Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process equation

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Process equation

Process equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Two non-notable people (Kauffman and Sabelli) invented this term ten years ago for a recursive function that has an oscillating parameter. Since then, no one else anywhere in math, physics, or statistics has picked up on the term. The term therefore has no notability and generally the article is serving as a soapbox for one particular user's pet theories on Bios theory (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bios theory. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for marginal original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Kauffman is notable. This search or this one may say something about notability of Sabelli, and him being a pseudoscientist, as claimed by CH (talk - contributions) below. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you saying Bios being my pet theory. Also, this is 'ad hominem' argument, and there is another logical fallacy you use, its name may be straw man, as you place into this article's discussion other deleted article which has little relevance to this? The topic of this article was cited in several books by other authors.[1] Lakinekaki (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users should look in edit summaries of the history of this article written by ScienceApologist, and compare what he sais with the facts in regards to licensing of images, promotional language, and other relevant information. One example [2] about image licensing[3]Lakinekaki (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your search just shows how parochial this term. Why not try this search and eke out how "notable" this topic is? Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

little more appropriate would be this search[4]Lakinekaki (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And most of the links there are NOT to the Kauffman and Sabelli bollocks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore I suggested disambiguation page. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, very nice choice of words: Bollocks. I had to look it up. Thank you, I learned a word, that I am going to use in the future when I refer to certain kind of people. Whom do I have in mind? Lakinekaki (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the content currently on the page is deleted due to lack of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We actually have an essay WP:BOLLOCKS. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We also have an essay Don't be a dickLakinekaki (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nominator neglected to mention that this terminology has also not gained traction with biologists or dynamic systems theorists. The primary meaning of process equation is, well, an equation which governs a physical process. This particular recursive relation may describe some systems (those figures are pretty generic), but the mapping of this name to this relation is not in common currency. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete From Web of Science, none of their work on this has ever been cited by anyone except themselves. DGG (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I know of at least one paper citing them:

Human electroencephalograms seen as fractal time series: Mathematical analysis and visualization, V Kulish, A Sourin, O Sourina - Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2006

Web of science, includes science citation index and COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE journal is indexed there, so your search from Web of Science was obviously not done properly, and you should not use '...i have an access to Web of Science...' line in further debates. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, all! As a former Wikipedian, I will offer an extended comment rather than a vote. I want to try to explain what I view as a hidden agenda on the part of User:Lakinekaki, creator of the article under discussion here.

IMO the ideas promoted in several WP articles by Lakinekaki fall within the pseudoscience genre I call "living universe"; authors writing in this genre include James Rose, James Lovelock, and Hector Sabelli.

The basic rules vios here are easily verified:

WP:COI vios: User:Lakinekaki is IRL Lazar Kovacevic (see this previous AfD debate for details), who is or was affiliated with the Chicago Center for Creative Development of Hector Sabelli, which in my view cannot be characterized as a legitimate scientific institute. Kovacevic has coauthored several papers on so-called "bios theory" with Sabelli, but he has consistently failed to disclose this close personal connection to the ideas he is writing about at WP (for example by pointing out the connection in the talk pages of his articles).

WP:FRINGE vios: Kovacevic has repeatedly tried to present Sabelli's "bios theory" as mainstream, but the only papers on this so-called "theory" are authored or coauthored by Sabelli, and they appear to have been cited only by the authors themselves. Kovacevic provided a link to a paper by Sabelli e-published at the Ceptual Institute (formerly Integrity/Ceptual Institute) of James Neil Rose (Minden, NV), but this is apparently yet another one-man "research institute" which discusses such topics as "Gaia, teleology, Cyber-cosmos, Diakosmesis, Cyberneomonasticism, Integrity Dynamics, Novelty". Rose states his position like this:

The Universe is sentient and whole at every level, in every act.

It is good science. It is good spiritual enlightenment.

It is good humanity.

— James Neil Rose

From this brief snippet it should already be clear that "Ceptual Institute" cannot be characterized as promoting mainstream science. Rose earned an undergraduate degree in biology (1969) and worked as a art dealer and coin dealer; he is not a scientist.

Hector C. Sabelli is a psychiatrist by training, not a scientist. His coauthor Lazar Kovacevic is an electrical engineer by training; his other coauthor, Louis H. Kauffman, is a mathematician (more later on that!). Sabelli has written some more or less mainstream stuff in his own field, and has also written at least two fringe books on his so-called "bios theory".

