Chris Langan's CTMU: Scientific Reviews

  • Thread starter Payton
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the lack of scientific reviews for a "theory" proposed by a man named Langan. The theory is considered to be more of a philosophical treatise and lacks testable predictions and mathematical evidence. The speaker also expresses doubts about Langan's intelligence and credibility. They point out that Langan's work is published in a journal created by the discovery institute, which raises further doubts about the legitimacy of his ideas.
  • #1
Payton
10
0
Where can I find some scientific reviews of his "theory"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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
 
  • #5
It's nonsense.
 

1. What is Chris Langan's CTMU theory?

Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is a theory that attempts to unify science and philosophy by proposing a model of reality that encompasses both the physical and the mental aspects of the universe.

2. What are some of the main criticisms of the CTMU?

Some of the main criticisms of the CTMU include its use of complex and abstract terminology, its lack of empirical evidence, and its reliance on subjective interpretations.

3. How does the CTMU differ from other theories of reality?

The CTMU differs from other theories of reality in that it incorporates concepts from mathematics, physics, philosophy, and linguistics to create a comprehensive and self-referential model of the universe.

4. Has the CTMU been scientifically reviewed?

Yes, the CTMU has been reviewed by several scientists and philosophers. While some have praised its innovative approach, others have criticized its lack of empirical evidence and its use of complex terminology.

5. Is the CTMU widely accepted in the scientific community?

No, the CTMU is not widely accepted in the scientific community. While it has gained some recognition and sparked debates, it remains a controversial theory and has not been widely embraced by mainstream scientists.

Similar threads

Appeal process for Physical Review Letters
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
164
Judge gets scientific method better than scientists
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Citation bias in published papers
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
870
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
    • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
891
Interesting article about the Nobel Prize "Rule of Three"
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
892
Do You Trust "Reviews" on Next Door?
    • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
987
About meta trader platform
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
720
Academic journals practices
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
659
Publishing as a citizen scientist
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top