Talk:Theophysics
 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Viewpoint of article
editThis seems to be written from what is very much a non-neutral viewpoint. It's pretty obvious - The "twelve principles" section is the most blatant demonstration of this, prima facie.
If I've put in the wrong template, please change it to a suitable one. 172.202.35.249 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Request: Article Deletion
editI believe this article should be deleted on grounds that it false: no accredited university supports research of this supposed subject. I am a graduate student in mathematical physics, and am available for comment on this issue should the need arise. I may be able to acquire professional input (i.e., someone with a doctorate or professorship) if that is necessary. -- User:Insurrectionist —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC).
I concur. Frank Tipler's views are (charitably described as) fringe science. The supposed discipline does not exist; a Google search yields no serious mention (except for a reference to Tipler) in the first three pages. This "topic" is pseudoscientific and furthermore too obscure as a pseudoscience to be in Wikipedia. (I am a physics student at a uni.) 128.12.54.17 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Bold text
- I agree that the Theophysics article should be deleted. J Mark Morris (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
article title
edit"Theophysics" isn't a real term. The article should be entitled theology and physics or similar, and then focus on serious literature instead of dubious neologisms. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
after some googling, I conclude that "theophysics" is a nonce word that pops up occasionally since the 1880s, but hasn't made it into any dictionaries because it is always clearly coined for humorous contrast with other words in "theo-", as in Huxley (1923). The most serious application I could find is Blum (2002), who uses it for a serious philosophical concept, but even here it is coined ad-hoc to contrast with physico-theology. "Physico-theology" by contrast is a real word, found in dictionaries, in use since the 18th century. It is the term for the argument which has recently been incarnated in a low-brow version under the name of "Intelligent Design". --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)