Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOP formalism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWikiConnect 02:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SCOP formalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable concept. Barely intelligible in parts. Clearly a WP:FRINGE topic ("belongs to the emergent field of quantum cognition"). Likely promotional for Diederik Aerts. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs to be rewritten (or cut down and merged), but the article does not satisfy your stated rationale for deletion: SCOP formalism does not "[depart] significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views", as required by WP:FRINGE. cnzx (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article carries significance. Like what said, the article just needs to be reconstructed and further polished to be suitable for the en.wiki. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Quantum cognition" does sound like crackpot nonsense, but if you read and follow what these pages are actually talking about, it is more legitimate than it may seem on a quick skim. The claim is not that brains are literally functioning quantum mechanically, but that a similar mathematical formalism (states, eigenvalues, analogues of measurements, interference effects...) may be useful for describing some features of cognition. Clearly this is not the mainstream approach to cognition or behavioral economics, but nor is it Deepak Chopra.
 * After writing this, I've discovered I've esentially reproduced the description on the Rational Wiki (scroll down to about paragraph 5): This [pseudoscientific "quantum consciousness"] should be distinguished from research into "quantum cognition," which applies quantum-mechanical mathematical models to human behavior in areas where classical probability theory fails to match observed human behavior. "Quantum cognition" does not assume that the underlying human consciousness is quantum-mechanical; it's simply that a few psychologists noted that the same concepts and equations used in quantum mechanics are for reasons unknown good analogies for actual human behavior where traditional probability theory suggests that actual behavior is irrational.
 * -- Gpc62 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - sounds very much like a KEEP, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 17:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is coherent, on a notable topic, and fully cited to reliable sources. It has structural defects like lacking a lead and needing copy-editing, but those aren't AfD matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had fun making a diagram of the article's (very good) explanation of concept combination and emergence. I've also copy-edited and wikilinked a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  19:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (as nom) I still feel there's too much un-referenced mumbo-jumbo in the article to understand what the topic of the article is supposed to be; the page is also an orphan so I can't tell from its use in context on any other page. I consider all of quantum cognition to be WP:FRINGE.  I would appreciate if one of the people who feels the article is coherent could add a one-sentence summary of what "SCOP formalism" is to the article or to this AfD.  I'd also like better referencing, especially to any papers not by Diederik Aerts that actually uses the term; I have found some for "spherical complex optical potential" formalism which is obviously different, and  appears to be unrelated to cognition.  is better, but still suggests that the term is so vague as to be vacuous in meaning. And I don't know there are any references that aren't obscure research papers. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment — I've added a lead. Your first reference is absolutely about this formalism. The formalism started out as a formalism for describing quantum and classical physical systems. So far as I'm aware, it is very rarely used in physics, but has found more use as a scheme for describing concepts more generally. One of those uses is quantum cognition. SCOP is not a subfield of quantum cognition. Are you following this so far? I just focused on quantum cognition in my first comment to point out that quantum cognition is not the crackpot nonsense that it sounds like from the name. You are very mistaken if you think the SCOP formalism is so vague as to be vacuous. Have you actually looked at any of the papers, such as Aerts's 1983 J.Math.Phys.? — Gpc62 (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're saying that SCOP is a blanket term for any descriptions of "entities" in mathematical terminology. Having read the 1983 paper, I see no way this article is about any single coherent concept.  That paper is entirely unrelated to "quantum cognition".  Simply having the same person publish papers about multiple topics involving the word "quantum" and calling them the same is WP:SYNTH. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to (sounds very much like a KEEP, then): I'm actually still on the fence, based on my own assessment of the topic. I just find myself arguing in the direction of "keep" because it looks like there's a lot of misunderstanding on the "delete" side of the debate. — Gpc62 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads like a nonsense to me. This is hardly of any value for general public. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.