Reciprocal System of Theory/Talk

I deleted the article on simple NPOV grounds.

I will not enter into a discussion of the validity of the theory. However anything with sentences like "blah-blah is an astounding theory" is simple propaganda and I will delete it, using my anarchistic power as a Wikipedian.

Nor will I tolerate anything with authorship attached - this is completely contrary to the rules of the Wikipedia.

If the article is rewritten to be in accordance with the NPOV and fairly weighs the arguments for and against, then I will support its inclusion gladly. Until then, I will delete away. I also decided to transfer all of the discussions held so far to the Old Talk page - simply because in my opinion they stray too far from the only real point - the article is biased and therefore unworthy of inclusion. Discussions of whether the methods or theory is valid or not belong in a newsgroup.

Doug - if this draconian application of power offends your sensibilities, then deal with it - this is the nature of the Wikipedia. If you have enough supporters they will easily undo all of my changes. However I suspect that will not be the case. --ManningBartlett

Hi Manning. Deleting everything was a bit too draconian from my point of view. I'm not saying that the entry constituted a good unbiased article and I belive the stuff is pure pseudoscience. But I think it was an interesting work in progress to see if it could be adopted in some encyclopedic way. --css

CSS - a fair assessment - I'm expecting to come under fire for my actions. But I read the article and simply could not see how to edit it to something tolerable, and I deleted it to prove a point to the author. The article is not even biased, it was propaganda and cannot be tolerated. When it is written from the NPOV I will champion its inclusion, regardless of the subject's actual nature- MB

I have tried to reorganise the entry to get it more NPOV. The 'technical' discussion is at RS proponets answers. --css

I think the last part of the Old Talk got lost when Manning moved it. Is it the browser chopping long entries? I had similar problems earlier today - so I will not risk to restore it ;-) --css

heres a link to the old page -- http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Reciprocal_System_of_Theory/Talk&revision=68

---

I recopied the old talk page to /Old Talk, as a large part of it was missing. I wasn't one of those discussing the theory on the Talk page, but in defence of those who were, I have to say that they had little choice if they wanted to contribute to this article. The proper place for it to be discussed is in peer-reviewed journals, but it has never been published in such journals. Under such circumstances, I don't think it makes sense for us to include it in Wikipedia, but if we are going to include it, then we are forced to discuss it. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 3

________

I believe I have been baptized! I've got to tell you this is an experience that is gripping. I didn't have any idea what I was in for, but, honestly, it's been fun - kinda. :) Anyway, I probably need to go away for awhile and lick my wounds, but I'll be back. I'm an old man and these extremes are very dynamic for me, if not traumatic! As far as NPOV is concerned, I thought there was agreement to work the article in a neutral environment by agreeing to not link it (not to physics, not to psuedophysics) while it was being written so we could get it out there on the table first. But right away there was text added alleging it was psuedoscience. Though I didn't edit that out, I did try to respond, but that act of responding is labeled a violation of the NPOV! Interesting. Ok, another lesson is learned. I will take the constructive criticism (thanks to all who did contribute in that fashion) and try to rewrite the article offline. In the meantime, anyone interested in continued discussions of RS is cordially invited to our discussion group on yahoo [[here]].

One last comment. Though my eyes have been opened to see what I believe is the beginnings of a new social phenomenon that really merits participation here, I also believe there are some negative aspects. If we accept the premise that only the "knowlege" that fits is fit, then we run into the age old problem of democracy, which is that the majority view tends to trample the minority view. The motives of the majority are generally altruistic, but in effect can prevent the expression of minority views which many times contain crucial information which the majority does not possess and because they don't possess it, are prevented from advancing. Thus, in this respect, their behavior is self-defeating. So, if you'll receive it, I would caution you not to let your enthusiasm for freedom and victory drive you to be too hasty in judging the ideas of others, you'll be glad you didn't someday.

I bid you adieu for now.

Sincerely,

Doug

Doug, I am attempting to refrain from calling you an idiot, but it is so tempting, because you are completely failing to understand the issue here. No-one is denying your viewpoint, do you get that??? What we are denying is your lack of neutrality. We cannot permit a minority viewpoint to outweigh the majority viewpoint either. As I said - rewrite the article to reflect the fact that it is not mainstream and present both viewpoints and the article will stay, and I will defend it to the end, even though I personally feel it is rubbish. But it is statements like "astonding theory" and "the theory provides revolutionary new insights into the universe" which got the article killed. - MB

---

New article says devised by deductive logic; I don't think that is an accurate statement. Devised by deductive logic from what? Deductive logic can only give you things from other things; you can't get anything out of deductive logic by itself, except maybe "(p -> q) & p -> q". Do you mean he came up with (allegedly) self-evident axioms, and from there derived by means of (most likely invalid) deductive logic, "facts" about the world?

Also, "pseudoscience" and "reputable scientific community" isn't exactly neutral; maybe we would be better to say something like "mainstream science universally considers this theory to be untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore considers it pseudoscience" -- Simon J Kissane

I'm leaving it as it is, which is the nicest way I could find of saying "the ramblings of a crackpot". NPOV does not require equal weight/sincerity to given to abject nonsense. It is a wiki, though, so edit away... -- GWO