Talk:Scientific realism/Archive 1

Requests for Clarification?
I've done my best to make this article clear and accessible, but as a professional in this field it's often distinguish clear and accessible from technical and jargon-laden. Please, if there is anything in this article that you find makes it a less than helpful introduction, please ask here and I will do my best to edit the article to make it better. philosofool I reckon it is good, though since I'm also working in the field, I may not be the ideal reader. Then again, who is going to look at a section like this - it is hardly general interest? I've made an addition to the end of the bit on underdetermination, which I am writing on at present. What do you think?Thonemann 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm presently reading some books in order to get a comprehensive idea of the history of the philosophy of science and I must say that one of the most obscure concept I had to understand have been realism. I understand now that realists think that unobserved scientific concepts like atom, mass or force reflect real things... And that instrumentalist think that these concepts are just instruments to understand reality. Unfortunately this article was of no help in making me understand this. I suggest giving some examples of unobserved concept and making a clear distintion between realism and the opposite views. PierreWiki 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a reasonably well-educated, native English speaker, and I find the first sentence of the article so hopelessly opaque as to (a) preclude any real understanding of the subject (at least by a non-doctoral-philosophy-student) and (b) preclude any desire to read further - the last thing one would wish for an introductory article on a subject. The remainder seems not nearly so awful, however. Perhaps just a rewrite of the opening by a non-specialist would aid us here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.113.36 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Realism and Modelling
To what extent is realism compatible with modelling?
 * I'm unsure what you mean by "modelling" here. "Modelling" sounds like something that is a matter of scientific methodology rather than the realism/anti-realism debate.  By no means are questions of method and questions realism/anti-realism fully independent; however, most methodological issues can be accommodated by most interpretations of science. If you can say more about modelling, perhaps I can give a more complete response.philosofool
 * Modeling is an important part of the realist-antirealist debate, but I am not versed enough to write on it. Hopefully someone will add more information on it. - Atfyfe 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Caloric Theory
I moved a section from caloric theory to this page, as it is irrelevant there. Could someone who works in this field either merge it into the article properly, or remove it altogether? -- Wijnand 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Paradigm Shift
Is pessimistic induction supported by Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts, and if so how do scientific realists counter this? 62.249.242.232 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Realism and Antirealism
Allow me to suggest we have one page for the realist-antirealist debate in general. It seems odd to try and be discussing one and not the other. From this page we can then have links to specific positions within the debate (structural realism, instrumentalism, etc.). - Atfyfe 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrections about logical positivist remark
Logical positivists do share much with current scientific realists, but in a strict sense, they are not scientific realists. First, logical positivists do not make ontological commitment (too metaphysical, unverifiable for them). Second, logical positivists are hostile to the idea that we can know about "unobservable". I am going to leave this objection for 2 weeks here. If no one rebuts it within two weeks, I am going to go ahead and modify the bit about logical positivist. Stampit (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I think this article has NPOV issues. While it makes a good attempt, I believe that the article is more written as a persuasive one, pointing out both sides of the argument regarding the validity of scientific realism but then supporting arguments against. I've got the page on watch if you need more specifics. EagleFalconn (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(and almost devoid of citations)

 * I'll read it through to see whether I agree (which might be likely). In order to achieve a better article I propose identifying specific biased clauses, often section conclusions and inferences made, and requesting citations and opposing views for thos statements. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the article pretty much ends by the approximate position that scientific realism has a lot of holes in itself, and that scientific realists claim other unspecified methodologies for choosing between theories. The article proves a point and is still unacceptably POVvy. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I use a - tactics to find potentially weak statements; the article is written as an essay lacking the usual references, claiming "one may object to this" (who does object to this?), "it is claimed" (who claims?), "some claims" (who?) and similar so called WP:WEASEL wordings avoiding to verify sources, then attaching a citation request to the statement. Among these statements, real biased sentences providing a flawed logic might hide, or else not, but anyways the text must be sourced by mentioning claimants and their texts. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. These 'tactics' also make this article frustratingly unreadable. Putting  after every "Realists claim..." is quite annoying, and seems to take the reader as an inductive idiot, unable to realize that the use of the word realist here does not necessitate the agreement of all realists to the statement.  After the first, it becomes quite unnecessary.  Weaknesses in the argument can be detailed here, in the discussion pages, not in the article itself.  The article as a whole is flagged for citation problems at the top.  I already realize I must read critically; I don't need every sentence mangled with these warnings.

Respectfully, -A non-philosopher

Not enough for the average well-informed reader
The list of 5 items prefaced with:
 * Logical positivism encountered difficulties with:

gives only undefined terms, and terms with which most people are not familiar. Mentioning individuals who have had something to say about one or another of these five is not very helpful either. P0M (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Many questionable changes
Somebody without a user page has recently made many changes to this article. The ones I noticed just now made the language "smoother," but they took away from the specificity of the information given. I think these were bad changes. They are certainly changes that should have been discussed before being made. I will hold back from reverting until there has been some time for reaction from others concerned with this article.P0M (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot more changes going on, so I guess that I will wait and see if it is any better. But meanwhile, I think that the first sentence is really confusing. It says, "and not perhaps be, though appearing true, severely or even completely false." I suggest dropping that clause. Whatever is intended by it could be explained later. Roger (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure are in good faith, and I hope this isn't too discouraging because they're clearly enthusiastic and have much to contribute. Perhaps if Kusername reviewed similar articles, they would see the departure? Offhand, I don't feel I can adequately characterize the problem or offer any better advice… but at this point, it seems avoiding the wholesale reversion of their efforts may become increasingly difficult; an unfortunate outcome that I'm sure everyone would rather avoid.—Machine Elf 1735  23:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this post. If there are no criticisms, then what is the criticism? What do you want for the "Scientific realism" page?

Kusername (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You prefer criticism? I offered advice… to look at similar articles. I'm sure you would readily see where you're efforts don't conform. I also advised you not to be surprised when most of your edits are reverted, (probably all of them). Here are the sections that the user offering their assistance initially removed; and anyone would agree, they're clearly inappropriate:
 * Greek democracy
 * Greek democracy—in a king's empire
 * Roman republic ends the democratic empire
 * The republic becomes an empire
 * Prophet in a Roman colony
 * Pantheon abandoned: Roman Empire goes monotheistic
 * Fall of Rome Empire—half at least
 * Western Christendom
 * Crusades to save the world—and 1204's big mistake
 * Black Death, loss of faith, and new freedoms


 * Too bad it's not working out… there's so little interest in scientific realism on WP (to say the least). You shouldn't take it personally. Have you considered blogging?—Machine Elf 1735  20:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

You ask whether I prefer criticism? As opposed to what, more whining and propaganda photos? What else did you have in mind—declaration?

Apparently so. You name sections and assert "anyone would agree, they're clearly inappropriate". Yet still no explanation? Your argument is absolute idealism. (Check the article for a review of how it works.)

Where was the advice you offered? And what does conforming have to do with this? The very premise of scientific realism is ultimate correspondence to an objective reality, not ultimate coherence with people's conventions. If there is little interest on scientific realism here at Wikipedia, then what's your issue? Your argument is called idealism—not realism.

You say, "Too bad it's not working out… there's so little interest in scientific realism on WP (to say the least). You shouldn't take it personally. Have you considered blogging?".

Yes, I considered blogging. Have you? You're apparently interested in swaying people to your opinions. You have yet to point out a single error. So your own thesis is that the Fourth Crusade purposefully sacked Constantinople? Great. Now cite that. Otherwise, why take it so personally, yourself? I already said that I titled the subesctions in that section be interesting, and that I was willing to change them. Now is the content wrong? No, you hate the titles—they don't suit your absolute idealist taste. Therefore it's objectively wrong? Haha.

Make your criticism, make your relevant advice. Apparently you're more concerned with absolute idealism's social darwinism.

Kusername (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CIV, WP:NPA and knock it off. You can familiarize yourself with talk page guidelines WP:TALK while you're at it.—Machine Elf 1735  23:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed those links. One is about civility, and one is about personal attacks. So, yes, how about you yourself get in line with those guidelines, practice what you yourself preach, and yourself "knock it off"? You take personal swipes at me—irrelevant to the topic or to Wikipedia guidelines—and apparently post a propaganda photo, order me what to do, and yet have offered not a single criticism? Your argument is that everyone dislikes the subsection titles? Who are all these people? The funny thing is, even before you quoted them—without showing what's wrong with them—I myself mentioned that issue and explained that I had phrased them to be interesting (not false) but that I was willing to change them. You have omitted critique of my edit contents. Your argument is that it's obvious everybody dislikes them. I looked at the guidelines—you are the one violating them. It says Wikipedia is not an experiment in editor opinion or in democracy, and so your assert of "everyone would agree" with you yourself is irrelevant.

Kusername (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't stray from the "topic", because the topic is scientific realism
The dominant philosophy of science, unacknowledged, is still positivism—and positivism's presumption is uniformitarianism throughout all spheres of knowledge and society—as illustrated in one of the very books on philosophy of science in the reference list (Okasha S). It is accepted by historians and philosophers of science that to understand science, the history, structure, and relations in the society must be examined. If there is a particular criticism, may one make a specific criticism. It will call for a specific criticism, because when scientific realism is debated, one of the main arguments is that society's structure supports the induction that scientists have attained approximate truth. Why is this? Because scarcely anyone is familiar with the historical aspects discussion in the history section.

I'll be glad to hold the discussion about a specific criticism here in the discussion page. Yet I see none. So till then I'm removing the heading. Western history, American history, history of science, and philosophy of science, social sciences is off topic in a section specifically devoted to it? It's in a specific section so that, if one does not with to read it, one need not.

Kusername (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are adding sounds like original synthesis. Please read that guideline carefully and refrain from promoting your own views. StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for offering a specific criticism. That you think it sounds like an original thesis is precisely why I placed it here. It's actually the content of the pure sciences and what scholars indicate. I genuinely do not mean offense, yet if you cannot tell that, that is exactly why I put it all there, and why I cite it all in mainstream literature. This is what's in the literature. This is what's involved in the scientific realism. Why does it take all this history? Precisely because I'm indicating what scholars understand and you presume it's a personal thesis. I'm not "promoting my own views". This is scientific realism. It is a debate—not a party line—and the debate calls for history. What part of the history do you think is false? What part of the scientific debate that I present do you think is false? Please, be my guest to moderate bias or to correct errors. Yet I am not going to pretend that all the propaganda and simplisms are truth unbiased and that somehow I'm promoting "my own views" when I'm actually presenting the mainstream history by scholars and mainstream scientific debate and the intricacies as to scientific realism.

Kusername (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the titles of subsections can be be titled more boring—I did purposefully title them to offer interest scanning—and that will make it more neutral. Yet I genuinely do not see where in any of the Western history I have done but offer thoroughly documented Western history. Again, if it seems like my personal thesis, it is a reflection of how awash in propaganda America is, severely out of touch with well-accepted scholarship.

The only place where I think some of my own opinions as such enter are in the science topics where I evidently betray that I'm rather stumped at the stupendous inductivism still going on in science and and even by many philosophers, such as the myth that "DNA selfreplicates", paranormal chemistry. Yet, in fact, I did not intend to include my own actual theory of biology until my own paper on the topic is published, and I can simply cite it.

