Chris Langan's CTMU: Scientific Reviews

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the scientific reviews of Chris Langan's CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), examining its validity and the nature of the theory itself. Participants express skepticism regarding its scientific merit and mathematical foundation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the availability of scientific reviews of the CTMU.
  • Another participant provides a link to a document related to Langan's theory.
  • Some participants argue that the CTMU lacks testable predictions and does not utilize mathematics, questioning its classification as a scientific theory.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of the journal "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design," suggesting it is not a legitimate peer-reviewed outlet.
  • One participant expresses a strong negative opinion, labeling the theory as nonsense.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism and disagreement regarding the scientific validity of Langan's CTMU, with no consensus on its merits or the existence of credible reviews.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the lack of mathematical rigor and testable predictions in Langan's theory, which may affect its classification within scientific discourse.

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
764
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
2K
Appeal process for Physical Review Letters
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Stolen ideas in scientific articles?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
The Case of Andrew D. - out
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
910
Some Parents take their kiddo to the beach while others take their kitty to the beach
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
623
Scientific American and Political Endorsements
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
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