Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Moving On - General Philosophy Section

I think the section entitled General Philosophy consists mostly of inapproriate material, and the part that is appropriate is misplaced. My thinking is that Van Flandern was not notable for espousing mainstream scientific philosophy or beliefs, and in fact the quotations that are presented in that section are explicitly non-mainstream. Note that the quotation from Science Digest magazine (from the years when it was notable for publicizing UFOs and other fringe science) talks about keeping an open mind to discover "our origins", etc., but if you actually track down the quote, it was from an article entitled "Exploding Planets", in which Van Flandern was talking about "our origins" as descendents of former inhabitants of the now exploded Planet V who built the artificial faces on Mars. My point is, that quote is extremely non-mainstream, so if it's going to be in the article at all, it belongs in the Non-mainstream beliefs section. (It might actually be best in the section on the Exploding Planets hypothesis - once we get around to talking about that section.) Likewise the quote in which Van Flandern says "Events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught" he is explicitly describing (in his book) his turn toward non-mainstream beliefs. So again, this belongs (if anywhere) in the Non-mainstream beliefs section.

So, my proposal is to remove the "General Philosophy" section, on the grounds that it is intentionally misrepresentative (and Van Flandern is not notable as a philosopher anyway, except maybe for philosophizing about non-mainstream beliefs), and instead include the following introductory words for the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section of the article:

Van Flandern described in his book [24] how he had become increasingly dis-satisfied with the mainstream view of science by the early 1980s. He wrote

Events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught.

Does this seem reasonable?Flau98bert (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable to me. What do you think Akuvar? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem leaving the section as it is. All arguments I have read trying to link it to non-mainstream science is circumstantial. Each of the statements are exactly what the section describe them to be - VF's philosophy and beliefs. Akuvar (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I had re-writen one of the quotes to make it more accurate some time ago, but it was reverted. This is for the first quote in the group, you'll notice when the actual quote is pulled from the book, it isn't so ambiguous

Van Flandern described in his book [ref]"Dark Matter, Missing Planets, New Comets", Van Flandern (1993), p.xvii [/ref] how he noted a regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be. He wrote:

Events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught. As a result of this questioning process, I was startled to realize how much of my "knowledge" was indeed questionable.

I would vote that this, complete quote be inserted into the article. Akuvar (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I do not think quotes are particularly suitable for an encyclopedia (unless they are especially notable) but as you both seem to want quotes I see nothing wrong with the longer quote.

I do not much like your introductory statement though, 'Van Flandern described in his book how he noted a regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be'. It gives credibility to his claim that there is significant incompatibility between accepted scientific theories and observation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason why it is noteable, and why it further belongs in a philosophy or beliefs section, is that it shows a turning point from when VF had been a mainstream scientist who had valuable contributions to his field and becoming the fringe scientist he was known for until his death. There was truly a time in his life, brought about primarily because of his wife's illness, that Tom had this epiphany about examining everything that people took for granted, especially medicine. It caused him to search for other answers and, unfortunately, he found some that the rest of us did not accept. I don't think this quote does this period of his life justice, but it is significant as the turning point I mentioned. It would be nice to eloborate so a reader would realize that this is where the change occured, but nothing I've relayed can be sourced. Akuvar (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you accept, 'In his book Van Flandern claimed that, in mainstream science, there was regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be'?

It sounds like there's some misunderstanding of what "notable" means for Wikipedia. It does not mean what was significant for someone in their personal family life. For Wikipedia, "notability" for a marginal subject like this means something that the subject is known for in verifiable sources. Van Flandern was not notable for his wife's illness, nor for his views on medicine. He was notable only as a vigorously self-promoting advocate of highly non-mainstream and long-since discredited beliefs about physics and astronomy, and the related sci-fi subjects of space travel, free energy, faces on mars, etc. So that's what the article should focus on.

I'm glad we seem to have all reached agreement that the quote we are discussing describes the turning point in Van Flandern's career when he fully embraced the notable non-mainstream ideas and began to devote himself to them. This is excellent progress! Not long ago, one editor here was vociferously insisting that for all we know Van Flandern may have been expressing support for mainstream science in that quote, so it belonged in a "General Philosophy" section at the front of the article, rather than in the Non-mainstream beliefs section of the article. Hopefully we can put that behind us now, and all agree that this quote belongs in the introduction to the Non-mainstream beliefs section. Excellent! We're making real progress.

As to how much of the quote we should include, does the third sentence really add anything to the first two? He already said he discovered that reality differs seriously from what he had been taught. The third sentence just says he thereby realized that what he had been taught was questionable. Well, duh. He already declared that what he had been taught was wrong (differed seriously from reality), so obviously that knowledge was questionable. I really don't see what that sentence does to make his position more clear. On the other hand, aside from being a pointless waste of space, I guess there's nothing terribly wrong with including the third sentence. My preference would be for just the first two sentences, but if other editors think the third sentence is valuable for some reason, I won't fight about it. To me, the important thing is the placement of it in the Non-mainstream beliefs section, where it obviously belongs, and the elimination of the "General Philosophy" section.

I completely agree with Martin that the other suggested verbiage, in which it is insinuated that mainstream scientists are stupid, venal, and dishonest, is not appropriate for this article. It's true that Van Flandern, along with every other non-mainsteam individual of his type, had that view of mainstream scientists, but that isn't especially notable. I think the only coverage of this aspect of Van Flandern that I could support would be a sub-section in the Non-mainstream beliefs section, in which we gather together the most representative charges that Van Flandern leveled at mainsteam scientists, e.g., claiming they are all motivated by their financial interests to suppress truth, ignore facts, etc., even though they all know in their hearts that modern science is a giant sham and conspiracy foisted on the unsuspecting public, etc., etc. But this would be so discrediting, I'd prefer not to get into it. We don't need to make a point of each and every disreputable aspect of his ideas. So I would vote (mildly) to omit from the article any discussion of Van Flandern's views of the motivations of mainstream scientists.Flau98bert (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Flau98bert, would you not accept my version, where I added 'claimed' and changed the wording a little to show that we are not supporting VF's claims?

As another suggestion, how about we call the section, 'Personal philosophy'. This indicate more clearly what it covers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I would accept this as I feel it further clarifies that they are his personal beliefs. Also, I do apologize for being trivial, but on general principal I cannot allow user Flau98bert to make changes to the article itself as I adamantly believe that he is a sock puppet incarnation of a previously banned user. I added the information back verbatim, with a link added to Le Sage's page, so it seems that much more trivial that I did it. My accusations where not something I just made up as a personal attack on that user (as I just endured from him in the above sections) and I stand by them. I will continue to work with you and respond to your comments on this talk page, but not to user Flau98bert. Again, I apologize, I don't mean to be closed minded, but I know what I know. Akuvar (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I think a comment like that might be suitable, but only in a "general philosophy" sub-section in the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section. Surely we agree that it's non-mainstream. In fact, it's explicitly ANTI-mainstream, as is the quote about his ephiphany that "reality differs seriously from what I had been taught", and the quote from the Exploding Planets article about discovering "our origins" as the descendants of refuges from the now-exploded Planet V who built the faces on Mars. The main problem with the article that I'm trying to fix is the placement of this explicitly non-mainstream and anti-mainstream material outside the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section.

Also, although you declined to address any of the reasons I gave for avoiding this subject in the article, I still think the reasons I gave were valid. As I said, if we go down the road of describing Van Flandern's views on the motivations and venality of mainstream scientists, there is more to say. For example, in his book he suggests that the extra-terrestrial beings who created us as a slave race became concerned that we were too clever and would soon develop the knowledge and technology to rival them ("the gods"), so they genetically implanted in us the tendency to be resistant to bold fresh ideas of the kind that Van Flandern espoused. These musings are just as verifiable and notable as the statements that you are advocating, so should we put this into the article? My concern is that some editors want to just cherry pick the least absurd sound-bites to create a false synthesis, and we should avoid that if possible. Either don't get into this silly subject at all (are his views of the motivations of other scientists really notable?), or else give it full and balanced coverage.

What is your opinion about whether the quotes and claims that we are discussing here are mainstream or non-mainstream (or even anti-mainstream)? Once we decide that, we can decide where best to place this material.Flau98bert (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We have made good progress and have agreed wording for the 'Gravity' section. Can I suggest that we use the agreed wording exactly as shown above (with added refs, of course). I see no reason why we should not make equally good progress on other sections. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "Gravity" section that we previously agreed to. I thought we were done with that. Oh, I see the edit in which I uploaded the exact words that we had painstakingly worked out and agreed on this discussion page was reverted as "vandalism" (by an editor with a known COI who has been warned by an administrator that he will be banned if he doesn't stop reverting previously discussed edits to this article as "vandalim", and after I went to the trouble of filing a RfC to get a third opinion that my edits are not vandalism.) But then it was restored. So I'm slightly confused about what is going on with that section. As I said, I thought it was done.

Getting back to the subject at hand, i.e., the "philosophy" content, I'd like to explain why I have trouble with the suggested wording "In his book Van Flandern claimed that, in mainstream science, there was regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be?" My problem is that this wording suggests that Van Flandern accused mainstream scientists of not being guided by the evidence, whereas in fact Van Flandern's stated position was that the bar of evidence should be lowered for his ideas. It's essential to be aware of what he actually wrote on this subject, if we are to present it accurately. Here is his statement of his views on the use of evidence in science, in his own words:

The axiom “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proofs” is harmful to scientific advancement: since the extraordinary hypotheses are, by selection effect, necessarily those we least suspect to be true, it follows that they are the ones with the least surviving evidence. We shall be condemned never to discover the most extraordinary truths unless we are prepared to make exceptions to the rigorous application of the “extraordinary proofs” criterion... We are here expressing the desirability of lowering the required probability of correctness before accepting a hypothesis for serious consideration.

Although we may take a higher risk of accepting false hypotheses into our body of knowledge by so doing, we may also include a greater number of the most important true hypotheses for which proofs are not presently possible, or may never be possible, because of data destruction.

So, you see, he did NOT say that mainstream science ignored the available evidence. Quite the contrary, he said mainstream science was too wedded to the criteria of evidence, and should lower it's standards of evidence to consider things for which there is presently little or no evidence, and even things for which there may NEVER be evidence. This is very different (almost the exact opposite) from the proposed wording. Furthermore, even the above quotations don't convey the full significance of what Van Flandern was talking about. He immediately went on to say explicity what sort of hypothesis he had in mind:

The origin of the human race is a hypothesis of this sort, since hard data is virtually nonexistent... The case in point is the origin of the human race. By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's, Occam's Razor argues that the single hypothesis of earlier contact with extraterrestrials to explain the wonders of the ancient world and the remarkable agreement among ancient texts in speaking of visitations by “the gods” should be preferred to the multitude of separate and ad hoc explanations others have offered. If mainstream science were not so preoccupied with avoiding extraordinary hypotheses, it would surely be agreed by most parties that the evidence, severely lacking though it is, mildly favors the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis over most others.

So THIS is Van Flandern's view of how the standards of evidence in science should be lowered, and the kinds of theories that we would be able to embrace once we lower our standards of evidence, and open our minds to the truth of our origins (which is what he was talking about in that Science Digest article on Exploding Planets. Taking all this into consideration, it still seems to me that my original proposal was best. Move the 'philosophy comments to the Non-mainsteam section, and trim them down to just the introductory quote where he says that, at some point, events in his life caused him to embrace non-mainstream ideas, and then proceed to present the non-mainstream ideas for which he was notable. To me this makes the most sense for the article, and gives it a logical flow that accurately represents the notable facts from verifiable sources.Flau98bert (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What we agree on

I think it would be worthwhile reviewing what I think we all agree on regarding this article before discussing the details of other individual sections. Do we all agree?

1. This article is a biography of a recently deceased person.
2. TVF is notable for his non-mainstream scientific beliefs
3. TVF did good work in mainstream science but this work alone probably would not be notable enough to justify an article on him.
4. WP must present scientific views from the POV of mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Akuvar (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with 1, 2, and 4, and with the second part of 3. The first part of 3 is questionable, depending on what "work in mainstream science" you are referring to. The most notable thing he did during his supposedly mainstream career was to claim (around 1972) that he had found evidence for varying gravitational constant, but this evidence later turned out to be completely spurious. Then in 1976 he was hooted off the stage at a professional conference for espousing Olber's discredited theory of exploding planets. He also reported some occultation observations as evidence of binary asteroids, but these were later shown to be spurious by the Hubble. So these are the three most notable things he did during his "mainstream" career. Whether this constitutes "good work in mainstream science" is at least debatable. On the other hand, he did write (with the help of another guy) a little program for computing calender dates, but that is just routine USNO activity. He reports in his book that in 1982 (I think) came his "separation from the USNO", so some people think that's when he first started to have non-mainstream ideas, but actually he was promoting non-mainstream ideas for his whole career.Flau98bert (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not disagree them. All I was saying was that TVF did do some perfectly good mainstream work just as most working scientists have done but there is little or nothing notable about this work.

Akuvar, would you agree with my summary? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia notoriety is concerned, the article is only here because of his non-mainstream beliefs. I do believe, for their time, he accomplished 3 or 4 things that were noteable, but they would not warrant a wikipedia article on their own. Akuvar (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So it looks as though we all agree on the facts, the only dispute is on the best way to present them

Flau98bert, your main concern seems to me to ensure that we do not present any of his unconventional theories in a manner that gives them credibility. Is that correct?

Akuvar, what is your main complaint about the way that Flaubert wants to present the information? Is it just the volume of his writing that you object to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, my chief complaint against this editor remains that he/she is just another sock puppet in a series of banned user ID's of a single person. Banned because his/her COV viewpoint completely overshadows their desire to contribute anything worthwhile to the article. You say "volume" are you referencing all the stuff piled in, one on top of another, providing reference after reference as to why a single positive statement about the subject needs 6 or 7 negative statements behind it so as to give no chance of allowing any reader anywhere the possibility of not being reminded constantly that VF was anything but a crank? Then yes, "volume" is one of my complaints, sock-puppetry the other. Akuvar (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, if you think Flaubert is a sock then you should start an WP:SPI. Until the investigation confirms your suspicions (if it does) you must treat Flaubert as any other editor. I understand your other point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, that's certainly part (but only part) of my concern, i.e., to avoid presenting non-mainstream ideas in a manner that gives them credibility. In addition (and I guess this goes to the question of "volume"), I don't think the article should omit relevant, notable, and verifiable non-mainstream ideas. For example, Van Flandern very publically touted unlimited free energy and superluminal propulsion from the ultramundane corpuscles, and yet it was a struggle to get that into the article, and it succeeded only because I took the trouble to provide a lot of incontrovertible documentation ("volume"). The same applies to the exploding planet hypothesis, the rejection of the big bang, the extra-terrestrial origin of the human race, and so on. Each of these things is notable, relevant, verifiable, and well sourced, so I object to them being excluded from the article. It is possible to give an inaccurate impression by excluding things that are true, as well as by including things that are false. The article needs to avoid erring in either direction.

I agree that the article should contain TV's notable theories and in a way that does not present them as mainstream but it should be possible to do that without too much direct refutation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many of the non-mainstream beliefs don't require much direct refutation, as long as the beliefs themselves are presented accurately.Flau98bert (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think the article needs to be accuate in it's presentation of the "mainstream" work. For example, the article currently includes an "Honors and Awards" section, which is already over the top, in my opinion, since Van Flandern was obviously not notable as an honored and awarded scientist (quite the contrary). But in that section it says he won second prize in a Gravity Essay contest. Now, this is true, but it's also true that the prize is given by a crackpot organization (notwithstanding all the notable people who have taken their money), and more importantly that Van Flandern's prize paper was on his later totally discredited claims about variable G. So it seems to me this Honor's section presents a very inaccurate and misleading account. My preference would be to simply delete the whole section (reduce the "volume"), but failing that, the facts of the case ought to be mentioned. Similar comments apply to all the other "honors and awards".