Kusername (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving history of science section could be a good idea
Frankly, I think it's a poor idea—that it's a decision made merely because talk of actual history, to understand our culture's ideology, was rather rattling. Yet it is certainly a worthy consideration to move it.

Kusername (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural relativist and yet positivist bias in editing
One edit alleges that the entire section on Western history of society, science, and philosophy of science is "completely off-topic"? So not a single shred of it had anything to do with whether scientific theory offers metaphysical truth about the nature of the world? So how did one oneself obtain knowledge that the entire section was "completely-off topic" if it was not in part through one's own reasoning by scientific theory on the nature of the world and the certainty of one's own judgment?

I hazard that it is relevant to learn that when the current scientific theory about atoms existing—accepted barely 100 years ago—and the prevalent views about microorganisms and viruses and even the human species were evolving, people also thought that masturbation was, as a scientific truth, a disease that needed medical treatment and many felt that best use of the putative scientific truth was to install "scientific experts" in government and help reduce unwanted segments of the human population and omit them from government. I hazard that it is relevant to learn what became of the principle of natural selection and how this shaped society and how that in turn shaped scientific theory of biology, and yet how the principle itself arose through social interplay.

When I look at the putative "blatant examples" of off-topic sections deleted (before they suddenly all became, as quite a shift of either opinion or objective fact, "completely off-topic"), I see it was not even the 20th century's events structuring American society—by far the globe's leader in scientific hegemony after Germany and Austria fell via two world wars—yet that it was simply Western history deleted. That is curious how the definitions and context of democracy, republic, and empire—entwined with the very origin and continuing debate in Western philosophy of science—got deleted. And yet, as I cited in a popular introduction to philosophy of science, the history of science must be reviewed to offer good philosophy of science, and this source presumes, positivistically, that social sciences, such as economics, are part of science.

There are only two widely acknowledged greats of philosophy of science of the 20th century—Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper—and I cited that Kuhn held that the society's history and structure must be examined. I cited a source that reviewed multiple books on philosophy of science, as to determining truth, and concluded that scientific theory is best understood when examining its social interplay. The structure of Western society is not science's field of interplay? Popper himself called most scientific practice outside fundamental physics to be psuedoscience and dogma, and specifically held that society must be critiqued in order to arrive at to greater understanding.

In fact, many physicists and philosophers believe that thoughts and beliefs affect the structure of reality. How? Because most matter and energy are invisible and undetectable. Objects manifest from an invisible—yet detectable—quantum field. And yet observation appears to determine the quantum field's materialized state upon observation, while spacetime warps according to the geometry of objects. This is current science—what I cited in the article in mainstream sources.

If one wants different views represented, which ones does one want—religious or simply personal? That goes under idealism—whose three major variants I reviewed. If one's expertise is religious, then may one contribute it, please, and help remove bias and error, not erase every single trace of discussion that one's own opinion dislikes.

I hazard that most of the other Wikipedia articles on science, particularly fundamental physics, and philosophy are hardly so readable and understandable as this article was in enabling a novice to join the debate as to scientific realism. And I hazard that most discussions in biology—not the one that I offered—are extremely biased to too few opinions, namely to one populist opinion called "Darwin's theory", premising itself on Darwin's social prestige, although Darwin's theory was pangenesis, which in mainstream biology was discarded in favor of August Weismann's neodarwinism. Is this incorrect? If it is, then may one correct it—not delete the social including political and economic aspects that shaped the scientific process in favor of neodarwinist presumption.

Yes, the article needs attention from an expert. That is why, as an expert, I gave it attention. This way, even if the article is long, people can actually use Wikipedia and not merely gawk at it while still confused or stepping away with culturally trained presumptions and biases confirmed. I placed the information each into brief sections for clear structuring, reading, and intake—and to facilitate the content's criticism.

If I do not see discussion posted here—not merely vague complaining and authoritative decrees respecting no other views and calling the different perspectives I already offered "too few opinions"—I intend to restore a review of the history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science. That itself helps a reader criticize both the article's content as well as scientific theory concerning scientific realism.

I shall try to streamline discussion—as I already seek to—yet I certainly do not hold that the point of Wikipedia is to make every article merely look like others. That is called absolute idealism, and fosters nationalism and social darwinism, as the "Scientific realism" article had explained and showed in context. If one had respected the article, one might not be making such severe philosophical errors of democratic fallacy refuting mainstream well-accepted scholarship.

The free encyclopedia need not be boring, unreadable, and uninformative by offering information so scattered that it serves but to confirm the reader's acculturated presumptions.

Kusername (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article ideas
It would be nice to get article ideas. Yet it none others have any. When I got here the article was effectively unreadable—as someone else had commented.

Apparently the main critic now is not so scientifically enlightened to even know what part of the science to criticize. The main critic's position is simply that history is irrelevant to the truth value of scientific theory?

I had filled out the section on the debate between scientific realism and scientific nonrealism: I filled it out with debate and not merely abstract statements. Two of the nonrealist positions—offered before I arrived—are social construction of science and history of error in science. And yet a review of society and history of science is "completely off topic"?

So where—in what article—shall one place the information that I wrote on history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science? I genuinely do not think it fits neatly into history of science or philosophy of science as separate categories. I think that it fits specifically into scientific realism, hence the very section on the different positions—including social constructivism and pessimistic metainduction—and selective variants of scientific realism helping negotiate such issues that, like so, shape scientific realism.

If one checks the citations in the first article section, namely "Scientific realism in brief", it is cited that scientific realism also concerns political science. What historian or political scientist disagrees with the Western history that I offered? Let us have ideas for the article, ways to improve the article, not merely suppression of nearly universally accepted scholarship on the very topics that are central in the debate over scientific realism.

Unsubstantiated disapproval, and thereupon complete deletion of the section giving context to social constructivism and pessimistic metainduction, ensures that the article is nearsighted—as if scientific realism is not a vast and perhaps the globally definitive debate of our time. The section was lengthy but in context it was quite a swift, coherent, and readable review of 2000 years according to all but universally accepted scholarship by historians, economists, and sociologists. If one has other ideas, please, offer them. If others cannot hold this discussion—here—then what is the criticism for but mere personal taste? Other than that, one has to give me a chance to add the citations—not delete content after I cite it.

At this point, however, I am the article's main author. And so I am open to criticism, yet clearly others with relevant knowledge have not taken interest. I remain grateful that most Wikipedia users were helpful, tidying up my citations and typos and such—though I incidentally undid some of the tidying when pasting later information—and someone else added the indication about ontic structural realism, a useful addition. I would like further help—and welcome substantiated criticism.

Kusername (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite strong and opinionated assertions
To sustain the deletion of the entire section on Western history of society, science, and philosophy of science, please, cite in mainstream sources that this is completely off topic as to the debate over scientific realism.

Kusername (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My present strategy
My personality type in Myers-Briggs classification is INXP, half INFP and half INTP. When I think about an issue, I am severely INTP, and so care little for social heuristics, such as social proof and appeal to authority, which logicians recognize as logical fallacies.

And yet out of respect for the Wikipedia community—what has made my contributions here possible—I now indicate my intentions. I shall focus for now on finishing the information on the unresolved aspects of scientific theory in natural science. After that, I shall like to add again the section on history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science (unless it can be cited with relevant scholars that it is irrelevant to scientific realism).

I will gladly take criticism of any of my indications at any point.

Kusername (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My specific criticism is this: every time you include a historical fact, it should be reliable sourced explicitly stating a direct connection, not just to the history of science, but to the realism-antirealism debate. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that your point is your own opinion—and at that now being disguised behind shifting semantics—at contradiction with the established view by philosophers of science on any side of scientific realist discourse. You justified the deletion specifically by stating that the entire section was "completely off-topic". So now you acknowledge that your opinion was incorrect, and that the information is relevant, just poorly arranged in the article?

The section that you deleted opened with multiple sources—published scholarship—including two books by one of the 20th century's two leading philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn, supporting my indication that review of history of Western society and of science is required to present and assay the merits and aspects of scientific realist position. Please, support your sweeping assertions—and sweeping deletions—with citations in scholarship. So far you are merely airing your own personal opinions. The section itself was quite coherent—revealing scientific theory's and philosophy of science's interplay with society.

If some of the statements were biased or incorrect, please, help amend them. Yet right now, I think that your own position is biased, merely opinion, and at conflict with the generally accepted scholarship concerning the premises, scrutiny, and aspects of scientific realism. If you can link, in the Wikipedia article, to other Wikipedia articles offering swiftly the information that I offered, that will be a suitable substitute for the sake of brevity. (And yet the article as I found it was far from swiftly stated.)

For your challenge, however, I thank you. Your challenge shall help me further enhance my focus on swiftness and relevance—and minimizing subjectivity. My opinion, however, is that you yourself are not so enlightened on philosophy and science to even know what, and how, such and such is either relevant or irrelevant. I infer that the topics concerned are not ones you particularly even study to begin with. The information that I presented simply conflicts with your own presumptions—which you presume, although they are unsupported with citation themselves, to be the objective truth—it seems to me.

I think that is the ironic testimony to the relevance of the information that I offered here to the scientific realist debate. Samir Okasha's Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000) opens with a review of history of science and closes the book, the last chapter, with a review of science's relations with society. The section that I offered showed interplay of philosophy, sociology, economics, political science, scientific theory, as well as inferences at its truth value.

Unless you do wish for me to offer an original thesis, I do not need to connect all information as you suggest—as that would be an argument. I was not making an argument—I was reviewing. So I think your criticism is illogical. My opinion is that the information merely has to be relevant to the overall topic—scientific realism—and coherent with itself in its own section of the article. Only if it is much redundant, poorly stated, or biased in itself, then, yes, it ought to be revised. Otherwise, collection into its own section was specifically to enable one to skip it if one wishes to omit such review and merely read about other aspects of scientific realism.

I welcome refutation of the principles and strategy that I posit.

Kusername (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He's citing policy and guidelines, WP:V/WP:OR/WP:SYN… “out of respect for the Wikipedia community”, please take a break and focus on WP:FIVE. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735  22:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Yes, and I am stating how I already met them—relevance stated by the concerned scholars—and how he violated them by asserting as object fact his own mere opinions, uncited, conflicting with indications of the relevant scholars, whom I thoroughly cited. Please, why not practice what you preach and you take a break since, as you yourself indicate, you're not even interested in scientific realism. You're interested in social darwinism.

If you refuse to hold discussion on the discussion page, yet use it instead for taunting and bullying, you are violating Wikipedia's terms. I suggest that you yourself review WP:FIVE:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize your sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,810,628 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and 'sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable.

Kusername (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest checking Wikipedia guidelines
This is not an experiment in democracy.

Kusername (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion to previous consensus version
Since Kusername clearly has not achieved consensus regarding his recent edits, it is appropriate to restore the page to the earlier version. I think Kusername has a lot to offer, but the blend of original synthesis, excessive verbiage and lack of respect for other editors is going to make it difficult for him to work here. StAnselm (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was hoping the same thing. That its gone on for this long is ample evidence that editors interested in scientific realism are nothing to sneeze at… But I'm concerned when there's conspiratory remarks in combination with a grandiose agenda from which a user refuses to deviate. Given the hostile reactions and bizarre name calling, it's hard to entertain the notion of collaborating. I can't say I've read the entire corpus, but all of what I did read was problematic. If there's an alternative, I'm open to it but how else could someone even start to fix it without reverting to some semblance of the article. If there's anything worth salvaging, it's in the history.—Machine Elf 1735  00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

You clearly have not achieved consensus either. Yet Wikipedia, to begin with, is not an experiment in democracy. You're merely spouting your opinions—to controvert the indications that I thoroughly cited with relevant published scholarship.

You say, "Kusername has a lot to offer, but the blend of original synthesis, excessive verbiage and lack of respect for other editors is going to make it difficult for him to work here".

Please, point out the original thesis—delete the original thesis. You swept in deleting thoroughly cited edits to insert your own opinion, uncited. If your conception is respect, then that must be offered, not merely demanded. If you are unfit to recognize the original thesis and excise it, then why are you editing against someone who is familiar with—and has cited in mainstream sources—the very subjects? It is for you, too, to respect an editor.

Kusername (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest checking Wikipedia guidelines
The article was recently revised to a version of Aug 2011 that had tags standing for two years:


 * This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)

For two years? Now all the reverting wouldbe editors are so interested in fixing "Scientific realism" after two years of none having fixed it? Why take this so personally. This is not an experiment in democracy, or editor mere uncited taste. If there are irrelevant or or biased portions to an article, they are to be amended.
 * This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (October 2009)

Kusername (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Open discourse, no?
I get this message in my private message box:

''Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Scientific realism‎‎. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.''

I am quite free to discuss the behavior that specific individuals here exhibit. You, yourself, MachineElf, got personal at me first with your "advice". If you think not, then you have no business claiming that I attacked anyone. Why make this so personal? Till now you have not made a single cogent criticism about my edits, and have made only personal accusations.

Do you have any criticism of my edits, and not merely criticism of my not bowing at your democratic fallacious putdowns at me—and now your claims of personal attacks?

Kusername (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you shamelessly editorialize (WP:NPOV). Your edits are a hodgepodge of poorly researched (WP:UNDUE) and inadequately cited (WP:V) syntheses (WP:SYN) if not original research (WP:OR). This is eclipsed, however, by the sheer volume and absurd lack of focus. You do, of course, clearly see that for yourself, as I've suggested that you compare it to similar articles. If can't see the obvious, or can't acknowledge it, that's hardly an argument in your favor. I advised you a week and half ago that it's a train wreak. When you noticed the post today, you failed to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and dismissed it (WP:IDHT). When I later recommended that you take a break to review (WP:FIVE) because the editor you were personally attacking (WP:NPA) had simply cited basic policy, you became belligerent (WP:CIV) and started making up obnoxious accusations about me too (WP:NPA). I told you to knock it off. Having noticed that you remove your earlier attacks, I pointed out the talk page guidelines (WP:TALK). Is that enough “criticism” for you?
 * Please stop complaining about the two user warnings you've received from me. Read what they say and take their advice.
 * And please stop digging through my talk page for science–dirt to cross post here with paranoid stories about (LOL, what was it?) “absolute idealism”… please drink responsibly.—Machine Elf 1735  03:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Don't post your science fiction on my talk page either.—Machine Elf 1735  03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If I "shamelessly editorialize", then, please, show an example. Show the many examples, then.

You're making a lot of claims, issuing your opinions, without explanation. You keep up with this allegation of my personal attacks. In your first statement about me, you offered not a single bit of constructive criticism, merely said you dislike my edits, and you posted a propaganda photo mocking them. When, without attacking you, I simply asked for criticism, you explained none, simply said "everyone would agree" with you, and you suggested that I go write at a blog instead. You think that is following Wikipedia guidelines? I think that you talk far too much about your own interpretations of people's intentions—yet your inductivism is riddled with your own presumptions that you cannot tell from objective fact.

You're claiming what is "obvious", but it's so obvious you cannot explain it? Your argument is called absolute idealism—utterly inconsistent with scientific realism. Maybe if you had read more of the article—since you confessed that you did not finish reading but found every single part that you read "problematic"—you would not be so confused still. You're trying to be a logical positivist, yet are stumbling at the most foundational error—the problem of induction.

It explained what democracy is. StAnselm deleted that, and then you asserted that I violated Wikipedia guidelines since the article did not look like others, and that my subsection titles—the only examples you offered—would be offer "everyone" the opinion that they are severely flawed. And yet the Wikipedia guidelines guidelines said democracy is not supported here at Wikipedia, and it said that being bold (simply not reckless) was a virtue, and that the rules are not rigid. In any case, you're in utter violation of Wikipedia guidelines, because it said Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy (rule by majority vote).

Absolute idealism led to nationalism and social darwinism and the very negative eugenics movement that dominated Western applied biology in the early 20th century [Farber SA, "U.S. scientists' role in the eugenics movement (1907-1939): A contemporary biologist's perspective", Zebrafish, 2008 Dec;5(4):243-5]. If your own interpretation is that it is a problem to discuss this, then so be be it. Yet you seem particularly to match philosophy of science with the endeavor to weed out what you personally dislike by your own unsubstantiated opinions.

You say, "I told you to knock it". And I asked you to knock of your behavior as well, since you are violating Wikipedia guidelines. You seek to impose your mere opinions—uncited. You told me to knock it off? You are shamelessly speak as if you are an authority figure. That lacks legitimacy in science and philosophy. You evidently cannot even tell what criticism—in the scholarly sense—is. You say, " Having noticed that you remove your earlier attacks, I pointed out the talk page guidelines (WP:TALK). Is that enough criticism for you?"

No, that's a merely a claim. Let me put it like this. Criticism is otherwise known as critique. If you had read the article, you might be less willing to escalate commitment to your misguided philosophy of science. If I removed my "attack", then obviously you can go back and find it, and show it. It's in the record. Why just say when you ca cite it?

Kusername (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we back in preschool?
Earlier I had got a post by MagicElf on my talk page—telling me to not attack people. I responded not on MagicElf's talk page but in the open here. Putting no response here, MagicElf then repeats the message on my talk page. So I post a response on the talk page of MagicElf—who undoes the edit while saying not to post on MagicElf's talk page.

In the meantime, I see the earlier comments on this page from MagicElf were updated to tell me to "knock it off" (supposedly attacking people).

The second post by MagicElf on my talk page says, "Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Scientific realism‎‎. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing".

That is my point exactly. So, please, practice it, not merely impose it yet flout it. What is the premise for asking whether I had ever considered blogging, and all the talk about my behavior if no one else's behavior can be assessed too? If that is the case, then drop the talk of my behavior and discuss article content—and practice what you preach and cite indications to justify overriding what was cited in an edit—not merely state that an editor was outvoted as a putative "consensus" without citation that the very premise of the "consensus" is consistent with scholarship or Wikipedia guidelines.

MagicElf on this discussion page had directed me to Wikipedia's five guidelines. I posted them here: they say Wikipedia is not a forum for opinion or an experiment in democracy. MagicElf promptly reverted my post, explaining that I was making inappropriate use of the discussion page. So a propaganda photo and blatant flouting of the Wikipedia guidelines—while ordering me to meet them—is proper use of this page? I reverted the version and asked for the citation that it is forbidden to quote Wikipedia guidelines here.

Kusername (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a war on information by democratic fallacy and suppression?
MagicElf reverted my post, called "I think this is relevant:" on this discussion page whereby I showed that MagicElf had been accused of imposing MagicElf's opinion to override mainstream science. In that discussion between one Nvallego and MagicElf, at notable length MagicElf justified MagicElf's action by review of the putative intentions, emotions, and disgruntlement of Nvallego—what MagicElf has continually done to me as well—and argument againset the person by claiming that neither of them are Nobelists, and so on.

I do not hold that accusation shows guilt, yet to me it warrants examination, as I sensed a pattern. I find not the dispute's origin, and do not posit who was correct. It seemed to me that Nvallego was confused as to the epistemologic scientific realist certainty of quantum uncertainty, whereas MagicElf simply altogether misunderstood quantum mechanics. MagicElf set out to refute Nvallego's statement the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically.

MagicElf says, "I'm not a scientist, so given the way you immodestly tout your superior prowess, I can only suppose the particles winking hither and thither must be great lulz", suggesting that elementary particles do not fleet into and out of existence and leap without traveling on observable spacetime? It is simply basic quantum field theory that a single particle superpositions into an infinite array, and lacks definite commitment at any point in time to a single spot, and that they can jump distances without traveling in between, the very explanation of the spectral lines as the quantum leap. If that is what MagicElf is refuting, that is standard model of quantum field theory.

I looked, on MagicElf's talk page, at two issues—both involving theoretical science. In the other one MagicElf blatantly ignored current scientific theory to assert MagicElf's opinion of probable truth. Someone asked, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Machine_Elf_1735#Multiverse "Is the Multiverse theory the most likely explanation of the composition/structure of space? Pass a Method talk 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)". MagicElf answers, "Not really, see philosophy of space and time...Machine Elf 1735 23:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)"].

How informative is that? Many worlds interpretation is one mainstream interpretation held by scientists. Max Tegmark (2007) has indicated that if quantum physics is universally true, it justifies the inference that parallel universes exist [Tegmark M, "Many lives in many worlds", Nature, 2007 Jul 5;448:23-4]. (If quantum field theory does not universal hold, then all bets are off, as virtually all electronics and explanation of matter and energy are based on it.)

Many words theory is over 50 years old, and had not been refuted, while some assess mounting data supporting it as probably true ["The many worlds theory today", Nova, Public Broadasting Service, 21 Oct 2008]. Many worlds theory is mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Scientific realism" right now—the Aug 2011 version—apparently not clearly explained for consideration as one of the great issues to contend with in scientific realism.  Was my explaining many world's theory one of my putative original theses?

Wikipedia's guidelines, as shown to me by MagicElf, specifically exclude democratic vote by opinion uncited. That principle seems to me incompatible with suppressing examination of information considered by virtually all relevant scholars to be relevant to the very foundation and structure of positions and debate on scientific realism to begin with. Asserting that Wikipedia articles need to "look" alike and that that articles are posted by editor "consensus"—although there clearly is not consensus here and I'm the only one with citations in mainstream literature—is violation of the Wikipedia guidelines, as cited to me and told to me to follow. When I posted and cited the guidelines, then, MagicElf asserts that that is "inappropriate" and reverts that post of mine too.

What Wikipedia guideline is that?

Kusername (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't remember the last time I've had such a good long laugh. I have your martyr, Nvallego, to thank for that, though I usually remember him for his : “You dickheads are in for bad karma. Big behind your keyboards, control freaks with ownership complexes. Screwed up the site from the start, looking at all of the posts. Don't find me on the street...” (I guess I wouldn't be thanking him for long in a dark alley). The unkind prospect of your continued attention would indeed be unwelcome. Shall we rise? Is the court now in session? User talk:Machine Elf 1735 The defense rests.
 * (Breaking news, you've applied for an arbcom case. In other news, wrong, that's not what I alleged, and I told you exactly what I meant by bizarre name-calling. Of course, I do edit the Magic (paranormal) article, don't make me turn your milk sour. I can't imagine that you need it, but per your request, these diffs came readily to hand: where you remove, “And I now have shown that MachineElf wishes to exclude the views of U.S. Presidents.” LOL, which had been inserted about 40 minutes beforehand:  into a post twice as old: ).
 * It's self-evident that you're personally attacking me, vigorously and often. Now that I've read the latest draft of your fan-fic, I see that having gone so far out your way to fabricate this character assassination/intellectual suicide, it's only fitting the antagonist should bother to gloat. However, in perfectly good faith, the prosecution recognizes that when suffering delusions of competency, “then all bets are off, as virtually all electronics and explanation of matter and energy are based on it.”
 * You've picked a minor point, but you neglect to mention the problem with Nvallego's curious statement was that his citation failed WP:V: “the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically” [sic] Contrary to what you say, the majority of that post was a detailed treatment of his edit, thus your ad hominem by ad hominem is well and truly botched. Did you bother to find out what WP:3RR is? It means Nvallego was edit warring… and no doubt, you'd launch into a screed about democracy if I told you the WP:CONSENSUS was against his changes, but, in fact, I to look at Nvallego's edits. So how is it you construe that as “imposing MagicElf's opinion to override mainstream science”?
 * Nvallego wasn't confused about “epistemologic scientific realist certainty of quantum uncertainty” [sic] and I don't need five different lectures, so I'll let that slide… poor confused “realist” Nvallego, you continue:
 * “whereas MagicElf simply altogether misunderstood quantum mechanics”. “MagicElf set out to refute Nvallego's statement the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically”
 * Rubbish. You too can “can only suppose the particles winking hither and thither must be great lulz” i.e., shits and giggles. Clearly, I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics, but anyone who's knows the first thing about the Copenhagen interpretation could tell you: the particle has no positions to speak of, none are even more probable than the others unless a measurement collapses the wave function.
 * lulz! He totally nailed you son. I gotta admit, it is pretty funny… Why are you questioning my intentions regarding a series asinine things that popped into your head?
 * Lecture ensues with muddled concepts, peculiar terms and, as always, conspicuous WTF: Do you even know QFT and QM aren't the same thing? “If that is what MagicElf is refuting, that is standard model of quantum field theory.” By what magic could you possibly infer an attempt to refute the entire f-ing standard model? It's suppose to be QM that “MagicElf simply altogether misunderstood”. Have you no shame?
 * But wait, there's more. Not surprisingly, that statement was quite beside the point Nvallego was trying to make: nothing less than the unequivocal characterization of the wave function as “imaginary” (in the mathematical sense) and thus not “real”, (lulz) regardless of a mainstream interpretation that quite famously posits a fundamental reality behind the wave function… Many Worlds, which you enthusiastically endorse (as a realist should, congratz).
 * As you discovered, I'm am aware of Many Worlds, Tegmark, Multiverse, etc… (but please, lecture me anyway). What's rich is you miss where I helped that user keep the Multiverse in the Universe article lede, and follow-up his question with info on an obscure multiverse theory that actually is based on the “composition/structure of space” (in contrast to Many Worlds). Following the lecture about how unhelpful I was, like I'm the quack guru, you segue into paranoia that what you wrote about Many Worlds might have been my real motive for reverting your entire corpus (I don't know who squealed, but none of us dickheads knew it was in there, the order came down from the control freaks).
 * You sum up by harping on your suspiciously conspicuous misreads of policy and guidelines “as shown to [you] by MagicElf”. They didn't turn into pumpkins did they? Try reading them again.—Machine Elf 1735  06:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why I sought to make the article a "train wreck"
This responds to a post by MachineElf diff, yet is in its own section because I think it gets to the very foundation and framework of this article, and reveals what kinds of confusions I was trying to help an average reader overcome to be able to at least enter scientific realist discourse.


 * I had searched your page only for signs of your interest in and grasp of theoretical science. If you edit an article on magic, perhaps I noticed subconciously and thus called you MagicElf, an accident. I apologize for using a name unlike the one you use. On the alleged bizarre namecalling, I believe that allegation plainly false, perhaps another confusion. Yet if you find it, we can review that elsewhere.


 * Three of the four fundamental interactions identified in mainstream physics are quantum. In philosophy of science, fundamental physics is science called fundamental science, the foundation of all other sciences, which are special sciences having special vocabularies. So quantum theory is essential for a discussion of scientific realism. My expertise in natural science is mainly in biology. I took interest in physics to explain phenomena in biology. I am no quantum pundit, as I am only now starting to learn mathematics. Yet I claim a sound grasp of quantum theory's main described phenomena and the explanatory principles offered at them, and claim that I continually seek and welcome correction of my errors—with explanation.


 * Quantum field theory (QFT) is, strictly speaking, different from quantum mechanics (QM). Yet even theoretical physicists loosely refer to QFT as QM [Alan Sokal, "Don't pull the string on superstring theory"—paragraph 3, New York Times, 22 Jul 1996]. Strictly speaking QM is explained by QFT and so QM is simply one aspect of QFT—what emerged from QM [Schwarz JH, "Recent developments in superstring theory"—fig 1, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1998 Mar 17;95(6):2750-7].  Likewise, classical mechanics can be either netwonian or relative—and relativity can be either special or general—while one infers which by context.  In the article that I wrote, I explained that words are polysemous, and that semantics—the fixation of meaning to words—can shift. That way readers of the "Scientific realism" article might avoid being deceived on a statement's either truth or falsity through flexibility of terminology.


 * The Wikipedia article "Wave function" explains, "The most common symbols for a wave function are ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi). Although ψ is a complex number, |ψ|2 is real, and corresponds to the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time, if the particle's position is measured. [...] The wave function is absolutely central to quantum mechanics: it makes the subject what it is. Also, it is the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in what quantum mechanics means in nature, and even how nature itself behaves at the atomic scale and beyond—which continue in debate to this day".


 * It is not thought in mainstream interpretation that the particle is not anywhere until measurement. The particle is not with certainty at an single location—quantum uncertainty.  The wave/particle duality yields a probability wave of probability that the particle is at any specific location—at a specific instant—within the quantum field, the expanse of spacetime. It was originally presumed, yet unexplained how, observation/measurement collapses the wavefunction, and leaves only the particle for observed certainty of the particle's location.  In mainstream intepretation the particle existed before observation. It deposited evidence of having been everywhere in the entire field, just not with equal probability at each instant in a location.  In mainstream interpretation, before observation/measurement, the particle was leaping from place to place—and existing in multiple places at once—without passing in between.  If one measures only a single location, the particle will be either there or not there—it is flickering all over the place yet not definitely at any single location.


 * So I think that the dispute between you and Nvallego has a rather simple source. You are talking about a single location, whereas Nvallego was talking about an entire field. The formal quantum mechanics is understood to be but a single aspect of a quantum field theory. M Kuhlmann explains, "In a rather informal sense QFT is the extension of QM (dealing with particles) over to fields. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.) The tools of QFT allow us to treat physical systems that have an infinite number of degrees of freedom. Its mathematical structure allows to analyse the creation and annihilation of 'particles' like electrons and photons. QFT is relativistically invariant in a way which is not possible in QM" [Meinard Kuhlmann, "Quantum Field Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 edn), Edward N Zalta (ed)].


 * Yet, ultimately, the very conception that the particle even exists as a single entity superpositioning into multiple locations is interpretation—human language. Loop theory, a posited theory of everything, offers far different explanation at the observation—the particle is not jumping from place to place yet spacetime itself, or what gives rise to it, is transforming into particles at multiple locations—why I said Nvallego seemed to me to express excess epistemologic certainty about the mainstream explanation of quantum uncertainty.


 * I was not trying to comment on your entire debate with the individual, or who was ultimately right. I was indicating that refuting the principle that a subatomic particle leaps from position to position without traveling in between is refuting a core principle of standard model quantum field theory. Whether it is true is an utterly different matter. I was pointing out simply that you were refuting mainstream scientific theory—not that it was true.


 * So I don't think that my article was a "train wreck" or that I was placing "undue weight" on topics, or indicating anything "completely off-topic". Yes, I did look at other articles before editing "Scientific realism". I specifically decided to remedy their shortcomings—impenetrability, unclear language, excess certainty in science, extreme vagueness on the historically, socially, and psychologically mediated nature of presumptions—to enable the average reader to at least enter scientific realist discourse. It requires pure philosophy, including logic, history, and social sciences—economics, political science, and sociology—to avoid such clashes due to excess certainty in inductive reasoning.


 * It takes a vast range of information, well structured, to enable the average reader to even join the scientific realist discourse without getting lost upon prior heuristics—mental shortcuts to guide conclusions—via unconfessed fundamental scientific theories presumed as irrefutable truths of objective reality. The very notion that the wave/function even collapses not confirmed, merely presumed. Thus many words theory explains that it never collapsed, and that the thing "collapsed" is our power of observation. Data of observable objects detected in superposition and the "discovery" of dark energy—most energy in our universe being undetectable—have certainly not refuted many worlds theory.


 * You say, "But wait, there's more. Not surprisingly, that statement was quite beside the point Nvallego was trying to make: nothing less than the unequivocal characterization of the wave function as "imaginary" (in the mathematical sense) and thus not 'real', (lulz) regardless of a mainstream interpretation that quite famously posits a fundamental reality behind the wave function… Many Worlds, which you enthusiastically endorse (as a realist should, congratz)".


 * The quantum field wave is a mathematic depiction of probabilility—a concept—not a literal wave. It mathematically describes the distribution of statistical probability that the particle is at any of those locations in the quantum field at any instant. The particle is not traveling in a continuous wave.  The particle is superpositioning at multiple places at once in the quantum field. Upon measurement/observation, it fixes at one location—or that is false and there is another explanation. I did not "enthusiastically endorse" many worlds theory. Rather, I was characterizing exhibited bias against it—understandable after a flat denial of QFT—ye think that loop theory might explain the phenomena.


 * Yet, as I cited in one article—theoretical physics discussed in Economistmagazine—in 2006 some 90% of theoretical physicists were superstring theorisets. I gave much more examination of superstring theory. My own stance as to scientific realism is variously between critical scientific realism and instrumentalism.  I cognitively take, yet always question, as I am a falsificationist, a critical scientific realism at some theories, usually my own, what I did not even begin to offer here at Wikipedia—the theories I offered were simply major scientific theories published—yet logically defend only instrumentalism.  I think that the allegations that I made "objective synthesis" or "original research" or "undue weight" or "too few views" and that I was "completely off-topic" are baseless opinions formed by mere presumption that the acculturated heuristic rules are infallible. Kusername (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the article, but this talk page is certainly a train wreck. I can't remember ever seeing one so hard to follow. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you explain what portions you find particularly difficult to understand, perhaps we can begin to form a better article—instead of have one up that has already been explained by several readers as itself virtually unreadable. I don't think that many of the articles on physics and philosophy, or often even on biology, are easy for readers to understand. The key issue here is how to try to make a readable article well informative. Wikipedia guidelines say to try—not to worry about flawlessness. So will you share with us your suggestion of how to explain quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and theories of everything within the context of their truth value? Kusername (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you explain what portions you find particularly difficult to understand, perhaps we can begin to form a better article—not have one up already been explained by several readers as virtually useless. I think most articles on physics and philosophy, and often on biology, are arcane to novices. Unlike my above explanation, my article had a very clear structure to introduce the reader to the terms that above apparently confuse you.


