Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
At best, it's a brand new theory. More likely it's just plain nonsense. Either way it should be deleted. There's exactly 1 paper published, in the Journal of the ISCID, a dubious, online, non-peer reviewed journal. The theory's inventor, Christopher Langan, is a "fellow" of the ISCID, so his paper is basically self-published. Google gets 2000 hits, but a lot of them appear to be spam. Supposedly the author, Christopher Langan, was "recently profiled in Popular Science Magazine", but the Popular Science web site doesn't find him.

I think this image sums it up pretty well.


 * Delete Dbenbenn 04:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * angelfire.com won't let one see the last link, other than by approaching it in some particular way(s) not disclosed above. But the info on this page shows that Langan is not a man to be trifled with. Indeed, his site ctmu.org (actually just a front for megafoundation.org/CTMU) is a nightmare of, um, iconoclastic FrontPage/Flash markup that clobbers Konqueror in best barroom bouncer style. Where was I? Yes, delete. -- Hoary 05:55, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's strange. Here's a (temporary) copyvio version of link 7: [gone now]. Dbenbenn
 * Wow. Er, thanks. -- Hoary 05:28, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if Langan knows what he is talking about, there is no indication that this metaphysical theory is notable yet. Gazpacho 06:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No original research. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * PseudoScience maybe but it is 100% genuine crap. Delete ping 08:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. Thryduulf 11:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. 1) 2k hits 2) I also find lot's of spam hits in Google 3) This is indeed a new attempt to solve The problem of life with the true questions asked, the revelation exposed, the univeral explanation, the ultimate summary of all human findings... Gtabary 12:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear notable to me. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * An interesting debunk article could come from this, but until someone cares enough about the subject to write one, then I would prefer to vote delete . So many idiots, so little time. GeorgeStepanek\talk  22:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Correction, this type of theory is already very capably described in Unified field theory. I would suggest citing CTMU there as a perfect example of the type. So that's a merge I guess. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, other systems of this type have names like Christianity, Islam, Shinto... original resarch, way trivial deep thoughts, never mind the gibberish of a self-promoting crank, WP not a blog. Wyss 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. In addition to Langan's papers, including Introduction to the CTMU and The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory, where he describes the mathematical structure of the CTMU in considerable detail, there are numerous other sources, including this article and interview in Popular Science and a chapter in the recently published anthology Uncommon Dissent here's an excerpt. It would be ridiculous to evaluate his highly original and widely-discussed work by the vote of a handful of uninformed and obviously biased detractors. ...at 04:13, 2005 Jan 17 (and ten minutes earlier),  216.139.113.98 forgot to add "~" to the contribution above.
 * Comment: Original work, yes; widely-discussed, no. Wikipedia isn't where his (your?) work will be evaluated; physics journals will do that. -- Hoary 04:27, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, since the CTMU is based on logic and analytic philosophy rather than physics, it may not be evaluated in a physics journal at all. Nor should it be. There's no reason to suppose that knowledge qualifies as significant only after being kicked around in particular journals. Some people don't choose to publish in such venues, and there's no justification for making any particular kind of journal the final arbiter of intellectual worth. When it comes to intellectual progress, there are no trade unions. .... at 07:01, 2005 Jan 17 216.139.113.98 again forgot to add "~" to the contribution above.
 * Comment: There is, however, some justification for making discussion in one or more peer-reviewed journals an arbiter of intellectual worth. If you agree, can you cite any peer-reviewed journals of logic and/or analytic philosophy that have discussed CTMU? And if you disagree, what arbiter would you suggest? (NB, please sign your contributions here by hitting the tilde key four times in a row. Thanks.) -- Hoary 07:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some justification, but not much. Peer review is most effective with regard to long-established and familiar theories; it is more likely to be counterproductive when applied to radical theoretic departures. I don't know whether the CTMU has appeared in a "peer reviewed" journal, but I do know that it has been in plain view for years, and that any qualified persons who have found fault with it have had ample opportunity to register their critiques. Some have, and have been duly answered in plain view. With the rise of Internet fora, neither the world nor the academic establishment is in need of another peer-reviewed appendage to contain such dialogues. 216.139.113.98
 * Comment: The fact that no-one with any degree of notability has expressed any interest in your ideas means that they are overwhelming likely to be junk. Most experts have far better things to do with their time than to debunk every piece of pseudoscience out there. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If those who obviously know nothing about a given idea can simply dive-bomb in here, voice empty and derisive opinions, and thereby obstruct public access to it through this avenue, then many people misunderstand the purpose of an "encyclopedia". Everyone dislikes some of the philosophical and scientific theories in the public domain, and this kind of knee-jerk evaluation would long since have relegated most of them to permanent obscurity. Let's try to remember that opinions like those above also need to be examined for soundness and neutrality. 216.139.113.98
