Speaking of kooks, it looks like Doug Bundy is back in force editing the development version of Reciprocal System of Theory article (he's logged-in now). I've already placed a criticism section at the end of that version but physics and mathematics are not my strong points so I fear my counter-arguments are at best weak (much of the last "paragraph" is a set of unfinished notes, so it may read strange). Could somebody knowledgeable in either physics or mathematics take a look at that article?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_System_of_Theory/Temp
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of kooks, it looks like Doug Bundy is back in force editing the development version of Reciprocal System of Theory article (he's logged-in now). I've already placed a criticism section at the end of that version but physics and mathematics are not my strong points so I fear my counter-arguments are at best weak (much of the last "paragraph" is a set of unfinished notes, so it may read strange). Could somebody knowledgeable in either physics or mathematics take a look at that article?
I really don't think that articles of this sort can be adequately refuted by directly attacking all of its details. If the premises that underlay such a system are questionable, then everything that follows from those premises is questionable. The entire debate beyond those premises is GIGO.
The burden of proof for a new theory rests with its proponents. Labelling it with the pejorative "pseudoscience" does not advance the discussion at all; it just shifts some of the burden to the opponents who now introduce a new claim in the form of a pejorative that also needs proving.
The originator of theretical framework such as this one is the sole real authority about what he has said or meant, but that doesn't do him much good. For most of us they remain unintelligible. As long as articles of this sort don't spread out to infect other articles I would mostly let them be. Adding a paragraph or two explaining the fallacies in the premises for the sake of NPOV is a good idea, but I would stop there. Such articles are Wikipedia's benign tumours; why prod them into malignancy? Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org