Talk:Jim Carter (pseudoscientist)

Fringe Scientist
The term "fringe scientist" was removed as NPOV in the lead. I actually think I disagree with this assessment. This guy's only notable because a book was written about his fringe beliefs. No actual scientists take this guy's work seriously, there's no scientific debate about whether his ideas hold any merit. Does it really violate NPOV to call a spade a spade?JoelWhy (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly no mainstream scientist takes his theories seriously, but the word "fringe" is just too loaded for use in the title, IMHO. The text quotes others calling him a fringe scientist, which I can't see any problem with, but we need to be a bit more careful with the title. Otherwise, articles on any scientist who holds minority views could be renamed "fringe scientist" by their detractors. "Amateur scientist", "theorist", "science writer", etc. might be good alternatives. What do you think? Scopecreep (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, I can see that. But, to be clear, it's not that he holds a "minority" view. I mean, maybe string theory is the predominant view, but it's certainly not the only one. This guy's theory, though, is probably held only by him and a few fellow wackos (For the record, I heard an interview w/ the author -- doesn't think Carter is nuts, per se, just eccentric; and the guy is pretty smart. But, you can be smart and still believe in crazy ideas.) So, anyhow, I think you're probably right that "amateur" fits here. But, I would like this article to emphasize a little bit more that this doesn't even constitute a scientific theory, let alone one that is held by any significant number of scientists.JoelWhy (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good idea. Scopecreep (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word "fringe" has a strong connotation. Whether it applies or not probably doesn't matter; the point is that it will mean different things for different people. Why don't we just describe the current status of his "science"? And this brings to me to another point: Jim Carter is NOT a scientist. A scientist is a person who applies the scientific method in his or her research. The scientific method relies on testing hypotheses through experiments and accepting the consensus of peers when interpreting results. In the same way as the word "fringe" brings undue discredit", t he word "scientist" also has a strong implication and it brings undue authority to someone who has none. Is it possible to change the word scientist from the title? And maybe instead of describing him as an "amateur scientist" we could describe him as a "physics aficionado" or something like that? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Jim Carter is NOT a scientist. A scientist is a person who applies the scientific method in his or her research. " Exactly. This is the exact reason I got into the talk page. There's no way he applies as a scientist or an amateur scientist (which by definition is just a person that follows the scientific method in an unpaid way). In his case, he falls in the physics pseudoscience department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience) and since AFAIK he only gives out theories, he would be theorizing in that department. Hence "physics pseudoscience theorist". --Nmaxcom (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Move
As per the discussion here, he clearly is not a scientist. I moved to page accordingly. AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Academic credentials?
What is the subject's academic background? Has he received any sort of degree(s), and if so, in what field(s)? Has he taught at any institution(s), and if so, where and on what subjects? Antediluvian67 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed
Is this a seriously article approved by Wiki?? I don't get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)