I agree that essentially bogus awards should not be presented as real ones. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, I think the "General Philosophy" section is inappropriate and misplaced, for the reasons I explained above.Flau98bert (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I finally understand where you both are coming from and suggest that we no work a section at a time. Where should we start? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should just take them in order. I think the header paragraph is okay "as is", so unless anyone has problems with it, we could declare victory with that, and move on to the General Philosophy section. I described above (in exhaustive detail) what I think should be done with that section, and why. Basically move it to the top of the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section, and trim it down to just the bare essentials, i.e., the quote about how he "came to realize that reality differed seriously from what I'd been taught". If people want to add some of his charges against the intelligence and integrity of mainstream scientists, I wouldn't be totally opposed, as long as it's accurate and it's presented in this "non-mainstream" section.Flau98bert (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

Since TVF's general philosophy is distinctly non-mainstream it would seem reasonable to be to have it under the 'Non-mainstream science' section as suggested by Flaubert, I would suggest as an introductory sub-section. Akuvar, do you have any objection to this and, if so, what? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Martin, could you tell me what you feel is decidedly non-mainstream about the second quote under that section? Akuvar (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I might be able to help here. The second quote in that section just says it's from an article in Science Digest, but mysteriously omits to say what article. I took the trouble to track it down, and it's from an article entitled "Exploding Planets" (and I also found that Science Digest in those days was known for fringe stories about UFOs and infinite energy, etc), and when Van Flandern talks about "discovering our origins" in that quotation, what he's referring to is the origins of the human race as refugees from the now-exploded Planet V who built the faces on Mars. That's what he is referring to when he urges us to be sure "our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be". Fantastic indeed. This is very obviously non-mainstream. In fact, the whole Exploding Planets hypothesis was non-mainstream. So I think this quote, if it stays in the article at all, really belongs in the "Exploding Planets" section, and of course the name of the quoted article needs to be supplied, and we need to reveal what he was talking about.Flau98bert (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, I presume that this is the quote you are referring to: As science progresses we will eventually unravel the mystery of our origins, and the solution will come sooner if our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be. If we are guided by our reason and our scientific method, if we let the Universe describe its wonder to us, rather than telling it how it ought to be, then we will soon come to the answers we seek, perhaps even within our own lifetimes.

If this is not a thinly veiled attack on mainstream science then it is entirely un-notable, insignificant, philosophical musing, and should be omitted completely. From the backgound that Flaubert has stated, it looks like it is actually part of an attack on mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's answer. Since there don't seem to be any more questions, should we go ahead and make the proposed edit, and move on to the next section?Flau98bert (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us wait to see what Akuvar says. We are trying to work together. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, have you any response or can we move the section? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm on vacation until the 26th. Extremely limited access. Are we in some kind of rush? Akuvar (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no special rush but do you mind if we do some editing while you are away? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, having indulged the fillibuster to the fullest extent, and still hearing no objections, do you agree that it's time to make the agreed change and move on to the next section?Flau98bert (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that we should move the philosophy section to 'Non-mainstream science'. Maybe we should rename the sub-section 'Personal philosophy' also. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting for me. I appreciate that. Martin, are you basing your decision from reviewing the article where the quote comes from, or from a second hand description that contains POV interpretations of what is actually written in the article but do not appear in the article at all? Akuvar (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is based on what I said above, 'If this is not a thinly veiled attack on mainstream science then it is entirely un-notable, insignificant, philosophical musing, and should be omitted completely'. So an alternative, in my view, could be to remove that bit entirely. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the fence about that and could go either way. I guess if I were to make a counter-point I would say that it can't be that un-notable if it was published in a magazine. However, I was directing my comments to the second part of your posting "From the backgound that Flaubert has stated, it looks like it is actually part of an attack on mainstream science." That gave me the impression you were not reviewing the cited material and forming your own opinion about the matter. Akuvar (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion; I can see no significant contribution to science or philosophy in the quotation and, on the face of it, it looks like the kind of general philosophical musing that many people have engaged in. Unless we have a source to show that the quote is regarded a notable contribution to philosophy or science I think it should not be included under 'Mainstream science'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So we have two votes to remove the non-notable thinly veiled attacks on mainstream science, and one abstention. This is precisely where we were on Aug 9 when I originally made the proposal to remove those items and move the remaining quote to the introduction of the "non-mainstream beliefs" section. Now it's Sep 1. The latest comments on this Talk page have just been exploring Akuvar's suspicions that Martin is not forming his own opinions, but I don't think that's a production discussion. Isn't it time to go ahead and make the agreed change?Flau98bert (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Section moved

I have moved the section. Akuvar, can I suggest that you delete any sections that you think do not demonstrate non-mainstream thinking rather than reverting. You have not put up much of a case for retaining any of TVF's thoughts as significant contributions to mainstream thought. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I think moving that material to the "non-mainstream beliefs" section was a good start. However, I still think there are significant problems with the content of that section. We discussed this a month ago, but it's been so long that perhaps it would help if I explain again why I have trouble with the suggested wording:

"In his book Van Flandern claimed that, in mainstream science, there was regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be."

First, this is an unsourced statement, because Van Flandern does not claim this in his book. The phrase "In his book Van Flandern said" actually refered originally (in the mainstream version of the article) to the quotation about how events in Vaan Flandern's life caused him to realize that everything he'd been taught was wrong. But then a non-mainstream POV editor inserted the incorrect introductory words above, which are not in the book, and more importantly they are nearly the opposite of Van Flandern's actual position. Those words imply that Van Flandern was a champion of being guided strictly by evidence, and that he accused mainstream scientists of not being sufficiently attentive to the evidence, whereas in fact Van Flandern's stated position was nearly the opposite. He stated that the bar of evidence should be lowered for his ideas, and that we should be less insistent on evidence. Here is his actual statement on the use of evidence, in his own words:

The axiom “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proofs” is harmful to scientific advancement: since the extraordinary hypotheses are, by selection effect, necessarily those we least suspect to be true, it follows that they are the ones with the least surviving evidence. We shall be condemned never to discover the most extraordinary truths unless we are prepared to make exceptions to the rigorous application of the “extraordinary proofs” criterion... We are here expressing the desirability of lowering the required probability of correctness before accepting a hypothesis for serious consideration. Although we may take a higher risk of accepting false hypotheses into our body of knowledge by so doing, we may also include a greater number of the most important true hypotheses for which proofs are not presently possible, or may never be possible, because of data destruction.

So, you see, Van Flandern did NOT say that mainstream science ignored the available evidence. Quite the contrary, Van Flandern said mainstream science was too wedded to the criteria of evidence, and should lower it's standards of evidence to consider things for which there is presently little or no evidence, and even things for which there may NEVER be evidence. This is very different (almost the exact opposite) from the unsourced wording in the philosophy section. Furthermore, even the above quotations don't convey the full significance of what Van Flandern was talking about. He immediately went on to say explicity what sort of hypothesis he had in mind:

The origin of the human race is a hypothesis of this sort, since hard data is virtually nonexistent... The case in point is the origin of the human race. By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's, Occam's Razor argues that the single hypothesis of earlier contact with extraterrestrials to explain the wonders of the ancient world and the remarkable agreement among ancient texts in speaking of visitations by “the gods” should be preferred to the multitude of separate and ad hoc explanations others have offered. If mainstream science were not so preoccupied with avoiding extraordinary hypotheses, it would surely be agreed by most parties that the evidence, severely lacking though it is, mildly favors the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis over most others.

So THIS is Van Flandern's view of how the standards of evidence in science should be lowered, and the kinds of theories that we would be able to embrace once we lower our standards of evidence, and open our minds to the truth of "our origins".

Also, please note that the sourcing for the other two quotes is deficient. One is sourced to "Science Digest" (in it's re-incarnated version at the Hearst corporation during the 80's when it was notable for fringe pseudo-science), intentionally suppressing the name of the article, which was "Exploding Planets", and is taken completely out of context. If it belongs anywhere in the article, it should be in the Exploding Planets section (which Akuvar deleted but which should be restored). The other quote is just an example of Van Flandern venting his incoherent frustration against mathematics, which is not sourced from any notable or reputable source at all (it appeared only in a C Roy Keys "Aperion" entity... enough said?)

Taking all this into consideration, it seems to me we need to trim the 'philosophy' comments down to just the introductory quote where he says that, at some point, events in his life caused him to question everything he had been taught and embrace non-mainstream ideas, and then proceed to present the non-mainstream ideas for which he was notable. To me this makes the most sense for the article, and gives it a logical flow that accurately represents the notable facts from reputable and verifiable sources. Alternatively, if we insist on presenting Van Flandern's views on 'evidence', I think we need to accurately represent those views as given in the quotations above, where he argued for lowering the standard of evidence and accepting (his) extraordinary hypotheses supported by little or no evidence.Flau98bert (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would have no problem with trimming down the philosophy section and in making sure that the text is supported by the sources. I am trying to take things slowly to give Akuvar a chance to respond in a positive and productive way and so avoid the endless reversion cycle that we had before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We discussed one of the quotes under that section, decided it could be moved, and the whole section goes? Akuvar (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Akuvar, I though that you only had objections to moving one of the sections. So let is consider the other two quotes:

Quote 1

Events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught. As a result of this questioning process, I was startled to realize how much of my "knowledge" was indeed questionable.

I think the same logic applies to this quote as to the one we moved? If it is not an attack on mainstream science what is it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly every scientist in history who came up with a new theory questioned what had been taught before or what was currently accepted. Is a statement that you question what you had been taught really non-mainstream? or are we assigning it that label because he was recognized as a non-mainstream thinker so he must have been talking about non-mainstream ideas. Gentlemen, theories are never facts because as scientists we are always supposed to be questioning them. There is also the question of context, since this statement appears in his book and is not in reference to cosmology or physics it is difficult to label it as decidedly non-mainstream science. Akuvar (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding or interpretation here. I agree that scientists should always question and test what they have been taught but Van Flandern says, 'In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught'. This is a clear claim that he had discovered errors in, for example, physics yet there is no record of any mistakes or new theories in physics being discovered by VF. He can only be referring to his own misunderstandings in these subjects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does the quote have to refer to a "record of any mistakes or new theories in physics being discovered by VF?" There have certainly been changes and new discoveries in all the fields listed in the quote in the past 30 years by others, why does his re-examination of the the things he was taught in school have to be related to his own discoveries? Why are you inserting the concept that these were errors that he found? I would be perfectly correct, and mainstream, if I stated that in regards to the atomic structure of matter, reality differs seriously from what I had been taught back when I attended college. Akuvar (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is perfectly clear from his wording, '...reality differed seriously from what I had been taught'. That cannot in nay way be interpreted to mean the, perfectly reasonable, statement, 'there have been advances in science since I was a student'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel there is a lot of interpretation going on here. Your statements about "finding errors" and "discoveries that Van Flandern made" personnally makes a lot of assumptions about this quote that I fear are not justified. You and other editors always discuss this quote in terms of physics, yet the context this quote is taken from in his book is not about physics at all. I think there is more interpretation going on here than actual fact finding. Akuvar (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The only interpretation required is the interpretation of the English language. The statement, '...reality differed seriously from what I had been taught' is a clear attack on what he had been taught (in all subjects) and he was undoubtedly taught mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. So shall we move the quotes?Flau98bert (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should move or delete the quotes but it would be nice to get agreement from Akuvar. Otherwise, we could try to get another opinion or just go with the majority here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote2

Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. The essential difference is that physicists adhere to certain logical principles, any violation of which would amount to a miracle; whereas the equations of mathematics generally are oblivious to physical constraints. This leads to drastically different views of what is, and what is not, possible for cosmology and the reality we live in. Physics that adheres to these logical principles is known as "deep reality physics".

This, I think, is just plain non-mainstream. He even has a name for it, "deep reality physics". Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm going to make an assumption that you have not read his paper on deep reality physics. On its face, it looks very non-mainstream, it looks like it is trying to abolish theories for new ones, but the statement doesn't say any of that. That is not what he was talking about. Van Flandern believed that current theories were not being re-examined when new observations were made, or that additions to theories to "fix" them were being made that broke other physical laws. He listed 10 principles to test current theories against, and if they passed these tests, then they were truly rooted in reality and could be dubbed "deep reality physics." It did not propose overturning theories or replacing them with his ideas. The idea is completely in line with the scientific method. Here is the article: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp Akuvar (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read the paper now and it is entirely bogus, being based on VF's own preconceptions rather than experiment. Can you show me any reliable source where these principles, or the term "deep reality physics" are accepted? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Causality (physics) Akuvar (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, causality is not nearly as clear cut as VF suggests but anyway, what about the other 6 points? There is no sign that VF's principles of "deep reality physics" have been accepted as a whole by mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your request of, "Can you show me any reliable source..." I thought I would be just as clear and productive as your statement, "...it is entirely bogus" Akuvar (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at but I can only repeat, there is no sign that VF's principles of "deep reality physics" have been accepted as a whole by mainstream science'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a single instance where a principal was accepted, and I gave it, without an explanation from you as to what "entirely bogus" means. I now ask for a clarification of that statement. Akuvar (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. So shall we move the quotes?Flau98bert (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See reply above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, I asked for a single source verifying 'these principles, or the term "deep reality physics" '. In other words a source that verifies VFs assertion that all his principles are valid.

Regarding my comment that the paper is entirely bogus, let me start at the beginning. He says, Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. Mathematicians do not aim to describe reality at all, they deal with the entirely abstract subject of mathematics. Physicists attempt to quantitatively describe reality, generally using mathematics, thus VF's opening statement makes no sense at all.

I have tried to remain neutral and help you and Flaubert resolve what seemed to be a minor disagreement of style but now it seems that you are trying to pass off VF's crazy musings as mainstream science. He may well have done some good work in mainstream science but this is not it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I agree that both of these quotes are non-mainstream. Any suggestions on how to proceed with editing the article? You mentioned previously that it might be worthwhile to involve some additional editors. Looking back at the archives, I see that DVdm and D.H have both contributed to this article in the past. Perhaps we should solicit their opinions on whether these quotes are mainstream science?Flau98bert (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation as to how the article is "entirely bogus" Akuvar (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. I do not plan to go through the quote word by word explaining it craziness. You need to come up with a source that shows that the scientific community regards the quote as a significant contribution to mainstream science.

Just to repeat to both of you, I would be happy to remove the quotes completely if that would help solve the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, you came to this article as a neutral editor who was trying to help resolve a conflict, but when you start making blanket POV statements about a paper the subject wrote as "entirely bogus" and that you're not going to explain his "craziness" it calls into question that neutrality, hence I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask that you explain your comments rather than just call you out as having a preconceived bias towards this article. Akuvar (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought the dispute was just about the style in which the article was written. I made it clear from the start that I regarded TVF as a distinctly non-mainstream scientist and this is the view of the scientific community. The article should make this clear but the objective is not to lampoon him.