 * The key issue here is how to try to make a readable article well informative. Wikipedia guidelines say to try—not to worry about flawlessness.  So will you share with us your suggestion of how to explain quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and theories of everything within the context of their truth value? I encourage constructive criticism and suggestions—supported with either citation or explanation.


 * Yet some topics are simply not of interest to a particular individual. For instance, I do not storm in without discussion and delete massive sections of articles about knitting and sewing and condemning their efforts simply because I cannot understand it as a novice on the topic. Yet if I wished to learn, perhaps they could use some of my constructive criticism—not merely complaining—to themselves draft a better article using their own knowledge. Kusername (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. You've responded in three paragraphs, on your second attempt, and still seem to have missed my point completely. I was talking about this talk page, not the article. I'm afraid we're totally beyond asking for outside help now, since it's unreasonable to expect a new person to read through all these talk page comments. StAnselm (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[This post is lengthy since since it illustrates what kinds of confusions I was trying to help an average reader overcome to be able to at least enter scientific realist discourse.]

MachineElf, I had searched your page only for signs of your interest in and grasp of theoretical science. If you edit an article on magic, perhaps I noticed subconciously and thus called you MagicElf, an accident. I apologize for using a name unlike the one you use. On the alleged bizarre namecalling, I believe that allegation plainly false, perhaps another confusion. Yet if you find it, we can review that elsewhere.

Three of the four fundamental interactions identified in mainstream physics are quantum. In philosophy of science, fundamental physics is called fundamental science, the foundation of all other sciences, which are special sciences having special vocabularies. So quantum theory is essential for a discussion of scientific realism. My expertise in natural science is mainly in biology. I took interest in physics to explain phenomena in biology. I am no quantum pundit, as I am only now starting to learn mathematics. Yet I claim a sound grasp of quantum theory's main described phenomena and the explanatory principles offered at them, and claim that I continually seek and welcome correction of my errors—with explanation.

Quantum field theory (QFT) is, strictly speaking, different from quantum mechanics (QM). Yet even theoretical physicists loosely refer to QFT as QM [Alan Sokal, "Don't pull the string on superstring theory"—paragraph 3, New York Times, 22 Jul 1996]. Strictly speaking QM is explained by QFT and so QM is simply one aspect of QFT—what emerged from QM [Schwarz JH, "Recent developments in superstring theory"—fig 1, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1998 Mar 17;95(6):2750-7]. Likewise, classical mechanics can be either newtonian or relative—and relativity can be either special or general—while one infers which by context. In the article that I wrote, I explained that words are polysemous, and that semantics—the fixation of meanings to words—can shift. That way readers of the "Scientific realism" article might avoid being deceived on a statement's either truth or falsity through flexibility of terminology.

The Wikipedia article "Wave function" explains, "The most common symbols for a wave function are ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi). Although ψ is a complex number, |ψ|2 is real, and corresponds to the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time, if the particle's position is measured. [...] The wave function is absolutely central to quantum mechanics: it makes the subject what it is. Also, it is the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in what quantum mechanics means in nature, and even how nature itself behaves at the atomic scale and beyond—which continue in debate to this day".

You say, "Clearly, I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics, but anyone who's knows the first thing about the Copenhagen interpretation could tell you: the particle has no positions to speak of, none are even more probable than the others unless a measurement collapses the wave function". That is false in QFT where the probability is recorded by the deposition on the detection board before observation/measurement—while the quantum field is still occurring.

It is not thought in mainstream interpretation that the particle is not anywhere until measurement. The particle is not with certainty at an single location—quantum uncertainty. The wave/particle duality yields a probability wave of probability that the particle is at any specific location—at a specific instant—within the quantum field, the expanse of spacetime. It was originally presumed, yet unexplained how, observation/measurement collapses the wavefunction, and leaves only the particle for observed certainty of the particle's location. In mainstream intepretation the particle existed before observation. It deposited evidence of having been everywhere in the entire field, just not with equal probability at each instant in a location. In mainstream interpretation, before observation/measurement, the particle was leaping from place to place—and existing in multiple places at once—without passing in between. If one measures only a single location, the particle will be either there or not there—it is flickering all over the place yet not definitely at any single location.

So I think that the dispute between you and Nvallego has a rather simple source. You are talking about a single location, whereas Nvallego was talking about an entire field. The formal quantum mechanics is understood to be but a single aspect of a quantum field theory. M Kuhlmann explains, "In a rather informal sense QFT is the extension of QM (dealing with particles) over to fields. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.) The tools of QFT allow us to treat physical systems that have an infinite number of degrees of freedom. Its mathematical structure allows us to analyse the creation and annihilation of 'particles' like electrons and photons. QFT is relativistically invariant in a way which is not possible in QM" [Meinard Kuhlmann, "Quantum field theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 edn), Edward N Zalta (ed)].

Yet, ultimately, the very conception that the particle even exists as a single entity superpositioning into multiple locations is interpretation—human language. Loop theory, a posited theory of everything, offers far different explanation at the observation—the particle is not jumping from place to place yet spacetime itself, or what gives rise to it, is transforming into particles at multiple locations—why I said Nvallego seemed to me to express excess epistemologic certainty about the mainstream explanation of quantum uncertainty.

I did not comment on your entire debate with Nvallego—what most of your arguments are now about—and I said I did not claim who was ultimately right. I indicated that if you were refuting the principle that a subatomic particle leaps from position to position without traveling in between, then you are refuting a core principle held for standard model quantum field theory. Whether it is true is an utterly different matter. I said simply that you were refuting mainstream scientific theory if you were disputing that single statement by Nvallego—the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically—not that it was true or that Nvallego was justified on anything else.

So I don't think that my article was a "train wreck" or that I was placing "undue weight" on topics, or indicating anything "completely off-topic". Yes, I did look at other articles before editing "Scientific realism". I specifically decided to remedy their shortcomings—impenetrability, unclear language, excess certainty in science, extreme vagueness on the historically, socially, and psychologically mediated nature of presumptions—to enable the average reader to at least enter scientific realist discourse. It requires pure philosophy, including logic, history, and social sciences—economics, political science, and sociology—to avoid such clashes due to excess certainty in inductive reasoning.

It takes a vast range of information, well structured, to enable the average reader to even join the scientific realist discourse without getting lost upon prior heuristics—mental shortcuts to guide conclusions—via unconfessed fundamental scientific theories presumed as irrefutable truths of objective reality. The very notion that the wave/function even collapses upon observation/measurement is—to begin with—not confirmed, merely presumed ["The many worlds theory today", Nova, Public Broadasting Service, 21 Oct 2008]. Thus [[many worlds interpretation|many worlds theory]] explains that it never collapsed, and that the thing "collapsed" is our power of observation. Data of observable objects detected in superposition [Brumfiel G, "Scientists supersize quantum mechanics", Nature, 17 Mar 2010], and the "discovery" of dark energy—most energy in our universe being undetectable—have certainly not refuted many worlds theory.

You say, "But wait, there's more. Not surprisingly, that statement was quite beside the point Nvallego was trying to make: nothing less than the unequivocal characterization of the wave function as "imaginary" (in the mathematical sense) and thus not 'real', (lulz) regardless of a mainstream interpretation that quite famously posits a fundamental reality behind the wave function… Many Worlds, which you enthusiastically endorse (as a realist should, congratz)".

The quantum field wave is a mathematic depiction of probabilility—a concept—not a literal wave. It mathematically describes the distribution of statistical probability that the particle is at any of those locations in the quantum field at any instant. The particle is not traveling in a continuous wave. The particle is superpositioning at multiple places at once in the quantum field. Upon measurement/observation, it fixes at one location—or that is false and there is another explanation. I did not "enthusiastically endorse" many worlds theory. Rather, I was characterizing exhibited bias against it—understandable after a flat denial of QFT—yet think that loop theory might explain the phenomena. Yet, as I cited in one article—theoretical physics discussed in Economist magazine—in 2006 some 90% of theoretical physicists were superstring theorists. I gave much more examination of superstring theory.

My own stance as to scientific realism is variously between critical scientific realism and instrumentalism. I cognitively take yet always question, as my methodology and inference is largely falsificationism, a critical scientific realism at some theories, usually my own, what I did not even begin to offer here at Wikipedia—the theories I offered were simply major scientific theories published—yet logically defend only instrumentalism. I think that the allegations that I made "orignal synthesis" or "original research" or "undue weight" or "shameless editorializing" or "too few views" and that I was "completely off-topic" are baseless opinions formed by mere presumption that acculturated heuristic rules are infallible and so "obviously" I am wrong, wrong, wrong and just making things up and "ethusiastically endors[ing]" a statement simply because I state clearly that it is a mainstream interpretation, held by the relevant scientists, both logical and unfalsified.

Such statements about me reveal far more enthusiastic scientific realist commitment via particular favored scientific theories than I care to hold for any single scientific theory. As my focus is theoretical science, my position is fallibilist and welcomes refutation so that I can see the flaws in my own theory. I hold that scientific theory can potentially approximate truth in certain aspects of the natural world—by offering positive suggestions while eliminating absolute errors—not positively determine absolute, irrefutable truths. That methodology and inference is positivism, which tries to structure a framework of irrefutable facts upon a bedrock of irrefutable truths, themselves laid by inductivism as irrefutable foundation, hence foundationalism.

As Karl Popper, oddly not mentioned in the article now, explains, any observation can host over one explanation, why the problem of induction—going back to David Hume in 1731—is known as the mother of all problems. Thus scientific realism has been the prime discussion in philosophy of science for 100 years. I think the scientific realism article needs review of all these issues to enable a reader to even grasp the issues involved. It takes a train to collapse a brick building—a framework of selected facts, asserted as irrefutable proof of positive truth, upon an irrefutable foundation of inductions—to enable one to even enter the philosophical discourse, not merely recite one's own brand of unconfessed scientific realism and demand with it to rule all areas of knowledge, whether physical, biologic, cognitive, social, or psychologic. Kusername (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making the talk page a "train wreck" too?

 * Really? A WP:TENDENTIOUS defense of your personal attack based on nothing but foolish lies about an unrelated incident? Still an attempt to “override mainstream science”, U.S. Presidents, the Standard Model, Q words for 300 K?
 * “yet is in its own section because [you] think it gets to the very foundation and framework of this article” You think this is the Wave function article? Or no, “The quantum field wave” article? Would lying through your teeth be the foundation or the framework? How should I respond to the relentless “flat denial of QFT” absent both denial and QFT?
 * You believe StAnselm reverted 3 months your prolific output, do you? It's amazing that you're not even upset. I think it would be reasonable to expect someone to be quite sore about that. In fact, I would have expected, having done that, that I ought to give the editor a wide berth. Now, concerning your Many Worlds “original thesis” vis-à-vis “characterizing [my] exhibited bias against it—understandable after a flat denial of QFT”: it's obvious from my talk page and edit history that I'm a big fan of Many Worlds, Tegmark, Multiverse, etc. and the motive is a lie you made up. So tell me, if you believe I've only reverted a bit of your talk page spam as opposed to your entire corpus, and you never really believed I was motivated by your “original thesis” then what possible “malice” or motive would I have? Your arbitration request opened with a desperate plea:
 * “I did not apply specific alternatives because I think I'm being threatened unreasonably, perhaps maliciously, with ban from Wikipedia for my making the most trivial trespasses of NPA—so trivial that it's dubious they're even genuine trespasses—while the user making these warnings and threats is violating NPA severely to justify these accusative and menacing actions.”
 * You dig out a post from an edit war sock screaming bloody murder, and you start posting it here in a cheep attempt to smear me (revenge). So you get reverted and you get an npa user warning template on your talk page. (How many iterations?) Tendentious to a fault, you shamelessly pump it up with lies and bullshit, and now, even though you know how naïvely transparent it is: you're still willing (short of admitting it) to go against the consensus of the physicists at wave function and despite getting it bass-ackwards, an extended lapse of intellectual and moral integrity looks ok to you? Trivial? Dubious? Anyone who believes such cockamamie bullshit has it coming?
 * These so-called administrativish powers you claim I wield? Funny how you don't jump to that conclusion anywhere here on the talk page… your spam is usually so repetitive. Who's to say the neutrally worded standard npa template messages didn't (all but literally) strike you as officially threatening to “ban” you. Prior to this post, that word had appeared on this talk page only once, in the context of drugs and the FDA. But you managed to use it no less than 4 times when lying to arbcom. Wanna know how many times the word “block” appears? Once, now. No one except you said you can't edit the article. In fact, apart from standard user threaten templates, I believe the only threat you've actually received was MagicElf threatening to turn your milk sour (don't make him do it). so much WTF, so little time, but I simply must get to your faux-science…
 * Not even wrong: “The wave/particle duality yields a probability wave of probability that the particle is at any specific location—at a specific instant—within the &#x5B;&#x5B;quantum field&#x5D;&#x5D;, the expanse of spacetime.” etc. etc.
 * According to you, Nvallego is “ultimately right” and actual physicists are wrong… “superimposing Kusername's position to override real science” (don't you wish it was my dispute).
 * Revisionist history… you did not say: “Nvallego seemed to me to express excess &#x5B;&#x5B;epistemology&#x7C;epistemologic&#x5D;&#x5D; certainty about the mainstream explanation of &#x5B;&#x5B;quantum uncertainty&#x5D;&#x5D;.”


 * This does not follow from what precedes it: “So I don't think that my article was a "train wreck" or that I was placing "undue weight" on topics, or indicating anything "completely off-topic".” That's 3 out of 4 reasons you don't WP:OWN it anymore.


 * You so don't get it: “…that the thing "collapsed" is our power of observation.”
 * Why do you say “have certainly not refuted” as if I had said dark matter etc ‘certainly do refute’ Many Worlds?
 * If by “The quantum field wave”[lulz] you mean the wave function which is what we're supposedly discussing, it's not a “mathematic depiction of probabilility” (and FYI, the mainstream Many Worlds interpretation does not see it as just a “concept”). Wrong, that's not what it “mathematically describes”, the square of the amplitude gives the probability according to the Born rule.
 * I didn't say the particle is “traveling in a continuous wave” or anything even remotely similar. Dude! superpositioning, it says right there, that's how they roll…
 * You can talk about the ‘collapse’ or ‘reduction’ of the wave function, or say the observable is highly localized, but you wouldn't want to say “fixed” because that's impossible due to uncertainty. Try decoherence.
 * Edited a physics article? “I gave much more examination of &#x5B;&#x5B;M theory&#x7C;superstring theory&#x5D;&#x5D;.” Diff or full of shit?
 * Oh? Any particular reason why you're not editing instrumentalism? No one accused you of “"objective synthesis"” or objective anything, hello.
 * You consider the “allegation” that you're completely off-topic “baseless opinions formed by mere presumption that the acculturated heuristic rules are infallible”. Like self-evident, unless you live in a tree?—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A single particle/wave traveling a single pathway in spacetime's geometry exhibits a tranverse wave, a physical phenomenon. Quantum field theory is not a physical description but encodes the probability density of finding a wave/particle at each location across an entire field, and the probability density happens to resemble a wave, too, if mathematic wave, as the probabilities are not arbitary across a field. The mathematically depicted wave in QFT is for prediction of phenomena in an entire field—formalism of scientific theory—whereas Hugh Everett's many worlds adds interpretation to resolve the field's conflict with classical mechanics. Again, you are simply talking about a different topic: either how a single wave/particle moves in physical transverse waves or how a particle might or might not be at a specific location when measurement is attempted at that single location in spacetime. Kusername (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I get the so-called "name-calling".
I called you MagicElf because I thought that was your name. My god—talk about taking things personally. If you truly felt offended by that, then I apologize for the mistake, though I hazard that that was not the putative attack I made, since later you allege that I revised my post to remove. Though I assert that you're lying more about me, I also offer that, if I deleted it myself, isn't that self correction?

And, yes, I will continue talking here because you post messages on my talk page but when I posted on yours, you told me to not post on it. And you sit here and order me to "Knock it off" because you told me to. And you're trying to impose your philosophical and scientific errors on the Wikipedia article and so trying to limit other people's knowledge to yours.

Kusername (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not endearing you to us at all - indeed, you have some work to do now convincing us that you are editing in good faith. You got on the wrong side of me when you said in the edit summary "the previous editor, whose user page I see concerns mainly religion and not history, philosophy of science, or science, is carried away with opinions." This seems to insinuate that I wasn't qualified to edit the article. As it turns out, I have studied philosophy of science at university level, so of course I was familiar with the topic. We do need to clear up the issue of personal attacks before we can deal with content issues. To put it frankly, we are not going to talk with you if you cannot be civil. This includes jumping to conclusions about editor's knowledge, beliefs and personal preferences. For example, you said, presumably to MachineElf, "you hate the titles—they don't suit your absolute idealist taste." That is absurdly jumping to conclusions about another editor - and it has no place on Wikipedia. Other comments have included (reading down the page):
 * "more whining and propaganda photos?"
 * "the main critic now [StAnselm?] is not so scientifically enlightened to even know what part of the science to criticize"
 * "you're not even interested in scientific realism. You're interested in social darwinism."
 * "You are shamelessly speak as if you are an authority figure."
 * "Are we back in preschool?"
 * Finally, the way you have devoted whole sections to specifically address another editor, is completely inappropriate on an article talk page. I think the first thing to do is apologize for your past behaviour and promise not to engage in personal attacks such as the ones listed above. StAnselm (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Kusername's response:

StAnselm, you are violating the very principal of the five pillars. You say, "This is not endearing you to us at all—indeed, you have some work to do now convincing us that you are editing in good faith".

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. You are trying to rule the article by democracy of opinion. Yet you have cited not a single scholarly source to support your opinion. This is not a matter of endearment, and if it were, you certainty have not endeared yourself to me by coming in and hacking at my thoroughly cited edit, which was made in keeping with Wikipedia's fifth pillar to be bold but not reckless.

You are violating Wikipedia's rules by accusing me of original synthesis when, really, are you are trying to impose your own original synthesis: that history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science is irrelevant to the topic scientific realism. I asked you cite that original thesis of yours. You have not—it is merely your opinion. And you are trying to rule the article with your opinion by democracy.

Here was your indication to me: Please read that guideline carefully and refrain from promoting your own views. And yet you have not refrained from promoting your own uncited view that my edit was an original thesis. So you are violating Wikipedia's pillars.

Now you decide at last to cite something, and what is it it about? It is about my behavior and not the article? So you are violating your own admonition of the proper use of this page. Yet you pose that only you and MachineElf are permitted to use this page to air your opinions about behavior.

Example of MachineElf's personal attack:

''Yes, you shamelessly editorialize (WP:NPOV). Your edits are a hodgepodge of poorly researched (WP:UNDUE) and inadequately cited (WP:V) syntheses (WP:SYN) if not original research (WP:OR). This is eclipsed, however, by the sheer volume and absurd lack of focus. You do, of course, clearly see that for yourself, as I've suggested that you compare it to similar articles. If can't see the obvious, or can't acknowledge it, that's hardly an argument in your favor. I advised you a week and half ago that it's a train wreak''.

There is not a singe bit of explanation. It is merely claim after claim—unsupported with a single illustration or explanation—at what a horrible editor I am.

MachineElf goes on:

When I later recommended that you take a break to review (WP:FIVE) because the editor you were personally attacking (WP:NPA) had simply cited basic policy, you became belligerent (WP:CIV) and started making up obnoxious accusations about me too (WP:NPA).

MachineElf simply cited basic policy? No, MachineElf violated it, because the basic policy specifically says that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, it is not for mere editor opinions—including your uncited opinions—the article certainly does not need to look like others, and that editors should be bold but not reckless. Considering that the indications in the main section were thoroughly cited with the relevant scholars, it was reckless to delete it wholesale under the assertion that it was original thesis. Please, cite or explain, point by point, according to your own standard, how it original thesis, when it cohered precisely with all but universal agreement by scholars, whom I cited.

You say, "As it turns out, I have studied philosophy of science at university level, so of course I was familiar with the topic".

Great. So when will you begin citing your claims—which so far is your opinion at contradiction with the cited scholarship—instead of merely violting your own asserting principle by listing merely making a list that, if your own assertion is true that I am "attacking" editors, means you are now attacking me too.

If I am not free to characterize your own conduct here, then how in the world are you and MachineElf free to characterize mine here and call it good faith.

MachineElf twice reverted my edits to MachineElf's talk page and told me to stay off it, but has posted the same personal accusation three times to my talk page.

You say, "Finally, the way you have devoted whole sections to specifically address another editor, is completely inappropriate on an article talk page. I think the first thing to do is apologize for your past behaviour and promise not to engage in personal attacks such as the ones listed above".

Yes, I do apologize for joining the personal statements. Now will you encourage MachineElf to apologize too, and to cease this? It is appropriate to post a photo to mock my edits but offer not a single bit of criticism what is wrong with it, and when I ask for criticism merely suggest that "everyone" would dislike it and that I should leave Wikipedia?

At the very least will apologize to me? You thoroughly disrespected an editor by deleting a thoroughly premised and cited section—added according to the fifth pillar to be bold but not reckless—and you claim personal knowledge and now a college degree but have not cited a single source to support your opinion. Instead your first citation are merely about my behavior. So, please, apologize to me too—and let us discuss the article in keeping with the scholarship and theories relevant to scientific realism.

Kusername (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to apologise for deleting your edits. Indeed, the Be bold guideline explicitly warns the reader not to be upset if your bold edits are deleted. You keep on talking about how Wikipedia is not a democracy but that guideline affirms that decisions are usually made by consensus. As has been pointed out to you, there is not - as yet - consensus to include your proposed edits. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Kusername's response:

Then it is a good thing I was not upset. Please, refrain from making personal statements about me and your own interpretations of my emotions. I ask discussion about the article.

Yes, Wikipedia indicates that decisions are usually made by consensus when there is conflict between statements in reliable sources. You have offered no reliable sources to support your positions. I opened the section that you first deleted with about a dozen reliable sources specifically stating that such review is variously the very foundation of, the limiting framework of, or the very useful supplement to even opening discourse of the truth value of scientific theory, namely scientific realism.

Considering that I have not undone your massive deletions of thoroughly cited material, and I have asked you to support your asserted principles about the article's necessary limitations and structure, I am hardly violating Wikipedia guidelines. My position is thoroughly supported by reliable sources cohering with my position. You just deleted all those sources to return the article to one that has tags since Oct 2009 that it is unverified and needs improvement.

As I pointed out, there is as yet no consensus to exclude my edits. Besides my position, even MachineElf said that some of the history probably ought to be included. MachineElf apparently made the interpretation, however, that I made "conspiracy remarks" and alleged "grandiose agenda", but MachineElf acknowledged not even reading all what I wrote. Perhap MachineElf's merely zeroed in on the subtitles that personally bothered MachineElf, as MachineElf now expresses utter certainty that that I am an absolutely horrible editor and I "refused to deviate" from MachineElf's own opinion that I was making a thesis of "conspiracy" and "grandiose agenda", though I never offered such conclusion in the article. Even if I were, I could support that very claim by president John F Kennedy. In one of his first speeches, JFK asserted:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. [...]

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations [ "The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961", John F Kennedy Persidential Library and Museum, 29 Nov 2011 (Web: access date) ].

That was the very year before Thomas Kuhn published his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) explaining that scientific communities operate like other communities, and so the society's socioeconomic structure must be examined to even effectively begin to assess scientific theory. At that time, obstetricians, practicing putative scientific medicine, were still cutting off women's clitorises to treat erotomania and lesbianism. A 1961 survey of physicians found that most physicians preferred not to inform patients of cancer diagnosis. I can cite that in main mainstream journals.

Since your entire premise of what is irrelevant in the article is in utter conflict with reliable sources—the relevant scholars—on the issue, the Wikipedia guidelines do not support your demand to rule the edit by democratic "consensus". And MachineElf acknowledged that history was probably useful, but MachineElf imposed MachineElf's own selective bias in reading and interpreting. I quite disagree with JFK that there is a conspiracy against us, and yet if I had wanted to I certainly could have included JFK's statement as U.S. President. That certainly has some bearing on the reliability of scientific theory, since in 1962 the U.S. FDA gained power, via scientific explanation, to ban all new medical drugs till FDA approval. U.S. government, starting under U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has funded biology basic research and now funds much of it via panels. So that is certainly relevant to the development and limitations of scientific theory, and thus its potential truth value, scientific realism.

This is a matter of you trying to impose your mere opinion already refuted almost universally by the relevant scholars over the past 50 years and trying to reinstate positivism. Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper overturned positivism brought in postpositivism. This is not a question of finding "consensus" between unclear summary positions held by the relevant scholars. I ask you to cease violating Wikipedia's Pillars. If you cannot support with relevant scholarship your assertion, you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Right now you are opposing the views expressed almost universally by the relevant scholars. I now have shown that MachineElf wishes to exclude the views of U.S. Presidents. If MachineElf requires that I conclude "conspiracy" and "grandiose agenda", I can offer that conclusion by Garland Allen, one of the most eminent historians and philosophers of biology—and merely exclude my own opinion that the "conspiracy" is all ultimately helpful.

Kusername (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, characterise my putative original synthesis
I think this will be a useful place to start. If an allegation of original synthesis is made, then there must be a synthesis to characterise.

Kusername (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd way of speaking about concept formation
What is that phrase supposed to mean? Theories are not agents. They do not think. So is the writer taking about an axiomatic system implicit in the theory that compels certain conclusions? Or is the writer talking about the reasoning activity of the maker(s) of the theory? Or is something else intended?P0M (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's confusing in the populist conception of the word theory—a proposition whose presumed certainty rests between hypothesis and natural law—yet it is quite consistent with the theorist conception of the word theory that is a mathematic/language structure spanning both observable and unobservable entities, properties, processes, relations, principles, and laws to describe/explain/predict phenomena as observations. In theoretical science, a natural law is simply one aspect of theory, and hypothesis is simply a prediction made by theory.


 * One of your guesstimates, then, is correct: So is the writer taking about an axiomatic system implicit in the theory that compels certain conclusions?.


 * A theory has both formalism and interpretation. The formalism is the structure of the scientific theory, and, within its sphere of the natural world, has logical consequences—namely theory content—simply that if the structure of the theory is applied in operations, such or such phenomena will be observed.  The interpretation in scientific theory attempts to explain why.


 * Thus quantum field theory (QFT) offers formalism making predictions of observations, whereas many worlds theory is an interpretation of why QFT's formalism describes such bizarre phenomena. In theoretical science, there is no reasoning outside the theory itself.  The reasoning would be about theory formation, justification, modification, or refutation—outside the theory.


 * I explained this very clearly in my version of the article—so that the average reader could access scientific realist discourse. Kusername (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction: When I first responded to the question, I was looking only at the quote itself.  I just now went and looked at the entire sentence. It is, in fact, saying that some believe not merely that the formalism yet also the interpretation in physical theory is true.  In biology is would be saying that not only the empirical aspects yet also the metaphysical aspects of the theory are true.  So that would be the form of scientific realism called explanationism.


 * Thus one would say, for instance, not only that Newton's law of universal gravitation accurately predicts observations, yet that its premise of absolute space and time and the presumption of a force attracting objects to each other to yield the obeservations are true (though theoretical physicists perhaps universally regard these explanations as false).


 * In biology, although it is empirically false that DNA replicates itself, it is commonly presumed that the DNA is directing and controlling the entire cell—an interpretation beyond observation—and so it is true nonetheless that "DNA selfreplicates" by getting protein molecules to perform the task. Kusername (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation on prerequisite trait of historical, sociocultural review to even discussing theoretical knowledge
Section begun by Kusername:

Volume 326 in Synthese Library, by publisher Springer, is Vyacheslav S Stepin's book Theoretical Knowledge (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2005). Its chapter one is "Scientific cognition in a sociocultural context". The chapter has a section called "Birth of the empirical sciences", p 30, which discusses the sociocultural perspective of the ancient Greek and how it shaped their approach to science.

When StAnselm made the first deletion to the article by deleting from the section "History of Western society, science, and philosophy of science" (before StAnselm deleted the entire section with the named justification that it was "completely off-topic"), StAnselm first targeted the discussion's opening discussion from ancient Greece to Rome as the most "blatant" example.

Springer's says of its Synthese Library, "The aim of Synthese Library is to provide a forum for the best current work in the methodology and philosophy of science and in epistemology". It categorises the library under Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. I maintain the StAnselm's editing is egregiously biased, culturally relativistic and yet positivistic in method and inference, and not only unsupported by the body of relevant scholarship yet specifically and consistently refuted by it for some 50 years.

Amazon.com indicates the back cover of Stepin's "Theoretical Knowledge (Synthese Library)":

Vyacheslav Stepin (born 19.08.1934) is a distinguished Russian philosopher, PhD, Professor, active member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Honoured Professor of Moscow State University, and Honorary Doctor of the Karlsruhe University (Germany). He is the organizer and leader of large-scale joint research projects with foreign universities and research centers (USA, Germany, France, China) on problems of philosophy of sciences and technics, globalization and basic values of culture. In the book Theoretical Knowledge by V Stepin, an original conception of a structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge is proposed. A detailed analysis of the foundations of science performed by the author allowed him to develop new ideas and approaches, to demonstrate how sociocultural factors are incorporated in the process of yielding of new theories. He shows direct and inverse links between foundations of science and new theories and empirical facts evolved from those, how among many potentially possible histories of science a culture selects just those directions which become a real history of science. The author analyses mechanisms of the generation of scientific theories and shows that those are changed in the process of historical development of science. He displays three historical types of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical and post-non-classical, which appears in modern science) and shows features of their coexistence and interplay. It is shown that along with the emerging of post-non-classical rationality science increases the sphere of its worldview applications. Science begins to correlate not only with the basic values of technogenic civilization but also with some values and patterns of traditional cultures. The investigation is based on the extensive literature on the history of natural and social sciences. The reader will find in the book authentic historical reconstructions of the processes of the development of classical and quantum electrodynamics, relativity, and conceptions of evolution in biology.

I am still awaiting citations—in reliable sources—to support StAnselm's position that the whole section was "completely off-topic" as to premising discussion of the very topic of the truth value of scientific theory and thus even enabling an average Wikipedia user to even enter and negotiate examination of scientific realism. As I edited the article, the article's structure was as follows:


 * Brief review of the reasons for scientific realist position, and list of scientific realism's summary positions.
 * Brief review of pure philosophy's structure.
 * Brief review of science's structure.
 * Brief review of philosophy of science—and review of modern philosophies of science.
 * Brief review of history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science, discussed within the context of its social interplay and evolution (cited, at its very outset, as the better way to open discussion of scientific theory's truth value).
 * Review of scientific realist versus scientific antirealist/nonrealist discourse.
 * Review of scientific theories themselves.

I reviewed predominant scientific theories, insight into their development, and main differing theories within modern science. The very position of scientific realism as that the scientific theory itself is the statement of truth. So it is extremely implausible that a scientific realist statement can even be made without statement of the scientific theory and its review. Scientific realism's point is that the scientific theory is the truth statement.

As the article's first section indicated, there is no single, specific scientific realist stance. Yet one scientific realist stance is that scientific knowledge exhibits—over the course of history—a progressive track to greater approximate truth on statement of the natural world's aspects. So even as to StAnselm's modified position that all historical facts must be in direct argument, one scientific realist position—the Hilary Putnam's position of convergence—calls for review of scientific knowledge from its dawn till today. That particular stance of scientific realism cannot even be assessed without a continuous review of history of science. And philosophers of science have almost universally indicated that scientific theory cannot effectively be reviewed without its sociocultural context.

Please, support with scholarship and not merely opinion the assertions and claim of having learned some things in college, and then democratic vote that deletion of that one section—and then total deletion of the entire article—is not merely bold but wreckless editing. By now, all my calls for explanation and citation have been scuttled, and so it is on you to show that your editing was in good faith—which till now I had presumed—instead of your eagerness to question that my own editing was in good faith.

This is not a popularity contest here—Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Your only evidence so far that I edited the article not in good faith is that I have not endeared myself—which is quite a argument of personal, emotional taste—and that I made statements and questions about others' exhibited conduct here. Severe personal bias against me is thus confessed, and not merely my assumption.

The univeristy webpage of historian and philosopher of biology Garland Allen says,

Professor Garland E. Allen's research interests are in the area of history and philosophy of biology—particularly genetics, embryology, and evolution—and their interrelationships between 1880 and 1950. This work focuses particularly in the early development of the Mendelian-chromosome theory as formulated in the work of T.H. Morgan and his group at Columbia University and later at the California Institute of Technology. Growing out of this work have been a series of studies of the scientific, economic, and social history of "eugenics" (defined in the early part of the century as "the science of human improvement through better breeding"). The history of eugenics provides a number of insights into the interrelationships between science and its social context, and raises many issues of ethical, legal, and social importance that are surfacing today in the midst of the Human Genome Project [ "Garland Allen", Dept of Biology, Washington University in St Louis, 30 Nov 2011 ].