In "Bios Theory of Creative Evolution", Sabelli summarizes his basic idea like this:

Bios is a theory regarding the natural creation of complexity from simple elementary forms. Fundamental physical, biological and human processes are autodynamic and creative, rather than determined or aleatory; they causally generate diversity, novelty, and complexity. This is bios.

... Bios is also found in the series of prime numbers, indicating that bios is a fundamental mathematical process. Mathematical recursions show that biotic patterns are generated by the recursion (action) of bipolar and bidimensional oppositions (e.g. sinusoidal waveforms) and conservation. In nature, bios may be generated by the interaction of similar and universal processes: (1) action, the flow of energy in time; (2) the rotation of harmonic opposites; (3) the conservation of stable structures. At the physical level, they are exemplified by physical action (Planck's quantum) and unipolar gravity, bipolar electromagnetic force and the tripolar nuclear forces that generate stable material structures. These factors appear to be necessary and sufficient to generate life-like (biotic) patterns. These forms reoccur in a homologous fashion within and between the multiple levels of organization they contribute to create. ... While current discourse on complexity stress random change and puts forward the emergence of order out of chaos, mathematical recursions show that order deterministically generates chaos, and the diffusion of chaos generates bios. Biological evolution is a creative development in which (1) causal actions (not just random mutations) generate biological variation; (2) bipolar feedback (synergy and antagonism, not only Darwinian struggle and competition) generates information (diversification, novelty and complexity); (3) connections (of molecules, genes, species) construct systems in which simple processes have priority for survival but complex processes acquire supremacy.

— Hector Sabelli

In other words, Sabelli et al. claim that natural selection is dominated by a murky alleged "creative principle" they call "bios", an alleged tendency toward complexity. This could be called a neo-Chardinian/Lamarckian notion, with the twist that Sabelli claims (quite incorrectly) that his principle is founded in modern nonlinear dynamical systems theory. Thus for example in addition to his Chicago Center, it seems that Sabelli is also associated with a Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and Life Sciences and a Bios Group. Sabelli and Kovacevic claim in another paper that the distribution of galaxies is also determined by this alleged "bios principle", and they appear to suggest that "bios theory" might offer a cure for various psychiatric conditions. (Psychoceramics not included?)

I think it is obvious from these excerpts why the few mathematicians/biologists/physicists who have heard of "bios theory" consider it classic pseudoscience, chockfull of ecletic terminology (e.g. according to Sabelli, gravity is "unipolar", electromagnetism is "bipolar", and "nuclear forces" are "tripolar") and impressive buzzwords hijacked from a real theory (nonlinear dynamical systems). But here things take a highly technical turn, and unfortunately, as Kovacevic appears to concede in a policy page discussion at wikimedia.org, non-mathematicians will probably have to take the word of the WikiProject Mathematics members here for the following:

Louis H. Kauffman is a distinguished mathematician, best known for introducing the bracket polynomial which is one step on the easiest path to defining the HOMFLY polynomial in knot theory, and which Kauffman used to establish an intriguing connection between statistical mechanics and knot theory. Since I have often written about this topic enthusiastically in the past (e.g. old UseNet postings written long before Wikipedia even existed!), it should be clear that my enjoyment of Kauffman's earlier work is unfeigned. Nonetheless, I have the impression that Kauffman has long had a reputation for generating some pretty odd ideas, and IMO his work with Sabelli can at best be located on the borderline between fringe and cranky. (One might recall such precedents as Isaac Newton for the proposition that even mathematicians can have some rather odd ideas!) This circumstance presents special WP:BLP problems; Wikipedia's track record in preventing bios of (arguably) "notable fringe figures" from becoming slanted toward wikiwoo has not been good. For what it's worth, my experience from 2006 suggests that the best approach is to keep such wikbios very short--- and protected. To avoid misleading readers, one must very briefly mention both mainstream accomplishments (bracket polynomial) and fringe claims (bios theory), and leave it at that. Protection is neccessary to avoid endless and ultimately pointless content disputes with User:Lakinekaki, spamming of very long C.V.s, and so forth.

I am sure it will be obvious to mathematicians with a knowledge of nonlinear dynamical systems (since I once wrote a diss on a topic in dynamical systems, I hope I can include myself in this group!), from what has already been said here, that Sabelli et al. are incorrect in claiming that nonlinear dynamical systems theory (real math) supports "bios theory" (pseudomath). Pseudomathematics is unfortunately a genuine and growing phenomenon, which often seems motivated by extrascientific agendas clustered around creationism/deism: I recall for example widely promoted claims that ergodic theory (real math) supports Dembski's "irreducible complexity" (pseudomath), or that statistics (real math) supports "bible codes" (pseudomath).

WP:COAT vios: In particular, this audience will recognize the origins of the so-called "process equation" in the circle map (real math) discussed by V. I. Arnold in connection with the phenomenon of Arnold tongues (real math), and this audience will immediately recognize the dynamical systems terms which are misused by Sabelli to (unintentional) comic effect. (To be fair, I point out one exception: Sabelli is using homology in the biological sense, not the mathematical sense!) Several pages at the website of the Chicago Center for Creative Development strongly suggest an extrascientific motivation for "bios theory":

Biotic development illustrates how evolution may be expected to continue creating an attractor of infinite complexity rather than tending to equilibrium. This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science and with mental health principles...process theory regards philosophizing about God as sacred art.

— creativebios.com

Note that Sabelli himself has also edited Asymmetry, adding a citation to his book on "bios theory" and a description of his views. At the present time, that article is sorely unbalanced; in particular, it lacks such obligatory mainstream citations as the seminal book by Hermann Weyl.

I'd like to end my extended comment by urging any mathematically literate students who don't yet know much about nonlinear dynamical systems to read some very enjoyable undergraduate level books which offer a fine overview of this wonderful subject (including Arnold tongues, time series, and many other wonderful things which are dreadfully abused by Sabelli et al.):

E. Atlee Jackson, Perspectives of Nonlinear Dynamics, two volumes, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Robert C. Hilborn, Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, Oxford Univesity Press, 1994.

Enjoy! ---CH (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just few small additions to CH's impressive analysis.

First, Sabelli's CV shows that he is an obvious pseudo scientist.

Second, I came to Chicago after bios theory related stuff was published (I contributed later with programming skills and analysis of various time series).

Third, I tried to create an article about bios two times as anonymous user. I tried to do it when I just got to know about bios, and I liked idea, and didn't find anything about it on Wikipedia. This happened before I got involved into it and have co-authored papers. Articles got deleted immediately. You may have not know this, but users do get exited when they find a topic missing in wikipedia that they think they can contribute to. And they do get emotional when others try to delete it. Probably every other article that I started was nominated for deletion, and here are few of those: Ko to tamo peva, Asymmetry, Diamond of opposites, Intermittency, The Real Dirt on Farmer John, Angelic Organics, Miroslav Lazanski, Process equation, Hormonal meat. Actually, that's more than half of those I started -- since I have an account here. I don't even know what I started and what was deleted while I was an anonymous user. So in light of this experience with deletionism I had to fight with, you may be able to understand little more why I try to be very persistent about my edits -- that others don't provide good arguments against, including edits related to bios.

However, I knew little about WP policies and citations. Once I learned more, and had personal experience with 'academia' stuff, I created bios article again -- under my current username, as anonymous users couldn't create articles any more. This time, article had references, and stayed there for over 6 months, until CH started in paranoiac way to solicit wikipedia editors (similar to what he is doing now-- look at the comments further below) on their talk pages to delete the article. Furthermore, WP:Notability policy changed a little in those 6 months, and had slightly stricter rules for article inclusion -- secondary source review was being debated.

Also, the intensity of my edits should not be only connected with my involvement with bios, but with the way I edit articles in general. For example, you can see recent Solar cycle talk page -- I know very little about the field, but am being persistent as other editors are showing a bias, IMHO, against ideas they don't personally like, and start doing a serious WP:OR for those edits (above CH analysis is a prime example of a wikipedia editor doing WP:OR), while never try anything similar for the ones they like.

Finally, why I don't publish my personal info in bold all over my userpage is a matter of personal philosophy. I prefer anonymity, both by me and by others. I like ideas. I care about ideas. I don't care about who sais them. I think that credentials should not be used in Wikipedia discussions, but only arguments, and if you cannot have an argument, but have to hide behind your title, than maybe you should not discuss topics. And I don't really understand why people raised such a fuss about Essjay guy. Its peoples fault they paid attention to his credentials instead of his arguments and references he was providing. So that's another argument for anonymity and not credentials.

Edit: I see now Essjay was 'salaried Wikia employee', so I guess it does deserve a fuss.

