| Line 411: |
Line 411: |
| | --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST) | | --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST) |
| | | | |
| − | == Theory of Relativity ==
| + | : It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias. It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them. Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST) |
| − | | |
| − | Um… has anyone actually ''read'' some of the old versions of [[Theory of Relativity]], particularly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 this version]? Wikipedia citing this is not an example of liberal bias, but a simple indication of the absurdity of this entry, some of the problems with which are listed below:
| |
| − | | |
| − | # The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | # It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.
| |
| − | | |
| − | # Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | # "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?
| |
| − | | |
| − | # "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?
| |
| − | | |
| − | The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
| |