Chris Langan's CTMU: Scientific Reviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter Payton
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Chris Langan's CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) lacks scientific validity as it does not produce testable predictions and employs no mathematical framework. The discussion highlights skepticism regarding the credibility of Langan's work, particularly due to its publication in "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design," a journal associated with the Discovery Institute. Participants express doubt about the legitimacy of Langan's claims and the overall coherence of his theories, labeling them as philosophical rather than scientific.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of scientific methodology and testability
  • Familiarity with philosophical concepts in science
  • Knowledge of peer review processes in academic publishing
  • Awareness of Intelligent Design and its critiques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of scientific theory validation
  • Explore critiques of Intelligent Design and its associated literature
  • Examine the role of philosophical treatises in scientific discourse
  • Investigate the publication standards of "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design"
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, scientists, and educators interested in the intersection of science and philosophy, as well as those critically evaluating claims of scientific legitimacy in controversial theories.

Payton
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Where can I find some scientific reviews of his "theory"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
 
This "theory" doesn't make any testable predictions, and actually uses no math at all. I don't see how you can find a scientific review about a philosophical treatise.
 
Never heard of him until now. If this guy is the smartest guy in America I'll buy you a green dog. His "theories" are long rants of thought he has, on his website even his definition of a theory is bogus. The fact that he publishes in "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design", a journal invented by the discovery institute so that they could cite a "peer-reviewed" (i.e. passed round the same circle of IDiots) tells me all I need to know
 
It's nonsense.
 

Similar threads

How to get peers to review your work?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
295
Judge gets scientific method better than scientists
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
How can I get peer-reviewed studies supporting my assertions?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
Appeal process for Physical Review Letters
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Stolen ideas in scientific articles?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
905
The Case of Andrew D. - out
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
583
Scientific American and Political Endorsements
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
Citation bias in published papers
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
What Does Frequent Paper Review Requests from a Journal Editor Signify?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Asking about Chatgpt and Proprietary Software
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K