 * You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encylopaedia. It summarises the commonly-accepted knowledge of the day. It is not the place for original research. Perhaps we are not qualified to judge these ideas. But we are qualified to judge that no-one else apears to take them seriously. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether or not you choose to take a given idea seriously is of no general interest. But to pass formal or contentive judgment on it, you need more than what you have. You need an assumption-free reason why the idea obviously doesn't work, as opposed to personal prejudice or a passing impression that it superficially resembles other ideas you and your friends dislike. This idea is conspicuously in the public domain, and despite the fact that several good references have been provided, you can't name a single verifiable item of content that definitively marks it as invalid. It flies as well as many of the other ideas in this encyclopedia, and arguably much better. In any rational context, that would be the end of the story. 216.139.113.98
 * Comment: I for one am not passing judgement on the inherent merits of the idea (its explanatory force, theoretical refutability, etc.). I'm passing judgement on its notability. One criterion I have for this is that it's little discussed. (A number of ideas that, unlike this one, are obvious tosh, are discussed and thereby are noteworthy, however much I or others might wish they would shrivel up and disappear: racial suprematism, etc. etc.) Another is that the main proponent of this idea here -- User:216.139.113.98, who may or may not be its author -- won't come up with the titles of respected academic journals in which it is discussed. Physics? No, it's less physics than philosophy. Philosophy? No journals again. Yes, ideas which I consider to be valueless (e.g. psychoanalytical stuff) are debated in respected journals; moreover, it's entirely plausible that philosophy journals are to some extent blinkered about new ideas, especially those that come from outside academe. But there exist iconoclastic journals (from off the top of my head, Radical Philosophy, though offhand I don't know if it still exists) and channels by which unorthodox ideas can be examined within and maybe enter the mainstream. (Sorry about mixed metaphors there.) My inability to show that it's worthless isn't enough -- it may indeed be impregnable to attack, or my brain may simply not be up to the task, or I might just not have enough time and effort. A quick writeup in the web supplement of Popular Science isn't really enough. Can you propose any other criteria of noteworthiness? -- Hoary 01:18, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
 * Comment: The CTMU has been around for over fifteen years, for the last five in high profile, and anyone who has bothered to familiarize himself with it knows that it is not only notable, but profound. Given the amount of air time it has received in connection with its national media exposure and in subsequent discussion groups and Internet fora, questions like "Yes, but who among the people I personally consider (credible, interesting, a bigshot) is currently discussing it?" don't merit much of a response, particularly when Wikipedia hosts many ideas that see but little traffic despite their enshrinement in hypertext. By the way, the Popular Science article I posted is a scan of the hard copy - it was on tens of thousands of newstands across the US and abroad. (There have been other articles like it, but what I've given you is quite enough.) Langan is one of the uncloistered few who tried to take his insight directly to the streets; yet here you are, trying to ensure that when it comes to his work, a purportedly open encyclopedia confuses itself with a constipated digest for elite academic periodicals. It's exquisitely absurd to maintain that any philosophical idea, let alone one as unique and inevitable as the CTMU, should be held for ransom by pap-filled scholastic journals of philosophy; until very recently, the mere suggestion would have been quite unthinkable, and for very good reason. If you're interested in philosophy, but too lazy or preoccupied to fairly and responsibly evaluate the source material, then by all means, go to a university library and scan the philosophy journals for survey articles. But as you do, try not to lose sight of the fact that this is far less likely to put you in contact with the entirety of significant modern philosophy than with the latest ivory tower buzz. It's simply not fair, and it would only be cheating the public, to limit the circulation of an important idea like this one out of personal prejudice gussied up in a flimsy catch-22 party dress. 216.139.113.98
 * Comment: I notice that the CTMU entry has been removed, but I can't find any mention of the criteria actually applied, or by whom. (It does seem that the user who posted the page had all of his several pages removed for some reason or another, but this too is shrouded in mystery.) Having reviewed Wikipedia's deletion policy, I also see that while deletion is subject to a vote, such a vote must be based on a set of explicit criteria, none of which would authorize the removal of an informative, well-written page on the CTMU. Therefore, I or some other CTMU buff may write such a page and resubmit...unless somebody here has information to the effect that this is destined to be a waste of time. Do any of you people have such knowledge? (I suppose you'd have to be some sort of administrator to speak definitively on the matter...) If so, on what is it based? Please identify the specific criteria that would be used to delete such a page. (Although I'd naturally appreciate a response, I would ask that you observe the civility guidelines which apply to this context - a couple of comments posted above clearly run afoul of them - and also that I be spared any reference to anybody's personal opinion, or for that matter any irrelevant set of superficial criteria purporting to identify a given theory as a "crank theory" without attention to its actual content.)

216.139.113.98