I think that Chris Langan's ideas need to be looked into more closely. In fact, I have done so and found them to be the case, however objectionable his personal behaviour may be. (On that note, I'm not sure whether footnote 7. should be linked to any longer given that most of the links listed on its page are down, as the site to which they link has moved and searching the new site requires an account.) Moreover, I'm not sure why his personal spats are relevant to the quality of his work. Anyway, I will gladly answer any questions about the CTMU and what it entails. However, you should all know that the main body of the CTMU comes from this (http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/CTMUnet/CTMU.html) paper, and that, though ID is mentioned early in the paper, the CTMU does not amount to traditional ID theory. In fact, a person who is very likely Chris Langan said as much during a Wikipedia debate using the account "Asmodeus". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asmodeus/pseudosciencerfarb). -D3j4K, 6:59 a.m., Thursday, July 28, 2011
Alright, I now see that footnote 7. does in fact link to one useful forum. I will use this (second) post to clear some more things up about the CTMU. First of all, though Langan has related his God to God of the Bible, he is taking the Bible extremely metaphorically for the most part and essentially overlooking its primitive ethics for obvious reasons. You may complain that this is a "god of the gaps" argument, but the point is *it's not an argument*. When Chris Langan compares the CTMU to Christian values and beliefs, or when he compares it to Buddhist values and beliefs (as he has done elsewhere), he is not making a logical argument for the CTMU, he is simply pointing out that similar things have cropped up in other places. I.e., when he refers to the Bible or any other religious text, you should not take this as meaning that he wants us to believe in the CTMU by virtue of any religious connections it has. He has already demonstrated the CTMU logically in other places. (But don't take my word for it. See for yourselves.) I can't overstate this. Also, it's worth noting that the approach Langan takes to explain the CTMU varies very much from place to place. I am willing to conjecture that he makes the choice of presentation on the basis of hypotheses on what may be understood by his audience the most readily. (Also, note that Langan doesn't explicitly state that his God is God of the Bible. He states, "...since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God," which just means that he believes what he terms "God" gave us scientific evidence and the Bible. His God being the Creator, this is true, in the sense that we wouldn't be here without a creation event [of any sort].) There's more to address, but this is all for now. -D3j4K, 5:47 p.m., Thursday, July 28, 2011
Langan on Wikipedia
"Caution - this article is misleading An interesting little article, if only because it is almost completely misleading in its references to me, my wife, and my ideas, and the use of those references to exemplify Wikipedia’s problem with “narcissistic cranks” and “questionable theories”. The actual facts of the case cited by Mr. Farrell can be found in pages accessible from those linked above, and they do not weigh in Wikipedia’s favor. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia's worst problem is not cranks and their theories, but its huge and growing population of anonymous trolls, vandals, and fake "experts", many of whom function as Wikipedia administrators.
Lest anyone be given the wrong impression, neither I nor my wife has ever introduced an article on me or the CTMU to Wikipedia. Those articles were authored, and signed, by others with no known connection to us. As regards the editing of existing articles, the rules of Wikipedia, while discouraging "conflicts of interest", explicitly allow the subjects of Wikipedia articles to remove defamation and correct falsehoods regarding themselves, their ideas, and their activities (obviously, prohibiting such corrections could lead to serious legal and ethical difficulties for Wikipedia). Although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee does not always respect those rules, certain militant editors and outright trolls who had been pseudonymously using the encyclopedia to attack my reputation and ideas were ultimately warned to desist by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Of course, like everyone else, those who run Cosmos magazine are welcome to their opinions, no matter how uninformed or premature they may be. However, I respectfully suggest that its editors, editorial advisors, and executives be a bit more careful regarding the possible long-term effects of such disparaging articles. Responsible intellectual commerce has no room for veiled accusations and snide insinuations like those exemplified above.
Incidentally, should any scientist or philosopher on the staff of Cosmos ever wish to take open, reasoned, non-pseudonymous exception to any technical statement actually made or written by me and invite a response, I welcome him or her to do so. If nothing else, the readers of Cosmos might find such an exchange instructive. But in any event, rumor-based, content-deficient articles like this have very little relevance to science, cosmology, or anything legitimately related to them.
Christopher M. Langan
Submitted by C.M. Langan on 5 August 2007 - 6:38am. reply" http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/1339/in-wikipedia-we-trust?page=1Koinotely (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Giving it a second look, yes Asmodeus is most likely Chris Langan, I hadn't noticed this part:
"I live in the American Midwest with my wife and many pets. My interests include science (particularly physics and biology), mathematics, philosophy, theology, and the social covenant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asmodeus
- Surprise, this ain't Wikipedia, this is RationalWiki, there is no
DanaNPOV, only ZuulSPOV.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I can claim to have the highest iq score as well. but im retarded next to any engineer. where is the credible source? might also mention that malcolm gladwell is responsible for a lot of the bullshit propagated about this guy. one fraud promoting another :p— Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
This man is not a mathematician. He has not made contributions of any kind to mathematics or studied mathematics. His Wikipedia page says he is famous for his "high IQ", in addition to clarifying that he has no formal education.
He's not a mathematician. I say this as someone with a mathematics degree. As you say, he doesn't study mathematics. He has made no contributions to mathematics. Even his paper - it contains no mathematics, or at least no non-trivial mathematics (he makes a statement about the dual space V* of the vector space V being the set of all linear functionals on V, but that's common knowledge for anyone who has ever skimmed a linear algebra textbook). That's why I deleted the section on his work - it gives the impression that his work is somehow accepted as mainstream when really it's not. It's not mainstream at all and I have yet to meet any mathematician who takes it seriously. At best, you could call Langan a philosopher, although not a very good one.
View of RationalWiki
“Rational Wiki” is a website which is designed to look like Wikipedia, but which is actually more like a pseudointellectual tourist trap whose inhabitants are fiercely dedicated to the mockery and defamation of people and ideas to which its proprietor objects. (As nearly as anyone can determine, this is an obscure Canadian resident and “secular humanist” calling himself “Trent Toulouse”.) It exhibits a strong and persistent bias against conservatives, roundly insulting and belittling non-leftists at every available opportunity. It is also noted for its boundless contempt for religion and metaphysics, dismissing anything its contributors find difficult to understand as “nonsense” or “woo”. Unlike Wikipedia, the site appears to have no clean-up crew(s) responsible for toning down the vitriol of its editorializers.