Lakinekaki (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another important thing, how does most of above analysis by you, CH, relate to 'process equation' article? Quite a straw man argument you are building. It distracted even me from noticing it, although I am easily distracted. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another reply to new ridiculous Asymmetry accusations[5]: the page as I created and last edited by me (except a minor edit since) looked like this, and since than it changed significantly and looks now like this. As you can see, neither what I placed there justifies your paranoia, nor did I complain about page improvements done by other editors since. I created an article about Asymmetry which I thought was a notable subject, and article remained after I put enough content. My mission there was accomplished, as now people can find some info about asymmetry. So what exactly did I do wrong there? I would really appreciate that 'scientific skeptical' editors like you stop stalking my edits, and stop harassing me and accusing me of nonsense. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if I started analyzing your edit history (which I think you asked to be deleted), I could find a lots of far fetched conspiracy links between your area of graduate studies and current work, and your edits. Do you edit articles in Wikipedia you know something about? Shame on you if you do! @$#%*!~< Lakinekaki (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one!?! CH, you are becoming amusing and sad. Intermittency started by me is now also a suspect? Lakinekaki (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Bios theory may not be Lakinekaki's pet theory, but it's certainly somebody's pet theory, and should be removed from Wikipedia until a credible scientist recognizes it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bios theory was removed. This page is about Process equation.Lakinekaki (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yep. The lead, and, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the concept, only makes sense if the concept of Bios theory exists. The article was removed because the concept doesn't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  For a four time winner of Putnam prize, your deductive reasoning is quite faulty. First, non existence of article about bios theory doesn't imply non existence of the concept of bios outside of wikipedia. Second, even if the concept is total nonsense, that does not mean it does not exist. Third, concept of bios theory is much wider than topic of process equation, and actually first depends on later, not the opposite. 2 statements, 3 fallacies. You can do better. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, the arguments presented in for the deletion of bios theory pretty much demonstrated that the concept was non-notable, misleading, and possibly totally bogus. In the absence of bios theory being at least a notable fringe theory, this article would fail as {{db-context}}.

In your own WP:OR it may be, but however if you had bothered to read references, you would see bios is defined in those articles. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any references to this except from the same few people. I just don't think this is notable. Cardamon (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close The nominator was in a revert war with Lakinekaki on this article for some time. First, [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The nom then got in a revert war with that user over redirecting it: [13] [14] [15]. AfD is not a means of winning a content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Nonsense. The nominator thinks that this content has no place on Wikipedia, but that the article could be a redirect or disambiguation between possibly related terms. Nothing inconsistent there. If necessary, I'd sign the deletion reasons in his place, but this actually borders on a speedy delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. The sentences make sense, but the paragraphs do not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  The first group of diffs look like a content dispute that wasn't a redirect or disambiguation. Why make changes to the content if it's not worth keeping in the first place? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  So people aren't allowed to make mistakes? The fact is, I've only a vague familiarity with pattern mathematics and chaotic systems. The definition of a "process equation" is unremarkable and I hadn't researched it well enough to know whether it was actually a name that was used in the literature or not. What I was trying to remove was the obvious soapboxing for Sabelli. Later, I did some research as to the actual equation and found that nobody-but-nobody refers to such an equation as a "process equation". Thus, I asked for the article to be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google Scholar shows almost no citations for the Kauffman and Sabelli papers on this equation by anyone other them and their collaborators, suggesting (as Eldereft has noted above) that this term for this particular equation hasn't become scientifically notable. Scog (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• weak Delete After searching, nothing found on this topic or people in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. As far as I can tell it's not notable even among science and religion scholars. I'm quite open to religion and science topics and I believe wikipedia is too. But such articles need to be more up front about who and what they are. Also even most members of the religion and science community are totally turned off by intelligent design and as a whole only luke-warm towards process philosophy/process theology. If process equation is something like process physics, then I'm not sure what it's notability status is. the deleted article process physics is still something I have yet to come across amongst any science and religion scholars and I read their works voraciously. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Eldereft, DGG, above. Lack of notability outside of its own echo-chamber. Verbal chat 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• delete no evidence of notable impact on scientific thinking independent of authors. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- total gibberish. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From Lakinekaki's older version of userpage:

Excerpt:

WP:N A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. ... The "multiple" qualification is intentionally not specific as to number, except that it be more than one. ... multiplicity of works ... is one researcher or journalist writing and publishing a series of different articles on a single subject. One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

Note that policies evolve, and in my opinion this represents a 'minimal' threshold of notability for inclusion, which can become higher in the future by requiring in depth review by the secondary source.

Update: indeed, above policy definition from the time of bios deletion does now include requirement for secondary source review.

End of excerpt.

I can also see that 'Process equation' was created after the deletion of 'Bios theory' page. In light of this, this article may have had passed WP:N criteria in the past, but criteria changed, and now it requires in depth review by the secondary source, which was not provided -- only citations were provided. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The above IP is quite likely to be Lakinekaki (talk · contribs). Verbal chat 06:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is not relevant that the people who introduced the concept are not (otherwise?) notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (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.