Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supreme Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Supreme Science was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Supreme Science[edit]

Essay on esoteric subject. No potential to become encyclopaedic. Zeimusu 15:13, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

  • Personal essay, delete. Actually, calling this original research might be giving it too much credit -- Ferkelparade π 15:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Where else is the study of thoughts, the first science, covered in your encyclopedia? Connecting Advaita with the universe and modern science and its unified field is "esoteric." If we don't understand what words are saying in simple English then we call it "esoteric." And since "I" cannot understand it then it cannot have "potential to become encyclopaedic." What about asking someone who knows something about physics and Advaita? User: Geza Pal.
  • Delete. Google finds < 500 results for this subject - that makes it unencyclopedic. David Johnson 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You may want to keep it around (in the background?)because it is the Unified Field Theory that has been around for over five thousand years. Modern science, medicine, psychology, stops at the mind and fails to address thoughts. That's like physics stopping to ask questions once it gets to its atoms. User: Geza Pal.
  • Delete: Original research and signed (and therefore copyrighted). As for the subject, there is virtually no name for thinking about thinking, and yet there are a dozen. There is no single, settled term, that I'm aware of, but "Supreme Science" turns up nothing substantial relating to this. (You cannot see your eye with your eye. You need a mirror. Systems are valid as they interact with other systems.) Geogre 19:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • RaD Man is probably the only one who knows what he’s writing about. The rest of you people have no idea of what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to say that life is a dream. This means that literally everything your mind has ever considered important is not only maningless but a sort of joke. If your mind can understand this, however, then you are free and untouchable – like the Buddha and Jesus himself. Sorry for bothering you with my dream. LOVE Geza Pal
  • Delete: I agree. It makes no sense and if it did it would make both Einstein and Stephen Hawking look like fools. Kill it. User: Geza Pal.
    • You are now voting to delete the article you wrote and which you defended above? I'm very confused. As for the subject, there are many areas of science which study thoughts - psychology, philosophy, neurobiology, metaphysics and epistemology to name a few. Many have attempted to correlate eastern mysticism with western quantum physics. Like most other attempts, this one does so only be either misunderstanding or misstating selected principles of quantum physics. Delete as an original essay. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Following Zeimusu's total rewrite on 09:06, 5 Dec 2004, the article no longer reads as an original essay in metaphysics. I still have significant concerns about it's verifiability, though. I have not been able to find any reference to the use of the specific phrase "Supreme Science" in this context. Can anyone source this back to the correct name in the original language? Rossami (talk) 16:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is a section on the Advaita page, Advaita and science, to which some of this content might be taken. Zeimusu
  • SUPREME DELETE! —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. In fact this should have been speedily deleted. --AlainV 05:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant info with the science section in Advaita and delete - Skysmith 08:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I added this to the discussion section of Advaita - I hope it explains why this Supreme Science is worthy of some attention:

I tried to add to the subject of Advaita with "Supreme Science" The response was not unexpected. I cannot understand how anyone can understand what Advaita "not-two" is about without knowing where it came from: MEDITATION and the study of thoughts in meditation-- ie the Supreme Science. From meditation we get to Samadhi, the Reality of dreamless-sleep. ONLY from this REALITY, Atman, Brahman, can someone hope to connect language with the Reality that is beyond name and form, language. Advaita tries to do the impossible and explain the Reality that is beyond language with language. This Study of thoughts, probably the oldest (and only?) science has been called by some the Supreme Science. Because it is the oldest science it seems to be too "esoteric" to be included in Wikipedia, even though Physics calls it its Unified Field Theory that has been around for over 5000 years. --geepee 17:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Geza Pal

  • Delete as quasi-mystical likely-original-research pseudoscience. --Fastfission 20:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited a lot out. BUT please DELETE it if it is threatening, or ??, as it seems to be. --geepee 06:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP, TOTAL REVISION. Please delete it if it is fiction. --geepee 14:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Fiction isn't grounds for deletion, "original research" is. I made some further revisions but what this page needs to justify it's existence is references. There needs to be some evidence that the term "supreme science" is in general use and isn't one person's coinage.
  • Comment: It's possible that Geza Pal aka geepee is just playing around with us. For example see: Mister Anderson. Paul August 21:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Any merit in the content should exist as a subpage of Advaita or Hinduism. rturus 17:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.