So when I saw StAnselm post headers to my edit saying that the article needs "attention from an expert" and the alert of "too few perspectives", I inferred—not absurdly—that StAnselm was not an expert on the topics, as otherwise StAnselm could have simply recognized the review of history of Western society, science, and philosophy of science as far from "completely off-topic" and would simply have added whichever perspectives were presumably missing not deleted every single thing I wrote.

I suggest familiarization with the relevant scholarship, and refraining from arguing democratic vote to sustain reckless deletions of material cited with relevant scholarship in academia, major publishers, and already reviewed by regents of university presses to be the summary by the relevant scholars. I do not know where within philosophy of science there exists the position that sociology, economics, political science, social psychology—as well as scholarly understanding of Western society's major factors shaping it starting from ancient Greece—are irrelevant to the topic of scientific realism.

Between StAnselm and MachineElf—who is extremely eager to cite Wikipedia guidelines—there has been egregious violation, directed at both my edits and me, of virtually every one of these principles of Wikipedia guidelines. If I do not get a response soon, I will begin review here—in the open—of those very Wikipedia guidelines that are being cited amid false accusations at me and my edits. MachineElf has demonstrably opposed standard theory of fundamental physics and showed bias against a mainstream interpretation of it. MachineElf seems to want some history in the article but omit the parts that apparently bother MachineElf emotionally since "anyone" would see that they "obviously inappropriate". So that is disagreement with StAnselm's stance that all historical and sociocultural review is irrelevant unless used to make a specific argument. So there is not even remotely a consensus here. MagicElf's argument is that a brief review from ancient Greece till the Black Death that helped end the Middle Ages and bring in the Renaissance and thus dawn modern Western science is "obviously inappropriate" as "anyone would agree"?

The page on consensus—which I looked at—says that consensus is not determined by democratic vote or personal endearment. It says that consensus can be reached only by examination and explanation—discourse. And I am the only one participating in it so far. The other two have offered virtually no input on the article except making assertions already refuted by scholars, making personal allegations at me unexplained, and delivering lists of my putative defects—how allegedly horrible an editor I am, how I am unfit to continue using Wikipedia, or how I am unfit to be engaged in discussion—not any examination of the putative defects in my edits.

Kusername (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us clear up personal attacks
Section begun by Kusername:

StAnselm says, "We do need to clear up the issue of personal attacks before we can deal with content issues. To put it frankly, we are not going to talk with you if you cannot be civil. This includes jumping to conclusions about editor's knowledge, beliefs and personal preferences. For example, you said, presumably to MachineElf, 'you hate the titles—they don't suit your absolute idealist taste'. That is absurdly jumping to conclusions about another editor - and it has no place on Wikipedia".

Presumably to MachineElf? I posted that in direct response MachineElf, who had posted a propaganda photo comparing my edits to a train wreck, yet offering not a single bit of criticism of the content. So I said, in entirety, "I just noticed this post. If there are no criticisms, then what is the criticism? What do you want for the 'Scientific realism' page?"

MachineElf responded in entirety,

You prefer criticism? I offered advice—to look at similar articles. I'm sure you would readily see where you're efforts don't conform. I also advised you not to be surprised when most of your edits are reverted, (probably all of them). Here are the sections that the user offering their assistance initially removed; and anyone would agree, they're clearly inappropriate:


 * Greek democracy
 * Greek democracy—in a king's empire
 * Roman republic ends the democratic empire
 * The republic becomes an empire
 * Prophet in a Roman colony
 * Pantheon abandoned: Roman Empire goes monotheistic
 * Fall of Rome Empire—half at least
 * Western Christendom
 * Crusades to save the world—and 1204's big mistake
 * Black Death, loss of faith, and new freedoms

Too bad it's not working out… there's so little interest in scientific realism on WP (to say the least). You shouldn't take it personally. Have you considered blogging? I responded (in part),

You name sections and assert "anyone would agree, they're clearly inappropriate". Yet still no explanation? Your argument is absolute idealism. (Check the article [as my edit reviewed it under the pure philosophy introduction] for a review of how it works.)

Where was the advice you offered? And what does conforming have to do with this? The very premise of scientific realism is ultimate correspondence to an objective reality, not ultimate coherence with people's conventions. If there is little interest on scientific realism here at Wikipedia, then what's your issue? Your argument is called idealism—not realism. [...]

I already said that I titled the subesctions in that section be interesting, and that I was willing to change them, but that the content was hardly misleading, as it was simply commonly accepted history or was thoroughly cited in reliable sources. Now is the content wrong? No, you hate the titles—they don't suit your absolute idealist taste. Therefore it's objectively wrong?

You ask whether I prefer criticism? As opposed to what, more whining and propaganda photos? What else did you have in mind—declaration?

Apparently so. You name sections and assert "anyone would agree, they're clearly inappropriate". Yet still no explanation? Your argument is absolute idealism. (Check the article for a review of how it works.)

Where was the advice you offered? And what does conforming have to do with this? The very premise of scientific realism is ultimate correspondence to an objective reality, not ultimate coherence with people's conventions. If there is little interest on scientific realism here at Wikipedia, then what's your issue? Your argument is called idealism—not realism.

You say, "Too bad it's not working out… there's so little interest in scientific realism on WP (to say the least). You shouldn't take it personally. Have you considered blogging?".

Yes, I considered blogging. Have you? You're apparently interested in swaying people to your opinions. You have yet to point out a single error. So your own thesis is that the Fourth Crusade purposefully sacked Constantinople? Great. Now cite that. Otherwise, why take it so personally, yourself? I already said that I titled the subesctions in that section be interesting, and that I was willing to change them. Now is the content wrong? No, you hate the titles—they don't suit your absolute idealist taste. Therefore it's objectively wrong? Haha.

Make your criticism, make your relevant advice. Apparently you're more concerned with absolute idealism's social darwinism.

Yes, the principle that there is no truth to observe except what the entire body of people perceive is called absolute idealism—not scientific realism. So I offer that I have been attacked by StAnselm for doing what Wikipedia advises—to discuss the content of statements by editors—whereby StAnselm asserts, oddly, that I was "absurdly jumping to conclusions about another editor". How was that absurd when the only thing MachineElf did was list the titles and, upon the strength of only a propaganda photo mocking my edits, proclaim that "everyone" would disapprove of them—only the titles, and not the content, named by MachineElf?

So StAnselm is attacking me by characterizing my behavior as absurd without even analyzing how it is absurd—disconnected from logic or reason. StAnselm posted headers to my edits calling for experts on the topics. So it is absurd of me to presume that StAnselm is not an expert on the topics? I looked at StAnselm's talk page and nearly all of the indications were that StAnselm's interests were in religious areas.

As to MachineElf's expertise on the topic, MachineElf told me that the Scientific realism" article is of little interest on Wikipedia. And I found on MachineElf's own talk page MachineElf's vigorous refutations—by argument against the person—of standard model of quantum field theory and one mainstream interpretation of it many worlds interpretation.  So I maintain that I am hardly making absurd inferences about the expertise and opinion biases being exhibited here by StAnselm and MachineElf—who support the reversion of the article to one standing since October 2009 as needing both verification and improvement.

By now I have apologized for my own role in letting myself be drawn away from discussing the article, yet so far between MachineElf and StAnselm there is exists only a refusal to discuss the article. Now even StAnselm has personally attacked me as editor by openly questioning my good faith in editing and suggesting that I am personally disliked by StAnselm and MachineElf. MachinElf has ordered me to not post on MachineElf's talk page but has thrice posted the same accuation to mine—that I am personally attacking editors. Yet here is a littany of personal attacks—without a single explained illustration—upon me:

''Yes, you shamelessly editorialize (WP:NPOV). Your edits are a hodgepodge of poorly researched (WP:UNDUE) and inadequately cited (WP:V) syntheses (WP:SYN) if not original research (WP:OR). This is eclipsed, however, by the sheer volume and absurd lack of focus. You do, of course, clearly see that for yourself, as I've suggested that you compare it to similar articles. If can't see the obvious, or can't acknowledge it, that's hardly an argument in your favor. I advised you a week and half ago that it's a train wreak. [...] When I later recommended that you take a break to review (WP:FIVE) because the editor you were personally attacking (WP:NPA) had simply cited basic policy, you became belligerent (WP:CIV) and started making up obnoxious accusations about me too (WP:NPA).''

Yet Wikipedia's NPA specifically says, ""That is, they [the comments should be directed at content and actions rather than people"]. MachineElf violated one of the five pillars of Wikipedia with MachineElf's very first "advice" to me and denigration of me for not heeding it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_realism#Many_questionable_changes "You prefer criticism? I offered advice… to look at similar articles. I'm sure you would readily see where you're efforts don't conform"].

Wikipedia's fifth pillar (in entirety): ''Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and. sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable''.

So the entire premise for MachineElf's "advice" and photo mocking my edits is a personal attack on me—as editor—in violation of the Wikipedia pillars. And I have already established beyond an irrefutable doubt that the relevant scholars thoroughly refute the principle cast by StAnselm and MachineElf that the sections that StAnselm first deleted—before deleting every single one of my edits—are even remotely off topic or inappropriate. The relevant scholars indicate, as I cite in my above entry, that such review is the very prerequisite to enter the topic of scientific realism.

Kusername (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An article talk page is not the right place to discuss what may or may not be personal attacks. It would be ok to add a very short and neutrally worded comment with a link to a noticeboard where some relevant issue was being discussed, but apart from that, an article talk page is for providing helpful information relevant to a proposed improvement of the article (mentioning reliable sources or policies relevant to article content for justification). A way to get other opinions is by making a report at WP:WQA (however, a report should be briefer than the section here, and should just mention the precise words that are considered inappropriate, with a link showing the diff that added the words). Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation, Johnuniq. Yet I wonder why you did not state that to the other two parties who began the entire discussion of personal attacks, and specifically told me that we have to resolve them before they will even discuss the article.  So, frankly, I think that your post is posted to the wrong person.  How come?  Because I am at least meeting the spirit of Wikipedia's 5P.  The other two have used this page only to levy accusations, accuse me of personal attacks, refuse to discuss the article, and lure me into reviewing my view of the personal attacks by specifically stating that we must resolve them.  Yet one of the individuals specifically ordered me to not use that individual's talk page.  So I welcome comments more relevant what actually occurred here.  It was SA who who began a list of alleged personal attacks and told me that we must resolve the the issue—while SA refused to join me in discussion of the article.  So, yes, forgive me for taking the bait.  Yet I think it appropriate to post your indication to where this began.

Kusername (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, if you posted the comment to me because you feel that I am in fact the one most trying to meet Wikipedia's 5P and could most use the protection earned by more closely adhering to them, I thank you for that gesture of posting your comment to my edit—and offering me the advice.

Kusername (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is, where is, or how does one create a noticeboard? [Later edit: Whoops.  I guess I ought to ask that on Johnuniq's talk page.]

Kusername (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)