Regarding my mention of 'craziness' and 'entirely bogus' that is my opinion but I am not suggesting that we say that in the article but to include the quotes you do need to provide a source that shows that they are regarded as a significant contribution to science or philosophy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I made the statement that this article, this concept of Deep Reality Physics, is mainstream, a way to further test existing theories. Most people, when reading the statement for the first time, see something else entirely, including your first impression. When I asked you to review the article, your only critique was that it was "entirely bogus" and challenged me to find a single thing that was mainstream, which I did in good faith, and now I have asked you to explain your labeling of the article as "entirely bogus" and I expect a good faith explanation in return. Akuvar (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, I asked I asked for a single source verifying 'these principles, or the term "deep reality physics" '. In other words a source that verifies VFs assertion that all his principles are valid. That is the second time I have told you this and you have not provided such a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP does not require anyone to provide proof that material is incorrect, it requires the person adding the material to provide a source saying that it is correct. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a universal standard that when someone makes a statement, they are required to back it up. However, using your argument, you are the one wishing to move the quote to non-mainstream, therefore the burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be moved, and "entirely bogus" doesn't cut it. Akuvar (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get that requirement from? This is the talk page, there is no requirement for sourcing of comments here. You want to add keep a statement to the article in a section that states that the statement is mainstream science. That fact is disputed by at least two editors so you must now provide a source to back up your assertion or remove the statements from the article. That is how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's your own requirement from above, "WP does not require anyone to provide proof that material is incorrect, it requires the person adding the material to provide a source saying that it is correct." YOU wish to move the quote to non-mainstream, YOU need to provide an explanation better than, "entirely bogus." Or do you want to continue to try and hold me to some standard where you can call an entire article "entirely bogus" and then tell me that you don't need to explain yourself, I have to prove you wrong. Really? Akuvar (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The quotes should be deleted until you can show that they are a significant contribution to mainstream physics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I agree. Do you think we should request some administrative assistance with this article? The reason I ask is that the most recent discussions seem not so much a content disagreement but rather a disagreement about Wikipedia editorial policy. One editor wants material in the article without any valid sourcing. Perhaps we can get a ruling/clarification on this from an administrator?Flau98bert (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So again, rather than defend your statement about his paper being, "entirely bogus", you are now saying that items appearing in the article that are not "a significant contribution to mainstream science" need to be deleted? What does that have to do with the subject's non-mainstream noteability? Akuvar (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that Akuvar has reverted Martin's latest edit. Despite this, it appears that we have some grounds for agreement here, because in Akuvar's revert edit summary and his comment above he conceeds that the statements are non-mainstream. This is significant progress, because for the past two months (if not longer) Akuvar has been insisting that they are mainstream, even though all other editors say they are blatently non-mainstream. Now Akuvar has suddenly switched his position, and agrees the quotes are non-mainstream. In addition, I started an RfC on this question, and so far the votes are 3-to-0 for non-mainstream. So we all seem to be in agreement now that the quotes are not mainstream, so at the very least they must be moved to the non-mainstream section. Later, when we get to the Non-mainstream beliefs section, we can discuss whether the quotes are notable. I personally will vote to delete two of the three quotes, and retain only the biographical one ("events in my life caused me to question...") as an introductory statement for the non-mainstream section, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.Flau98bert (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Martin, could I ask you to take a look at the other change Akuvar made? In addition to reverting the change that we've been discussing and requesting comments on for the past month, he also modified the top introduction section of the article, in a way that seems to reflect a very non-mainstream POV. What are your thoughts on that edit? Didn't we already agree on that section?Flau98bert (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I hadn't noticed that you guys are handling this in this remarkable way -- see the miles and miles of comments here above.

Anyway, I have removed the wp:OR-phrase "Even after releasing controversial papers...". I will leave the rest to the three of you then. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your edit 100%, and your summary explanation. However, I have to remind you that you voluntarilly removed yourself from making edits on this page. I would have been happy to have made the change if you had mentioned it here on the talk page. Akuvar (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not much like quotations, especially in the lead. We should be stating the facts not quoting others. Akuvar, I think the point you are trying to make could be better made more concisely and without a quotation. Do you mind if I have a go at doing that?

Also, I think it would be better if we stuck to one section at a time discussing things as we go to reach a consensus. Flaubert has been very patient in this respect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Akuvar (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So are we agreed to revert Akuvar's unilateral and undiscussed edit of the Lead? If not, are we all free to make similar unilateral edits without discussion, with the assurance that they will not be reverted?Flau98bert (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should revert the lead the I will try to add Akuvar's point in an agreed way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar has now reverted his changes to the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why I think "Deep Reality Physics" should not be presented as mainstream

I created an RfC (below) on whether the quote about "deep reality physics" is mainstream, and rather than bog down that RfC section with my reasoning, I will present my rationale here. The particular quote in question, which presently appears in the "Personal Philosophy" section of this article, is

Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. The essential difference is that physicists adhere to certain logical principles, any violation of which would amount to a miracle; whereas the equations of mathematics generally are oblivious to physical constraints. This leads to drastically different views of what is, and what is not, possible for cosmology and the reality we live in. Physics that adheres to these logical principles is known as "deep reality physics".

The source of this quote is the following web page from Van Flandern's web site:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

One editor believes strongly that the quotation, and indeed the entire web page, is notable and represents mainstream physics and should be presented as such in the article. I believe it is highly non-mainstream, and not very notable, so it should either be moved to the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section or else removed entirely.

My reasons for thinking the quote is non-mainstream (and not very notable) are as follows:

(1) The only published source (outside Van Flandern's own web site) is the "Aperion" publication, which I believe is generally accepted to be a highly non-mainstream publication.

(2) The quote itself seems to be a thinly veiled criticism of mainstream science, insinuating that mainstream scientists are confused about how mathematics is to be used in physics.

(3) Van Flandern himself explicitly acknowledged that his "deep reality physics" was non-mainstream, and that he was advocating a revision of the scientific method. (See below)

(4) Numerous specific examples of Van Flandern's "deep reality physics", beliefs to which he was led by his "principles", are acknowledged to be highly non-mainstream.

In support of these reasons, I'd like to call attention to the preface of Van Flandern's book, in which he gives a good overview and self-appraisal of his beliefs, including his "principle based" deductive approach, his advocacy of a revision to the scientific method, and the main products of his "deep reality" thinking. Here is a synopsis of the entire preface:

Something is wrong with science, fundamentally wrong... Take for example my own professional field: astronomy... The Big Bang theory is the accepted model for the origin of the universe....Gravity is accepted as the principal force... always attractive, never repulsive... over an unlimited range... The Oort Cloud is the accepted model for the origin of comets... At the time I was taught these theories, I too, accepted them, with few reservations.

But events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught...

From my disturbing experiences with the insubstantiality of the fundamentals in other fields, I learned how I could sometimes spot the bad accepted theories... I later added “derivation from inductive reasoning” as additional grounds for holding a theory suspect. All the accepted astronomical theories mentioned at the beginning of this preface are "suspect"...

A modification is needed to the theory of the Scientific Method itself. One procedure I have learned to favor is to adopt a starting point [his deep reality principles] and reason deductively ... The product of applying this deductive methodology to the three accepted theories mentioned at the beginning of this preface are three completely new models: the Meta Model to replace the Big bang; the C-graviton model to replace the Newtonian and relativistic notions about gravitation; and the Exploded Planet model to replace the Oort Cloud...

In 1990 I founded MetaResearch (named after the Meta Model) for the purpose of supporting and encouraging astronomical theories...not otherwise supported because they lie outside the mainstream of theories in astronomy.

I believe this shows clearly that Van Flandern's Deep Reality Physics, according to his own words, is non-mainstream, and represents a modification of the Scientific Method, rejecting inductive reasoning (i.e., reasoning from experimental evidence), and adopting a purely deductive approach from a set of "a priori" first principles, rejecting the mainstream scientific belief that our principles themselves must be founded inductively on evidence.

A counter-argument raised by one editor is that at least one of the principles Van Flandern espoused, namely "causality", is mainstream. I don't think this argument is valid, for a few reasons. First, the principle of causality is notoriously ambiguous so its role as a 'principle' is not straightforward in modern physics. Second, Van Flandern obviously did not originate the concept of causality, so if he was just parroting the mainstream ideas about causality in physics it would not be notable. But third, Van Flandern's conception of "causality" and what it implies was totally non-mainstream. To give just one example, from Van Flandern's web page on the GPS and Relativity, he wrote

We note in passing that the effect that SR expects accelerations or frame changes to have on remote clocks would constitute an instantaneous action at a distance, a violation of the causality principle."

I don't think any mainstream scientist would agree that this aspect of special relativity represents a violation of 'causality' in the sense that the word is used in mainstream science. So, whatever Van Flandern meant by 'causality', it clearly was not what mainstream science means. The same applies to each of his other "principles", most of which were adapted literally from the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, and do not (in my opinion) represent any kind of intelligible statement of the principles of modern physics.

