Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 00:04, March 10, 2007
, 00:04, March 10, 2007→Old version
I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 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.
: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
# 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.
: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.
# 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.
: nope. ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.
# "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?
: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
# "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?
: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.
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)
: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)