Talk:Benford's law of controversy

Disproofs?
Perhaps a section can be added about attempts to disprove the theory. Detractors often point to the most classic example of the theory of evolution. Significant evidence exists, yet the theory is still highly controversial. -Anonymous

Expand article?
I feel passionately that this article needs to be expanded! Oh.... wait a minute... Yeastbeast 08:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Useless page. This is pathetic. just merge it into the Gregory Benford article and be done with this.


 * Examples and counterexamples to the claimed law would flesh out the article. Also some direct quotes and context from Timescape. This page may already be an embarassment to Benford, let's stop it from being an embarrassment to Wikipedia. By the way I have unsuccessfully proposed it for deletion. Is it time for afd? If you think this article is worthwhile(sorry, I don't)and have the time, please put some work into it.Rich 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Related quotes
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity." I'm just sayin'. Tahrlis 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * U.S. Grant said something similar, if not so universal, c. 1880. In looking back on criticism and second guessing about his role in the Civil War, he said,

My experience has taught me two lessons:

First, that things are seen plainer after the events have occurred,

Second, that the most confident critics are generally those who know the least about the matter criticized.
 * Dpflag 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Timescape
Benford's quote comes from his Timescape novel.
 * This is now in the article. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, but more is needed. In what chapter, in what situation, context, was the law stated? Was it called a law in the book? Who said it, a charactr in the novel, or the narrator? Was there any discussion of limitations of the law, were there characters in the novel who agreed or disagreed about the law?67.169.227.132 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--I forgot to log in.Rich 08:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article a clever hoax. Self referential?
I mean, the mild irritation I've been feeling about this thing could be the "passion" I'm supposed to have. And much as I liked Timescape, I wouldn't bother to reread just to look for this smug unoriginal platitude, so my "real information" will stay low. Some editors are responding to requests for real information in a studiedly unhelpful way. Will that get my dander up? Will I nominate for afd and start a riproaring controversy about a silly article we don't know anything about? Maybe someone is a shrewd psychologist and has set us up. Or I'm paranoid. But I advise all editors to not nominate this for afd until we know more.Rich 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a hoax. I just think that this is a humorous theory (the fact that it's called a law is a clear giveaway). There's no point in taking it too seriously, as everyone is doing here.--88.149.231.205 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be attempted humor, but it's weak. Anyway, this is an encyclopedia, we can't play games with readers if we want to be taken seriously.Rich 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available


--One Salient Oversight 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)