So these are my reasons for thinking that the quote about Van Flandern's "Deep Reality Physics" is non-mainstream, and should either be moved to the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section of the article, or removed altogether.Flau98bert (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Publications" Section

I think the "Mainstream scientific work" section and the "Non-mainstream science and beliefs" sections both need a lot of work, but I think it would be useful to tackle the "Publications" section first, since I think it needs to be folded into the preceding sections. In the existing article this section comes immediately after the "Non-mainstream science and beliefs" section. Here's what it says:

4 Publications

Van Flandern authored a book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated,[37] in which he rejected and offered replacements for the fundamental theories of modern physics (especially special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics), and challenged prevailing notions regarding dark matter, the big bang, and solar system formation, and advocated the theory that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded planet. He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.

Van Flandern published the Meta Research Bulletin which reported the newest discoveries and how they presented difficulties to accepted astronomical theories, such as the Big Bang and planetary formation. The Bulletin claimed mainstream scientists preferred making ad hoc corrections to the theories rather than acknowledge fundamental difficulties that might jeopardize their funding.[9]

Can we agree that this is really just more discussion of Van Flandern's non-mainstream beliefs? I don't think these sentences warrant a separate "Publications" section. The only "publications" it mentions are the non-mainstream book that has already been cited previously in the article, and the non-mainstream "Meta Research Bulletin". The only thing these sentences do is mention some of Van Flandern's non-mainstream beliefs, including the last sentence in which he attacks the personal integrity of mainstream scientists (they promote false theories to avoid jeopardizing their funding). I think we should delete the "Publications" section, and move whatever parts of those sentences is worth saving to the Non-mainstream science and beliefs" section. Does this seem reasonable?Flau98bert (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I'll go ahead and move the discussion of the non-mainstream publications to the non-mainstream section. Also, I'll remove the "Residence" section from the info block.Flau98bert (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What is to be done about Akuvar's contention that I am a "banned user"?

One of the editors here (Akuvar) has taken to reverting every edit I make (to this article), claiming in his edit summaries either that my edits are "vandalism" (despite having been discussed on the Talk page and meeting with no objections), or else that I am a "banned user". I have assured him that I am not a banned user. I also opened an RfC to ask other editors if my edits were "vandalism". The conclusion was that my edits are definitely not vandalism, and if Akuvar believes I am a banned user he should open an investigation or requestion Administrative assistance. He has done neither.

My question is, what is to be done about this? Should I request a WP administrator to look into this situation?Flau98bert (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You should bring the matter up at WP:RFCC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the page I linked to you will see that two users need to try to resolve the problem before going to the noticeboard. I will make a comment on his talk page to see if that helps. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Tom Van Flandern's "Deep Reality Physics"

Is the quote on math, physics, and "deep reality" notable and mainstream?Flau98bert (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote in question, which presently appears in the "Personal Philosophy" section of this article, is

Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. The essential difference is that physicists adhere to certain logical principles, any violation of which would amount to a miracle; whereas the equations of mathematics generally are oblivious to physical constraints. This leads to drastically different views of what is, and what is not, possible for cosmology and the reality we live in. Physics that adheres to these logical principles is known as "deep reality physics".

The source of this quote is the following web page from Van Flandern's web site:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

I believe the quote (and the web page it comes from) is highly non-mainstream, and not very notable, so it should either be removed from the article or else moved to the "Non-mainstream beliefs" section. My reasoning is detailed in the preceding section of this Talk page.Flau98bert (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Remove The clearly is non-mainstream physics and should be removed from the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move I read the article, and skimmed the talk page. It seems a bit duplicative to have both a Personal Philosophy section, and then in the Non-mainstream beliefs section to have another Personal Philosophy section… Maybe move all of the Personal Phil. down to the Non-mainstream section? The first paragraph seems to me to be a bit non-mainstream itself, unless I am misreading it? (and congrats on working together on talk page. If somewhere up there y'all agreed to have the PErsonal Philosophy section duplicated, I withdraw my suggestion for now.)--VikÞor | Talk 13:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per M.H. or move unless... unless the statement can be shown to be of itself notable in some way as having been significant in the history or philosophy of science; as it stands it seems either wrong, or more likely in terms of Pauli's remark: "nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch". Whether such a statement without mitigation by some extenuatory omitted context, or as a quote illustrative of a typical error, should be included in a WP article at all, I'll leave to you. But IMO, the whole article cries out for some peer review and editing on the grounds of POV alone. JonRichfield (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say, 'editing on the grounds of POV alone', what do you mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Badly phrased. Commented out text follows: JonRichfield (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the kind of thing that you are referring to please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again. Firstly, I had missed your reply, which is why I did not reply in turn. Secondly, I cannot find what I had had in mind; I suspect that I had read some of the quotes as article text, or that some of the edits since I wrote had improved the source. My apologies. JonRichfield (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As this quote is part of a specific section (#Non-mainstream science and beliefs), then perhaps it's appropriate to include it. I have no knowledge of the subject, but it would seem to be a question of WP:WEIGHT. Does the section give undue weight to such beliefs in the context of wider biographical information? And is the particular quote under question given undue weight in the context of other non-mainstream beliefs held by the subject? -- Trevj (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Project Moonwatch dedication

The Cincinati Astronomical Society is unveiling a new historical marker today noting the achievements of the Moonwatch Team there and mentions Van Flandern by name. I think this is noteable and as soon as I get a photo and copy of what the marker says, will post it in the article. Akuvar (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Tags

I've restored the article tags, because the issues with the article still have not been resolved. Please work to resolve the issues on this talk page, and please do not remove the tags until resolution has been reached. Thanks.Urgent01 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Residence" line in box

I removed the "Residence: Sequim Washington" from the info box, because it is obviously no longer applicable. If any editors disagree, please explain your disagrement on this talk page before reverting the change. ThanksUrgent01 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the Article

The "Personal Philosophy" section has serious problems. The first sentence says van Flandern "noted a regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained "accepted" status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be". This is clearly false as an allegation against mainstream science (some physicists do nothing but re-examine fundamental assumptions!), so to say that Van Flandern "NOTED this practice" is wrong. At the very least it should say "alleged" rather than "noted". Also, the trailing phrase smuggles in the premise that new observations are incompatible with mainstream scientific assumptions. This is mostly a false insinuation. I think to be accurate the sentence would have to read something like this: "Van Flandern alleged that new experimental evidence is incompatible with the fundamental assumptions of mainstream science, but that it is the regular practice of mainstream scientists to not re-examine their fundamental assumptions, almost no matter how incompatible they are with experimental evidence". This makes it clear that it is an allegation rather than an observation, and also more clearly identifies the two distinct components of that allegation (both false). Also, to accurately represent Van Flandern's views, the article would have to add what Van Flandern thought was the reason for this bad behavior of mainstream scientists: He claimed they intentionally clung to their falsified beliefs just to keep their jobs and sources of funding. Yes, that's crazy, for several reasons, but it was Van Flandern's stated claim. By not accurately presenting his claims in their entirety, the article gives a false and biased view.

This is just the first sentence of the section. Each of the remaining sentences has similar (or worse) problems in my opinion. In addition, the article has some serious "ownership" issues, with one particlar editor summarily reverting all edits by any editor other than himself, no matter how minor or well-justified. Of course, that editor is also intent on removing the tags from the article, but until these issues are resolved, I think the tags on the article should remain. Urgent01 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the change that you proposed and have made it. What now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The section on Non-Mainstream Beliefs omits two of the most prominent and notable items, The Exploding Planet hypothesis, and Opposition to the Big Bang. I think these should be included among the non-mainstream beliefs. (They actually were in previous versions of this article, such as the 16:15 31 July 2012 version, complete with linked references.) Along with this, the quotation about "discovering our origins" that is currently in the Personal Philosophy section should be moved to the Exploding Planet section, because it comes from an article entitled "Exploding Planets" - although you would not know this from reading this Wiki page, because the title of the cited article has been suppressed. I think if that quotation is to remain in the article, the full citation, including the name of the article and possibly even some more context, needs to be given, and it needs to be placed in the Exploding Planets section. Also, as in the July 2012 version, I think the "Personal Philosophy" heading (not the content, mind you, just the heading line) should be removed, since that material is really just introductory to the Non-mainstream beliefs section.Urgent01 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you make changes and see how things go. I agree that it is important to make clear that TVF was notable mainly for his non-mainstream beliefs but please ensure that the tone is encyclopedic. We are not here to lampoon TVF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Urgent, I have toned down the exploding planets section. The language was encyclopedic and the quote unnecessary. Martin Hogbin (talk)

The reason for the quote was not to "rub it in", but rather to accurately portray the mainstream reception of the highly non-mainstream views for which the subject is notable, which is the whole justification for this article. The reception to his views (already in 1976, during what was supposedly his years as a "respected mainstream scientist") was not just "negative" - he was literally yanked off the stage in an extraordinary manner, and was clearly regarded by the mainstream scientists there as an embarrassment. To characterize that by saying "the reception was negative" is to give a somewhat inadequate account of the verifiable facts, don't you think?

