Talk:Miles Mathis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Let's not go crazy[edit]

All the articles you make, you'll have to grow past stub yourself, and within a reasonable time frame. Just so you know, champ. I'm counting on you. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the time frame?Roo (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If you work on the article in a sandbox; no deadline. But in mainspace, well... I can't answer that. I mean, if it were up to me, I'd give you an entire week. But even if you KNOW you want to be able to take your time and just have fun, move the article into your sandbox for now? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'll work on it now. What is the cut off for stubs?Roo (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Basically just inverts what he says. What's the utility of it? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We should do this again sometime.
I never want to see you again.
Its me.
Its you.

The psychology is mirrored in the world of dating. I can see right through it. Sad but true.Roo (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably should be made more sober in tone[edit]

and it won't lose anything from it, because simply recounting his claims with citations is goddamn hilarious - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a fun guy. I say we do it. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A few references that should be added[edit]

I'd like someone to add the following links:

As references to the sentence: "Mathis [...] assures the current derivatives of many elemental functions are wrong and all mathematicians are mistaken." I would do it myself, but since the article has been protected, I can't. Thanks in advance. Tnegaaic (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added the above links. However, what is really needed is an entire section devoted to his numerous and frequent mathematical misconceptions. --Slings and Arrows (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Balanced View = Credibility[edit]

I am new to RationalWiki and I dislike cranks as much as anyone else. However, when I come across something written about a controversial subject matter that I have knowledge of and recognize that it is being purposefully distorted, then I give the author/user/editor zero credibility. If an individual wants to write a scathing review of someone they consider a crank, that is fine. But it should be honest and not misleading.

The scientific method should not incorporate deception...assuming any of you are in actual pursuit of the truth. I am honestly having a difficult time determining if the truth plays any part of your overall agenda.

In any case, as an example on this page of something I consider deceptive... It was stated that Miles Mathis believes pi = 4. While that is true, it leaves out that he has clearly stated that it only applies to CIRCULAR MOTION. To leave that out leaves your readers with the false belief that he believes the circumference of a circle is a function of 4 X dia...which he does not.

Now if your only intention is simply to slander, ridicule, mock or otherwise make sport of this chap, then I suppose that's that. But I don't think anyone with any real objective intelligence is going to give you any credibility with such an unjustifiably unbalanced perspective.

There are plenty of cranks out there for sure. But if you don't want to come off as a community of cranks, yourselves, then perhaps including a bit more balance and honesty in your works would be prudent.

And I am being sincere in my efforts to improve the perception of RationalWiki. I have a BSME from Purdue and personally don't give the articles I have read much credence. And I don't think my viewpoint is that unique among my peers. Take it or leave...that's my honest assessment. — Unsigned, by: Seventhson / talk / contribs

No, a 'balanced account' would not be appropriate. However, I do agree that full and complete information must be provided. But we will not commit the logical fallacy known as false equivalence. His views cannot be considered to be on par with actual physicists and mathematicians. Nerd271 (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Seventhson We explicitly do not seek an NPOV, if that's what you mean. We make no secret of this.
Regarding the clarification of statements and/or the addition of better information to our articles — e.g. that, to Miles Mathis, "pi is only 4" in the context of circular motion — then sure, that's something we are greatly appreciative of.
Provide us with the relevant sources on anything you'd like changed or clarified, and we can discuss what the sources given do or do not entail for the article proper. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Seventhson The reference to the "π is 4" in the article clearly states Mathis' own words: "I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations." Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but you see, words like "kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations" really, truly, do not mean to MM what they mean to sane people, so it's a distinction without a difference. I'm not being unkind. I've followed MM for a long time, and seriously entertained the notion that this is all a piece of performance art. But finally I've come to the conclusion that he is seriously deranged, and remarkable not in his crankery (which is run of the mill stupidity of the scientifically illiterate) but in the sheer volume of his manic outpourings over a sustained period of time. (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, words like "circumference", "radius", and even "pi" have their own peculiar meanings and definitions within the Mathis pi=4 theory. For example, he claims that pi is not a unitless constant (the commonly held belief the world over), but instead it is an acceleration (m/s2); the radius is not a length, in his theory it is a velocity (m/s); and the circumference is just plain batshit crazy -- he assigns the units of (m2/s3) to it. So this Mathis fellow is simply off his rocker; a certifiable loony-tune. (See: What is pi? by Miles Mathis) --Slings and Arrows (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have gone offline[edit]

