Talk:Jim Carter (pseudoscientist)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Carter (pseudoscientist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Fringe Scientist
editThe term "fringe scientist" was removed as NPOV in the lead. I actually think I disagree with this assessment. This guy's only notable because a book was written about his fringe beliefs. No actual scientists take this guy's work seriously, there's no scientific debate about whether his ideas hold any merit. Does it really violate NPOV to call a spade a spade?JoelWhy (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly no mainstream scientist takes his theories seriously, but the word "fringe" is just too loaded for use in the title, IMHO. The text quotes others calling him a fringe scientist, which I can't see any problem with, but we need to be a bit more careful with the title. Otherwise, articles on any scientist who holds minority views could be renamed "fringe scientist" by their detractors. "Amateur scientist", "theorist", "science writer", etc. might be good alternatives. What do you think? Scopecreep (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I can see that. But, to be clear, it's not that he holds a "minority" view. I mean, maybe string theory is the predominant view, but it's certainly not the only one. This guy's theory, though, is probably held only by him and a few fellow wackos (For the record, I heard an interview w/ the author -- doesn't think Carter is nuts, per se, just eccentric; and the guy is pretty smart. But, you can be smart and still believe in crazy ideas.) So, anyhow, I think you're probably right that "amateur" fits here. But, I would like this article to emphasize a little bit more that this doesn't even constitute a scientific theory, let alone one that is held by any significant number of scientists.JoelWhy (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good idea. Scopecreep (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the word "fringe" has a strong connotation. Whether it applies or not probably doesn't matter; the point is that it will mean different things for different people. Why don't we just describe the current status of his "science"? And this brings to me to another point: Jim Carter is NOT a scientist. A scientist is a person who applies the scientific method in his or her research. The scientific method relies on testing hypotheses through experiments and accepting the consensus of peers when interpreting results. In the same way as the word "fringe" brings undue discredit", t he word "scientist" also has a strong implication and it brings undue authority to someone who has none. Is it possible to change the word scientist from the title? And maybe instead of describing him as an "amateur scientist" we could describe him as a "physics aficionado" or something like that? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, good idea. Scopecreep (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I can see that. But, to be clear, it's not that he holds a "minority" view. I mean, maybe string theory is the predominant view, but it's certainly not the only one. This guy's theory, though, is probably held only by him and a few fellow wackos (For the record, I heard an interview w/ the author -- doesn't think Carter is nuts, per se, just eccentric; and the guy is pretty smart. But, you can be smart and still believe in crazy ideas.) So, anyhow, I think you're probably right that "amateur" fits here. But, I would like this article to emphasize a little bit more that this doesn't even constitute a scientific theory, let alone one that is held by any significant number of scientists.JoelWhy (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Jim Carter is NOT a scientist. A scientist is a person who applies the scientific method in his or her research. " Exactly. This is the exact reason I got into the talk page. There's no way he applies as a scientist or an amateur scientist (which by definition is just a person that follows the scientific method in an unpaid way). In his case, he falls in the physics pseudoscience department (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience) and since AFAIK he only gives out theories, he would be theorizing in that department. Hence "physics pseudoscience theorist". --Nmaxcom (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Move
editAs per the discussion here, he clearly is not a scientist. I moved to page accordingly. AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Academic credentials?
editWhat is the subject's academic background? Has he received any sort of degree(s), and if so, in what field(s)? Has he taught at any institution(s), and if so, where and on what subjects? Antediluvian67 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Unnamed
editIs this a seriously article approved by Wiki?? I don't get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)