The 'exploding planets' theory is plainly crazy and I do not think anyone could be in doubt as to what kind of reception it would get at a conference on astronomy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to actually include the quote - we could just explain in our own words - although I would have thought it was most fair to let Van Flandern's own account of the meeting speak for itself. Still, if you want to describe it in your own words, how would you propose to describe the mainstream reception of his ideas at that conference? Do you really think "the reception was negative" is an accurate portrayal? In other words, do those words convey to the reader an accurate sense of the reception? Or is it your belief that the article should not convey an accurate sense of the reception? If so, why?Urgent01 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think describing the reception in our own words is more encyclopedic. I agree that 'negative reception' is a bit too bland and I would be quite happy with some more descriptive language. I am just trying to ensure that the article does not turn into an attack on its subject. On second thoughts, I think it is best as you have now left it. Why mention the conference at all? Obviously if you were to go to a conference on astronomy with a theory like 'exploding planets' you would be laughed off stage. I do not think we need to make an issue of it.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just made an edit, to further economize the Exploding Planets section (since the remaining quote was less relevant than the one you deleted), and added a note to the Le Sage section, noting how Van Flandern connected these two subjects. I still think we aren't giving the readers a good sense of the reception to his exploding planets claim, so I'd appreciate it if you could think about giving a slightly better account.Urgent01 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the need to fully expound TVF's crazy theories here but I see no reason not to make a brief connection, so long as we keep the language encyclopedic and avoid lampooning TVF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Publications Section

Isn't the entire "Publications" section redundant to the previous section? I suggest it be deleted, and any content that isn't already in the previous section can be moved there.Urgent01 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

The existing article has an entire section called "Awards and Honors", consisting of two items, one mentioning Van Flandern's paper on the variation of G (Newton's constant), and the other mentioning the asteriod naming.

Regarding the paper on the variation of G, I think there should be some mention that this paper was subsequently discredited, as Van Flandern himself acknowledged in his book. It seems misleading to simply cite the "award and honor" of a 2nd prize paper, without also mentioning that the contents were later discredited. I suggest moving the sentence about that paper up to the "mainstream science" section - since even though it was near the fringe, it was more or less a mainstream effort (Dirac had suggested that G might vary), and the flaw in the paper was acknowledged by Van Flandern in a fashion more or less consistent with how mainstream scientists operate, i.e., admitting when they are proved wrong.

The only other "Award and Honor" is the asteroid naming, but I think there's some difficulty with that, because the award was arranged and composed by Victor Slabinski, a boyhood friend and life-long associate of Van Flandern. (Slabinski is also a non-mainstream enthusiast, as shown by his contribution to the Lesage gravity book of Evans, Van Flandern, et al.) I don't think this is a suitably independent source. I think it's (marginally) okay to mention the asteroid naming, basically as a piece of marginally notable trivia, but it doesn't warrant a whole "Honors and Awards" section. So I suggest placing a sentence about the asteroid up front, perhaps acknowleding the relationship between Slabinski and Van Flandern, in the interest of full disclosure.Urgent01 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Early Life and USNO - - to Biography

To improve the structure of the article, and make it more consistent with the format of other similar Wikipedia articles, I think the "Early Life" section should be changed to "Biography", since there is no "Later Life" section, and we need some place to gather all the biographical information, including the asteriod naming arranged by his life-long friend Victor Slabinski. Also I think the order of the paragraphs in the existing "Early Life" section is mixed up, because it jumps around in dates, going to the 1970's and then jumping back to 1964. I will try to arrange the items in chronological order.Urgent01 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Biography - Lunar Occultations

The current Biography section includes a rather length (and repetitious) discussion of lunar occultations, which has marginal notability at best. It says Van Flandern became an expert on lunar occultations, and then says he received a PhD for lunar occultations... which seems redundant. Also the sentence about encouraging occultation observations is rather banal and redundant, and the discussion of the "cable system" doesn't seem notable. The only reference is his obituary written by friends who have personal memories of those old activities. That's fine for an obituary, but for this Wikipedia article I think this section should be trimmed down. We can convey everything notable with just the last sentence, which says "In 1969 he received a PhD in Astronomy from Yale, with a dissertation on lunar occultations."Urgent01 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-Encyclopedic statements lacking notability and verifiability?

The Mainstream Work section of the article currently includes two sentences that seem rather un-encyclopedic, both referenced to Van Flandern's obituary, written by his close life-long friends David Dunham and Victor Slabinski.

After describing the date conversion algorithm, the article says "This was used in countless business applications worldwide." The word "countless" seems like boosterism, and could not be verified. Could we tone that down a little? I suggest revising the wording to say "The algorithm was available for use in business applications." This is about as much as we can verifiably say. (Who knows how many business applications actually used it - or even how many business applications actually convert from Gregorian to Julian dates?)

The second sentence that seem a bit boosteristic is in the paragraph on the "low precision orbits" paper. The article says "The paper set a record for the number of reprints requested from that journal." This could conceivably be true, but again the only source is the recollections of two close friends writing an obituary 30 years after the paper was printed. How do they know this? For a statement like that, it would be nice to have an independent verifiable source. Lacking that, perhaps we could just make the verifiable statement "According to Van Flandern's obituary, the paper set a record for the number of reprints requested from that journal."Urgent01 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Asteroid Citation - Advocacy and Boosterism

I think the citation for the asteriod written by Van Flandern's life-long friends is not suitable as the sole source for the claims it contains, because it doesn't come from an independent source (it was written by his close friends soon after his passing), and asteriod citations don't pass any kind of scholarly peer review. The specific claims in that citation are not supported by any reputable secondary source. For example, there is no verifiable source for the claim that Van Flandern "improved the accuracy of the GPS system". In fact, to the contrary, Van Flandern is notable for having mis-understood and mis-represented the functioning of the GPS system. The other claims in the asteriod naming citation are similarly unsupported.

In fact, even mentioning the asteroid naming at all is marginally suitable for this Wikipedia article, because it tends to be misleading to readers who don't know how easy it is to get an astroid named after someone. After Van Flandern passed away, his family members and life-long friends, such as fellow Lesage gravity enthusiast Victor Slabinski, and long-time friend David Dunham (who was first introduced to his wife by Van Flandern), and the boosterific Dennis Smith took it upon themselves to manufacture as much praise and notability as they could, including the asteriod naming, the flattering obituary, the Moonwatch commemorative plack (Which was engineered by Smith), and of course this Wikipedia article. The latest External Link added to this article (by the same editor who has re-inserted the asteriod citation and more Moonwatch articles promoted by Smith) is primarily an homage to Dennis Smith, and a description of his (somewhat embarrassing) hero-worship of his life-long friend Van Flandern. Honestly, this kind of thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This isn't a fond obituary of a dear friend, it's an encyclopedia article. Can we tone down the boosterism? Let's focus on reputable, independent, secondary sources please.Urgent01 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think sourcing is indeed the key here. Do you have any source material that I can reference that backs up any of your claims? Everything I've read on the subject speaks highly of the program and doesn't mention anything about a bunch of buddies doing favors for each other or self-promotion. If you are going to make accusations like those, you need to back it up.StarHOG (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What "program" are you talking about? Moonwatch? Or Asteroid Naming?