Does anyone know more about this? (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathis was only offline temporarily (changing to a different internet provider), but he's now back online and happily back to spouting his conspiracies and poorly crafted crackpottery. --Slings and Arrows (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Artist MM[edit]

"In response to demand, I have extended my sale on new commissioned pencil portraits for another few months into 2017. Still only $900: that's half price. This special offer is for portraits of young women and children only." Aside from the wash of creepy paraphilia that also taints his kitschy art, that's not how the economics of supply and demand works, is it? If there is a lot of demand at a given price point, that is a sign you can ask for more, not extend your rather desperate "sale". (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Google searches demonstrate MM's world-wide impact[edit]

MM is delighted to find that dozens of Google searches on sundry subjects turn up his papers in the top 10 or at least on the first few pages. This attests to his success, MM believe: "Now, do you honestly think any other private individual in the world can claim rankings like that, on a broad array of scientific subjects? Of course my critics will claim I have some way to cheat the rankings. I don't. I just put the papers up and let them fend for themselves. I am not a computer geek, as you can see by my website formatting. I wouldn't know how to boost my rankings if I wanted to." Answer: Miles you don't have to want to and you don't have to do anything. Google tailors searches to your interests. It determines (in actually or using a clever techniques called statistical finger printing) who you are and returns results that it deems most relevant to you. In other words, these are not your universal rankings; just the ones that you happen to see when _you_ perform a web search. It will be thus for any private individual who posts a lot of, erm, musings on a wide range of subjects on the web!

It's like looking in a mirror and saying: Anyone looking at one of these things will see me!!!

(BTW it is interesting to note that famed crackpot Myron Evans labours under similar misconceptions.) (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Miles is hurt and opens up[edit]

Somebody did a pastiche on MM's paranoia-filled genealogies, and turned it on him. This touched a nerve with MM, who appears to have a tin ear for satire, at least when he is the butt of the joke, and he responds in an indignant piece that is almost lucid and truthful for whole paragraphs at a time. E.g.:

"Mary and I [...] didn't have children because no woman wants to have children with a guy without a steady income. Most artists don't have a steady income, and I never yet have. That is just the way it is. I wanted children almost as much as Mary did, but I wasn't willing to quit art and get an office job to do it. I made my choice and I have had to live with it. As you know, it is one of the reasons I am angry, and anger drives my research. I have always admitted that. I am angry that despite being very good at what I do, I have never been able to make a decent living at it— except for a few months here and there. And the reason (I believe) I wasn't able to do that is that I wasn't connected." ... and we're off into la-la-land. But still. (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


What sets MM apart from many conspiracy loons is that he is a equal-opportunity denouncer. The common or garden variety conspiracy theorist tends to be anti-science and far right (and often white male with nothing to show for his life). Ultra-left ones also exist, but this seems to be the century of the ultra-right nut case.

MM's antisemitism, nasty as it is, seems to be a deeply embedded prejudice and he is as likely to go after Trump as JFK. Exactly why "they" want you to think that celebrity jews are actually goys and vice versa never becomes clear. I guess for MM there are so many layers of subterfuge that public politics becomes an irrelevant side show.

Don't get me wrong. MM is still insane. This is a man who scans the New Scientist for hidden messages of the illuminati. (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are his arguments[edit]

'Pi in the sky (without diamonds)'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a parody?[edit]

Are you sure Miles Mathis is not kidding? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs