanism. Such misunderstandings of Wikipedia principles were my primary reason for this arbitration demand. -- quoth User:Harald88
My point is that 1) there is some indication that Marmet's idea really doesn't function as tired light was initially outlined by Zwicky so it probably doesn't belong on the page, 2) Marmet's ideas are not worthy of special discussion as there are many similar ideas involving scattering redshift mechanisms available and choosing Marmet is an editorial bad decision, 3) Marmet's ideas could easily be included on a page dedicated to his ideas (e.g. Paul Marmet). I do consider Harald88's advocacy to border on original research because it is so far out on a limb to claim Marmet's ideas represent a major portion of tired light understanding in physics/astronomy. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, "tired light" is not a trademark for Zwicky's preferred mechanism either (and who claims that Marmet's mechanism would be "uniquely representative" of tired light?!), see [40]. -- quoth User:Harald88
Trademark is, of course, a term not relevant to this discussion. And as I've said many times in the past, Zwicky never proposed a mechanism. But Zwicky's idea is foundational to tired light. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Marmet's mechanism that results in a tired light effect is itself not cosmology but physics. If cosmologists choose to ignore this physics ("cosmologists don't read physics journals"?!), that's not Wikipedia's problem -- but this can of course be mentioned if we have a source for it. Harald88 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There hasn't been any indication that tired light is used outside of the context of cosmology, despite this being the third time for me to ask for an indication of such. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Editors shouldn't judge who or what is "kooky", nor what is "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"; we report what we find. --quoth User:Iantresman
Marmet is peer reviwed [41]. Arp is peer reviewed [42]. And to label subjects such as Plasma cosmology as "pathological science" [43] or even as "pseudoscience" [44], is insulting to the scientists who currently research the subject, such as Eric Lerner (also peer reviewed [45]) -- quoth User:Iantresman
These are labels that are applied because of evidence - just as calling a scientist's work discredited or based on faulty methods is allowed on talkpages (and even in articles with proper references) so are the shorthand labels associated with such accusations allowed on the talkpages. They aren't simply judgements made for amusement. The evidence has been presented, the fact that Lerner and Marmet are ignorant (either willfully or not) of certain aspects of cosmology is documented even on these pages. That Lerner continues to promote his ideas in spite of this may be described as a pathology, for example. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Wikipedia does not have "science pages", it has "encyclopedic" pages which may contain science and other views. -- Iantresman 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Pages about scientific subjects cover the subjects subject to WP:NPOV and in particular according to the sections on pseudoscience and undue weight. -- ScienceApologist 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, there we go threading remarks in and among those of others, making it very difficult to know who says what to whom. Please stop. Thanks, SteveMc 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Steve I think that the picture is clear now, but some more comments on the above may still be useful.
Nothing more from me, although I'm tempted to find an axe to sharpen, I'm reminded that the pen is mightier than the sword, and inclusivity is fairer than exclusivity. -- Iantresman 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One other point that I had overlooked: above ScienceApologist included original research in this discussion, which isn't correct; moreover, his conclusion was incorrect as well. For the details see the Talk page, "Marmet's physics". Harald88 12:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be nothing more than an outrageous and unsubstantiated accusation that has no basis in fact. Nowhere has Harald shown me to be in error in this discussion. Nowhere has he shown there to be any original research on my part. I'm not sure what details in Talk:Tired light#Marmet's physics are supposed to show Harald's points. All I see is a misunderstanding and accusations involving statements I made and vague references to Marmet's paper about photon scattering explaining redshifts. -- ScienceApologist 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Precision: I referred to SA's remark above that "Anyone who considers Reber and Marmet to be "cogent" obviously has a chip on his shoulder. Look at the very "cogent" point made by Art Carlson on the talkpage regarding the so-called "theory" of Reber and Marmet. In particular, the two of them poorly considered the physics involving their situation." - There is no evidence for the correctness of this conclusion of SA which refers to the "original research" discussion on the Talk page that Art Carlsson initiated and to which I responded in part insofar as he seemed to misunderstand the theory.
Meanwhile, I demand SA to remove his threaded comments from my comments and to order them at a separate place below, as Steve demanded. Also for me it's difficult to keep track of all those additional comments in-between mine. Tomorrow evening I'll put all remaining comments that are still threaded inside mine, outside of my comments. Harald88 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to: - SA's unsustained claim that "Reber and Marmet are not familar with Thomson scattering" ;
- SA's mixing up of Wikipedia editors with Wikipedia sources.
Greetings all, I cannot contribute regularly to Wikipedia right now. I am gladly willing to let this case go to another mediator. Please request a new mediator, with my regrets. SteveMc 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Steve has asked back in January for input. Is this case dead? Jbolden1517 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)