In any case, there is certainly well-sourced evidence that people like Dennis Smith have been engaging in boosterism for Van Flandern. For example, there's an article in which Smith admits that he was the one who advocated for the commemorative Moonwatch sign in Cincinati honoring his boyhood friend (and then it promptly shows up, complete with photo, in this article), and we know life-long friends Slabinski and Dunham wrote the obituary, and we know Van Flandern's son edited this Wikipedia article soon after Tom's passing, etc. We also know, by their own statements, that some other editors of this article were personal friends of Van Flandern. So there is no question about the boosterism. And the asteroid naming, which realistically can only have been proposed by friends (see below), especially considering Van Flandern's bridge-burning with mainstream science. We also have the internet posting of David Dunham in Jan 2009 shortly after Van Flandern passed away:

"Besides our close astronomical collaboration, I am also indebted to Tom personally, he was a great friend who helped secure my employment with Computer Sciences Corporation in 1976 in spite of poor recommendations from my previous two "old school" bosses who did not appreciate my work... Tom also introduced me to his employee, Joan Bixby, whom I married in 1970... An asteroid will be named for Tom with the next batch of Minor Planet Circulars at the next full moon on February 9. - David

This, along with the similarity between the obituary (which we know was written by Dunham and Slabinski) and the asteroid citation, leads me to think that Dave was instrumental in proposing the asteroid naming.

However, I agree that sourcing is the key, and unfortunately there is no published sourcing for asteroid naming. I've actually studied the process by which an asteroid, if it has not been named for more than 10 years after its discovery, is "up for grabs", and anyone can propose a name for it. The organization that keeps track of the names does not do the proposing themselves, nor do they write the citations (if there is a citation). This is done by whoever proposes it, which is typically friends or relatives of the person (or fans, like the fans of Frank Zappa or Ringo Starr). There have been asteroids named for all kinds of frivolous reasons (even pets), and many of the citations are comical or whimsical. But to your point about sourcing, we simply have no published source for it, because frankly asteroid naming is not regarded as a peer reviewed or authorative secondary source. So the unsourced citation certainly doesn't belong in the article. In fact, the whole naming itself only belongs if it can be properly sourced. So I think the burden is on you to identify the source, i.e., who proposed the naming and who wrote the citation. If you cannot provide this, then I think Wikipedia rules say it doesn't belong in the article.Urgent01 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Operation Moonwatch - Undue Weight? Dennis Smith?

The current article seems to have become weighted down with coverage of "Operation Moonwatch", which was sort of like the Boy Scouts for amateur sky watchers in the late 50s and 60s. Just having been a Boy Scout, or even an Eagle Scout, with lots of merit badges for starting fires and tying knots, etc., isn't really a notable achievement. The Wikipedia article on Project Moonwatch lists only one "prominent person" who participated in Moonwatch and later went on to have a career in science, namely James Westphal, but the article on Westphal doesn't even mention Moonwatch... and rightly so, because it's a rather trivial thing - not that being an eagle scout is trivial to the people involved, but in the larger scheme of things, it isn't really significant. In contrast, this article on Van Flandern has a large image of a silly Moonwatch sign (which was created at the urging of Van Flandern's long-time friend Dennis Smith), and 4 of 10 External links are to Moonwatch articles. None of this is related to the subject's notability. I think we ought to trim back some of the Moonwatch stuff, especially since it seems to be focusing more on Dennis Smith rather than Van Flandern. If someone wants to create an article for Dennis Smith, they should propose that separately.Urgent01 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you are getting all this from, or it your personal opinion? There are already several sources on this page listed such as cincinnati.com, Xavier University, and the Ohio Historical Society that all say the program and the participants were pretty special, especially the part under Tom's direction which is what we're talking about here. You blabbering about them all being friends and inflating their egos and the program wasn't special sounds like your opinion to me.StarHOG (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting much of "all this" from the links in the article, e.g., the joint interview with Van Flandern and Slabinski, and the embarrassing articles about Moonwatch.

I think I can speak objectively about it, because I had no personal involvement in "Operation Moonwatch". If I had been personally involved in it, especially if I had been a personal friend of Van Flandern's in the Moonwatch activities, I would recuse myself immediately from this discussion, since I wouldn't have the objectivity necessary to edit this article. Also, the fawning articles that energetic boosters like Dennis Smith have managed to get into the local papers on this subject are not very high quality sources, because they are not independent and not peer reviewed. None of the personal reminicences of by-gone days that these boosters manage to get printed in local papers is subject to rigorous fact checking (and how could they check, since it's just the memories of old friends). Those papers are not scientific journals, they are just reporting human interest stories. When you say those papers all say "the participants (in Moonwatch) were pretty special", well, I would say my grandma Edna was "pretty special", and I could probably get an article about her into the local paper here, and even a commemorative plack placed somewhere around here for her good deeds. Who is going to object? But that wouldn't justify making an Wikipedia article about her.

Wow, I tried to help edit this article with a new user ID to try and reduce the amount of hateful banter that I thought my Akuvar user ID was drawing, but I see now it isn't me you want to argue with, you are ready to rip anyone a new one for trying to improve the article and you'll play your old tricks with anyone, deleting the entire asteroid naming citation from the article because you can't have your way and insert your belittling comments about how easy it is to get an asteroid named after you. To actually accuse this new ID, StarHOG of having a personal interest and should recuse himself must be the most hypocritical thing I've ever read from you. I am tired of your personal vendetta against Van Flandern, you couldn't shut him up in real life so you try to do as much damage to him now that he can't defend himself. We've been at this for almost 5 years and it has made me weary....but I think you thrive on it, which is a fantastic testament to your hatred of the man.Akuvar (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed any of the issues with the article. Again, I think the asteroid citation is not suitable, because it contains unsourced claims, such as improving the accuracy of the GPS, which are not supported in any independent source. If you can find an independent and reputable source saying that Van Flandern improved the accuracy of the GPS, then that would be good to put in the article. But the asteroid naming citation (written by his close friends soon after his passing) does not qualify as a suitable source for those claims. Remember, this is not a fond obituary of a dear friend, it's an encyclopedia article with certain standards of notability and verifiability.Urgent01 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I say again, let's tone down the coverage of the boosterism organized by Van Flandern's personal friends. This article is not about Operation Moonwatch, nor about Van Flandern's friendship with Dennis Smith.Urgent01 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Proving Him Right?

The second last sentence currently reads "However, the consensus of the scientific community is that "The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe." " From what can be understood as TVF's position, he would likely not see this as a contradiction of his own position which was largely that an established 'consensus' falsely drives the popularity of its accepted theories in a sort of self-fulfilling faith that scientists are frightened to deviate from - partially rooted in disconnected expertise within science's various specialisms, and partly rooted in fear of ridicule by peers. One of his concerns seemed to be that 'consensus' generated a sort of blindness to truly critical appraisal, as well as a constant bias towards the 'consensus'. Hence the opening word - 'However' - is at least inappropriate unless one wants to confirm the bias of which he speaks. Certainly the current use of the word 'consensus' in the current text strongly supports TVF's position. To state the obvious, not ALL scientists accept the Big Bang theory. Here is suggested replacement text for the whole last paragraph: "Majority opinion within the scientific community is that The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation so far for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Van Flandern's alternative explanation for this majority opinion might be that it is simply ongoing proof of his belief that established ideas are hard to shift. But as far as most of the scientific community is concerned, since the conception of the Big Bang theory, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model." (By the way, I'm no TVF follower but the existing text actually supports his case as much as it tries to criticize it - exactly because it fails to be suitably circumspect as regards why scientists think whatever they think. Maybe somebody will make the change as I'm a bit of a rookie on WikiP and don't want to screw things up). 90.54.97.252 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your comments are valid. I'm not sure if the existing paragraph or your new one even belongs in the article. The opening paragraph says he didn't hold with the big bang theory, and people can click on that word to be taken to the wiki page and find out (if they didn't already know) that the big bang is the currently-accepted theory. To add a paragraph that does nothing to explain the subject, only points out that his opinions didn't go with the mainstream, seem out of place. Also, these kinds of statements cannot be properly cited or referenced, they are just statements about the obvious. I am removing the current paragraph from the article. Whoever placed it there improperly referenced a wiki article on the big bang (we don't like to use wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia articles, it creates a circular problem).StarHOG (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)