Section III.6 of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

To AKRONOS Main Page
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance

To Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines

6. A MOCKERY OF SCIENCE: CATEGORY "PSEUDOSCIENCE" AS A TOOL OF SLANDER IN THE HANDS OF THE NEW CYBER-INQUISITION AT WIKIPEDIA

Servants to the powers that be, a cabal at Wikipedia has taken over the work of 'cleaning up' knowledge, and science in particular. The best example of this zealous Wikipedian spirit to vilify legitimate scientific research that runs up against or beyond Big Science is the history, told earlier in this document, of the constant re-categorizations undergone at the hands of the cabal by the Aetherometry entry and several other "dissident science" entries - Autodynamics, Hydrino Theory, Cold Fusion, etc. This history, together with the accompanying history of chicanery and manipulation, clearly show that the "judgement" against Aetherometry was the aprioristic judgement of a kangaroo court, a vengeful bureaucratic machine whose only purpose is to make the label "Pseudoscience" stick. Only a hardline is in evidence at Wikipedia - one that is intent on decrying as "Pseudoscience" any minor science, any small science (Carezani's Autodynamics, Mill's Hydrino Theory, Correas' Aetherometry), along with all religious, mystical, ridiculous sophismation that can be thrown into the pot.

This is a kind of neo-maoist Great Proletarian Revolution in information about science: a filter is imposed by cybertechnocrats on the very quality of knowledge and information permitted in the encyclopedia they offer "to the masses". It is so ridiculous a conceit that it borders on the imbecillic - it believes, for instance, that peer-reviewed science is exempt of error, hoaxes, religiosity, fakery, by virtue of the fact that it is science passed by a social convention in which many are made to appear to vote for the few who volunteer to lead (the so-called democracy of professional organizations).

But this sanctification of mainstream or Official Science, i.e. Big Science, is, as usual, carried out by secondary spirits, rabid spirits of the kind that, under less cybernetized circumstances, specialize in wholesale book- and witch-burning. So it is that in the page Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Physics we read the following dialogue:

The list of articles that attract crank edits

As there were voices that List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. -- Pjacobi 15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

That list is not exclusively about bogus physics theories. Even if it was I wouldn't want it associated with physics in any way. Please remove that again. The physics portal is not the place for it. -- MarSch 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~Yes, please remove this list. Above all, WikiProjects are not intended to host subject articles, including original research. Karol 18:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)~~ [crossed out by Karol himself at 23:42 on the same day]

Ugh. multiple problems with this list. 1) some of the theories are pure crackpot, e.g. timecube. 2) some of the topics are highly speculative but academically acceptable (possible changes in fine structure const, etc.) 3) some topics which are records of historical fiascos (polywater) or were once taken seriously but are not any more (luminiferous ether). linas 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, most of these theories are pure crackpot. For this reason, they are on the list. And the list is here, so that we can watch, what's going on there. Isn't the task of WikiProject Physics to ensure the correct presentation of physics in Wikipedia? -- Pjacobi 20:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

And BTW, Heim theory is leaking out of its article. I've just spotted it in Neutrino#Notes. What's your opinion on that? -- Pjacobi

I think that it would be desirable for part of the wikiproj to be helping keep dodgy psuedoscience in check. So if the list could be restructured to contain *only* the wacko psuedoscience, and a suitable header put on, would that be OK? William M. Connolley 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

The way you guys put it makes it sound reasonable :) that is to have such a repository for monitoring pseudophysics topics. Karol 23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The list should be split into the different categories that linas identified. List 1) shouldn't be part of this project. What we need to keep in check is what is supposed to be physics and what is not. The other two lists would be very welcome. -- MarSch 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to The list of articles that attract crank edits. This is a list of (mostly) legit articles on (mostly) noteworthy topics, (most of which happen to be noteworthy crank topics), that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add over unity and Wilhelm Reich to the list. We can add legit science topics to the list, if they happen to be topics that attract inappropriate attention and edits. linas 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Yikes! Surely what you understood when you read what I wrote can't possibly be what I meant when I wrote it?? We can add Afshar experiment and the entire Category:Quantum measurement; some of these articles are already subjects of long-running edit battles; note even User:Afshar is an active editor. linas 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

"Wacko pseudoscience", says William M Connolley, doing his duty to generate "science by opinion". And he is undoubtedly right about many of the items that found their way to Wikipedia's List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories: crystal healing, food faddism, phrenology, hollow earth, and so on. Plenty of theories of the Aether are so inarticulate as to defy being called theories. Yet, on the same list that denounces food faddism and crystal healing, one also finds (for laughs, that's for sure):

Acupuncture, in the traditional sense, is the practice of inserting very thin needles in particular points on the body to redirect qi thereby improving health and well-being. This is one component of traditional Chinese medicine.

And from the same list we also obtain an index of serious "dissenting" scientific research efforts, a veritable zealot's Suma Inquisitoria that contains, under Physics, all of the following:

Aetherometry, too many claims to list here, please have a look.
Autodynamics (AD)' is a theory proposed as a replacement for special relativity, which is claimed to have been based on erroneous assumptions.
Cold fusion (or cold nuclear fusion (CNF)) is the claim that nuclear fusion can occur at room temperature, thus providing a possible source of cheap energy; one particular claim being that hydrogen can undergo nuclear fusion in palladium.
Hydrino theory proposes the hydrino, or miniature hydrogen atom with the electron pushed closer than usual to the nucleus.
Kirlian photography is high-voltage contact print photography. Its existence is not disputed, however the paranormal interpretations of some images thus produced are.
Wilhelm Reich's Orgone energy is an unproven form of energy.
Plasma cosmology is a sub-set of plasma physics which attempts to explain large scale structure in the universe.

Obviously these are all elements of minor sciences, of an eccentric or alternative science, still struggling with their respective births, some established but non-mainstream (like Kirlian photography), others still waiting to be tested (like Autodynamics). What boggles the mind is how these have become indiscriminately lumped by the Jacobi/Connolley/Salsbury cabal with scientific notions that have been disproven, for example:

Luminiferous aether was the classical medium for the propagation of light, but after the early 20th century was seen as discredited by the mainstream physics community.

and with nonscientific notions such as:

Creationist cosmologies offer by Young Earth Creationists as alternative ideas about cosmology to allow for a universe that is only thousands of years old.
Modern geocentrism, citing uniform gamma ray bursts distribution as evidence that we are at the center of the universe, and other ideas of this liking.

This fascistic Science-Purification Wikipedia cabal even manages to attribute to Tesla something that Tesla never claimed, fulminating it in the process:

Nikola Tesla's Dynamic theory of gravity that was never published.

The one that amused us the most was:

Morphogenetic fields supposedly cause living things to grow or behave in patterns laid down by similar previous living things.

This was the gem that crystallized the stupidity of William Michael Connolley and his gang: an ignorance so vast and precious, it fails to realize that Whitehead's and Thom's and Zeeman's notions of morphogenetic fields have become mainstream science, mainstream molecular and developmental biology!!!

Here, shown in its most asinine blunders, its incapacity for discernment, its ignorance, its arrogance, is a prime example of laws and norms made by socialist committees of semi-literate imbeciles with their quasi-PhD's and their rule of democratic majority!

It's a sad day indeed when Oxford churns out technomaoists, busy bees that volunteer to patrol a degraded and patently falsified 'knowledge'.

One might ask, who initiated the placing of Aetherometry in this fraudulent category of fake science? Administrator PJacobi, who else?:

What is even more interesting is the questionable legal position in which the Wikipedia administration places itself by endorsing these kangaroo-court excursions. For let us examine the parameters which supposedly guide these judgements. The same article, List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories, has the following to say on this topic:

This list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories includes examples of fields of endeavor that are considered to be fringe or pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community. Included examples range from theories considered crackpot by all but their handful of followers and ending in respectable theories that are simply the minority view. Some of these practices are often quite popular outside the scientific community.

Inclusion in the list is possible because that theory is:

Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results; or
Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

These criteria are a subset of those listed in the article defining Pseudoscience, which we have quoted earlier. The first thing that strikes one is that although they are supposed to explain what characterizes an "alternative", "speculative" or "disputed" scientific theory, they do no such thing - these characteristics are simply those of lousy science, of non-science; they have nothing per se to do with being alternative, speculative or disputed. Once again, the Wikipedian Anti-Science Cabal has managed to distort the information they are supposedly providing to the "masses", and twist it into misinformation and falsehood. A theory is "alternative" if it disagrees with some major aspect of what is accepted by the current scientific convention, but can just as well account for the same phenomenon; a theory is "speculative" if it goes beyond claims directly supported by current experimental evidence (speculative theories are part and parcel of the mainstream); a theory is "disputed" if a sufficient number of scientists dispute it (such theories, too, abound in the mainstream), or if evidence is adduced against it. None of these concepts implies any of the criteria listed above, except in the sycophantic, contorted minds of the Wikipedia Cabal and other such cabals.

Now. Let's pick Aetherometry, with whose results and methods we are quite conversant, and test it against the four criteria above - criteria which are also used to classify an endeavor as "pseudoscience". Any such test easily reveals that none them apply, and any categorization of Aetherometry supposedly based on those criteria is scurrilous libel:

1. Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence:
All the non-speculative claims asserted by Aetherometry have been backed by experiments; extensive descriptions and discussions of these experiments, their methods and results, have been published by Akronos Publishing and are available to all members of the public. Articles describing and discussing some of the experiments have also appeared in non-mainstream scientific periodicals and proceedings. In various instances these experiments were independently reviewed and/or reproduced by peers. There is no excuse for insinuating or claiming that Aetherometry lacks supporting experimental evidence.

Moreover, a list of relevant experiments appeared in one of the sections - titled "Experimental Aetherometry" - of Dr. Askanas's original Wikipedia submission, but the section was completely suppressed, in a shockingly fascistic fashion. The archived record of this process is a public disgrace. Ample references to monographs describing these experiments, as well as to Dr. E. Mallove's extensive paper discussing many of them, were provided in Aetherometry Talk and repeated attempts were made to provide them in the article itself. This information was repeatedly suppressed on the grounds that it does not refer to mainstream publications, and that Akronos is a "vanity press" (a laughable concept in these days of widespread self-publishing through the web-page mechanism; perhaps Wikipedia is nothing but a gigantic vanity press for Mr. Wales' porn business). It is fatuous and malignant to deliberately manipulate public perception so that non-insertion of scientific endeavours into the mainstream, or the use of publication venues that are under the scientist's own control, becomes conflated with lack of experimental evidence.

2. Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results
No claim of Aetherometry contradicts established results, even if many claims or findings of Aetherometry contradict official, institutional, established, mainstream interpretations of established results. If Wikipedia cabals cannot draw distinctions between experimental facts and interpretations, they have no business aspiring to the science-editorship of an encyclopedia. We hereby challenge the Wikipedia Science Police to produce a single example of an aetherometric claim which contradicts experimentally established results. And if anybody gives as an example the claim of existence of an Aether, this simply means they have not bothered to inform themselves, in even the most rudimentary manner, about Aetherometry and its claims - for the dynamic, massfree Aether of Aetherometry has nothing in common with the stationary, luminiferous, electromagnetic Aether of yesteryear's physics.

3. Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results
The numerous experiments described in the Experimental Aetherometry monographs - and which were listed in Dr. Askanas' original article and repeatedly referenced in the subsequent discussions - can be studied and reproduced by anybody wishing to do so. The supposed counter-argument that most of the monographs must be purchased (rather than being available for free) is specious: first of all, this does not make the experiments any less reproducible, and secondly, all mainstream and non-mainstream science publications must also be purchased - through magazine subscription, through governmental allocation of tax dollars, through university fees, through grants, through corporate funds, etc. All publication costs money, and somebody has to pay for it. We are certain that anybody with enough interest in Aetherometry to wish to reproduce its experiments will find the prices of the monographs reasonable. Those who have no such interest should not pretend to be competent to judge the reproducibility or validity of the results.

4. Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible)
This hardly applies, since Aetherometry presents explanations that are significantly simpler than many of the conventional models for well established facts. Indeed, Aetherometry claims to strictly follow the principle of Ockham's razor. Yet we should note that there is nothing in this principle that precludes the identification, isolation or addition of complexifying variables which can demonstrably be proven as real and verifiable.

If none of these criteria in fact apply to Aetherometry, on what basis was it classified as Pseudoscience, and put on a list whose member theories are supposedly determined according to the falsifiable Wikipedia criteria? Well, when one digs right down to it, the real basis was (as clearly emerges from this here document) - the count of Google hits. The Wikipedia Science Squad, who knows very little about science and nothing whatsoever about Aetherometry, counted the Google hits for "Aetherometry", and on this sole basis felt perfectly justified to fabricate every argument, every piece of misinformation, every tactic of harassment, every false and unfounded ascription that we have documented in this text. If the Science Squad had the least bit of honesty, it would define Pseudocience as "a scientific endeavour with insufficient Google hits". That they do not, gives one a measure of the sleaze and deceit characteristic of the kangaroo court which William M Connolley, Frederick Salsbury and their hooded sidekicks hold at Wikipedia, while posing as a peer-review committee for new science...

When individuals hiding in formal or informal committees are incapable of categorizing their elected subject matter other than on the biased apriori judgements of strongly opinionated and misinformed cliques, then information, facts, simple truths are deformed beyond recognition. It is Chabrol's Cry of the Owl come to haunt science.

In light of the preceding, one is bound to conclude that Wikipedia is a hoax: a hoax as peer-review; a hoax as an encyclopedia; a hoax as an impartial source. And what is more, it is also a barbaric campaign of slander, libel and defamation. All in the name of the people, community, open source, democracy, majority, Big Science and the like. Fascists are, at long last, at home in the world of cyberpower. Wikipedia is at the forefront of 'Knowledge Warfare', precisely because it has become a loutish tool of cyberfascism.

Previous: THE TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES OF THE WIKIPEDIA SCIENCE-PURIFICATION CABAL
Top of the document: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance