Home // Ateísmo // Amit Goswami realmente existe!

Amit Goswami realmente existe!

Em minha palestra Ciência e Religião: Quatro Perspectivas, dada no IEA-RP, chamei de pseudocientífica toda crença que  afirma que possui evidências científicas a seu favor quando esse não é exatamente o caso. O melhor que uma opinião filosófica, ideológica ou religiosa deve afirmar é que ela é “compatível com” e não “derivada do” conhecimento científico. Essa também é a posição de Freeman Dyson.

Durante a palestra, fiz uma crítica a Amit Goswami que se revelou mais tarde bastante errada, e devo aqui registrar um “erramos” ou mea culpa.  Pelo fato de que Goswami não tem uma página na Wikipedia inglesa (mas apenas na Portuguesa) e devido a ter feito uma busca na Web of Science que não revelou nenhum artigo de física desse autor, fiz a inferência apressada de que talvez Amit Goswami fosse um pseudônimo de uma personagem menor (assim como Acharya S. é o pseudônimo de Dorothy M. Murdock, a propagadora da teoria da conspiração do Cristo Mítico).

Creio que os editores da Wikipedia foram demasiado rigorosos com Goswami. Afinal, embora ele seja um físico não notável, com índice de Hirsch igual a sete, ele pelo menos tem um PhD e é autor de um livro-texto sério de Física Quântica.  Sua migração para a New Age, seguindo os passos de Fritjof Capra, longe de ser um demérito, pode refletir grande inteligência social e financeira (ironia aqui!).  Assim, se deletaram Goswami da Wikipedia, deveriam deletar Acharya S. também, por coerência!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guillaume2303’s research indicates that the early “keep” opinions likely apply to another, more notable person of the same name, which means that they are not taken into consideration here. The “keep” opinions by Jleibowitz101 and are also not taken into account as they are not based on our inclusion rules and practices.  Sandstein  06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Amit Goswami

Amit Goswami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
(Find sources: “Amit Goswami” – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I’m just not convinced this article really demonstrates notability. He played a small role in a couple films, he wrote books outside his field for very minor publishers, and… er, that’s about it. I’m just not buying it, and the lack of good WP:RS – this has major primary sourcing issues – is another mark against it. Perhaps something can be salvaged, but I’m not convinced the case has been made. ETA: Guillaume2303’s point (below) that there are multiple people of this name, and this article appears to be on the much less notable one is rather significant. 86.** IP (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Amit Goswami is a thinker in a long line of philosophers and scientists who emphasize the role of consciousness and subjectivity in human knowledge and, indeed, in the construction of reality. Kant himself delved into the subjectivity of knowledge and the distinction between the thing-in-itself and our perceptions. From Kant onwards, much development along these lines of thought occurred. In Schopenhauer, for example, German idealism came to the point of claiming that the thing-in-itself was nothing more than Will and its many expressions. Via Schopenhauer, and others, Freud developed his ideas of the unconscious mind and its drives. Thus, Goswami’s work and ideas are very much in one particular ‘mainstream’ of thought and well deserve presentation in Wikipedia. — Jleibowitz101 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Question The article states that Goswami is a physicist at UoO, however I could not find a faculty page for him. [1]. This may have been because he retired, however I cannot find any indication on an official UoO page that he held any notable position within that institution. —Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
A “Goswami” (no first name) is listed as a former associate professor at the UoO [2]. He appears also here under his full name[3]. There is also a list of publications by Amit Goswami hosted by the UoO. [4]Paul B (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good find! Was Associate-Prof the highest rank he reached? I do not see how he could pass WP:PROF‘s criteria for notability? —Salimfadhley (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it remarkable that Jleibowitz argues that this thinker is an intellectual descendant of Kant, but even if he happens to work in the same tradition as Kant and others, so what? That surely doesn’t establish notability, which seems to be the primary issue here. Phiwum (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: Plenty of Google Scholar presence, with some citation counts exceeding 100. K2709 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not in his peer reviewed publications from what I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar should only be used as a rough metric for notability since it counts non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. blogs, web-sites). —Salimfadhley (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. He seems notable enough, both for his work and his public persona. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (but, I wouldn’t object to it being deleted). Citation count is nice, so he’s definitely had some impact on his field. But, he doesn’t appear to be a giant in the field, either.JoelWhy (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a short summary of what impact he had on his field? For example, what was his most notable discovery. Has this discovery lead to other areas of important study? FYI, the WP:PROF guidelines advise that google-scholar should be used as a “rough guide only” since it may count non non-peer reviewed publications in it’s metric. —Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I have no idea what impact he’s had on the field. But, generally, when you have 100+ articles siting your work, that is a pretty good indicating that you have has some form of impact on the field. I deal with a great many scientists as part of my job, but I am not a scientist and I certainly am not an expert in this guy’s field of work. I’m just making an educated guess that he’s impacted the field to some extent.JoelWhy (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not been able to see any reliable secondary source that shows any impact on any field. I was just surprised to see the word “definite” used in your original statement. I’d urge you to re-consider your decision if it’s based on guesswork alone. —Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Is there any potential we can actually make a decent article? Do reliable independent sources exist on the topic? IRWolfie-(talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete There are several persons named “Goswami A” in the Web of Science. One of them is a prolific physicist (> 200 articles published), but his address is given as “Bhabha Atom Res Ctr”. Searching for “Goswami A AND Oregon” renders 21 articles, with a total of 133 citations, highest count 27, h-index = 7. GS gives a high citation count for his book. Books are not included in WoS’ citation analysis, but doing a “cited reference search” for the book title and author name shows a total of 81 citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. As noted by Salimfadhley, the much higher count in GS may be because GS will also counts citations from blogs, websites, etc. (cf. the curious history of Ike Antkare…) Unless this is the same person as the one at the Bhabha Centre, these citation counts don’t show any large influence on the field, I think. The link to a small list of publications at the UoO site provided by Paul Barlow above, suggests that they are different persons. —Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears it’s a different person, Amit Goswami is at oregon whilst the Other A Goswami is currently at Bhabha Atom Res Ctr: [5]. Goswami appears to be a relatively common second name. Amit Goswami does not appear to pass WP:PROF (81 citations appears low). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Best to delete. For notability we require proof positive and it’s not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
  • The article should be kept. Even though he presumably retired some years ago, I had no trouble finding a reference to him on the University of Oregon’s website (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/fac/goswami.html). A quick check on Amazon also shows that his textbook “Quantum Mechanics” is still in print and that, as usual, some people think it’s a good book while others think it’s awful. So clearly he is at least quite entitled to be considered a proper scientist and not some kind of ‘fringe’ or ‘pseudo’ scientist. But of course the Amit Goswami article on Wikipedia is not there because he is an important theoretical physicist, but because of the series of books he has written attempting to apply the findings of quantum mechanics to areas which most scientists would probably consider outside the realm of physics altogether. His basic argument, that scientific inquiry can also be based on the premise that consciousness is the primary reality from which material phenomena derive, seems to be no less tenable than its opposite and would no doubt find suport from a number of Western philosophers, from Berkeley to Bradley. His extension of this premise into more speculative realms may strike many people as somewhat bizarre, in English-speaking countries at any rate, but if his books arouse sufficient interest or controversy, or stimulate widespread discussion, that is surely sufficient reason for allowing him space in an encyclopedia as comprehensive as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp10 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Tp10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That’s basically an argument that Goswami would be notable as a fringe scientist, but I don’t see any evidence for that, either. —Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, in fact my preceding comment argues, whether rightly or wrongly, that he is “not some kind of ‘fringe’…scientist”, and goes on to suggest that most of Goswami’s books might be better described as falling under the heading of “speculative” science or philosophy.–Tp10 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussionsValfontis (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of if he is right or wrong, at least his theories are new and fresh and deserve that we reflect on them. I say that we should at least have an article on him in wikipedia to at least see what books and article he has written — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)
    • That’s not a policy-based argument; the issue is whether he’s notable. 86.** IP (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete—Guillaume2303 had me at “h-index of 7”. Not a notable scholar. LivitEh?/What? 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Posted in Ateísmo, Religião, Sem categoria and tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *