740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: − + − + Line 23:
Line 23: +
→Intellectual examples: Clarify Gospel & Hebrews; add Electoral College
*the [[Bible]]
*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|first Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|earliest Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] was written by a complete unknown yet its intellectual force is at the highest level
:*the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] was written by an anonymous individual, yet its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*the [[Apostles]]
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, William Shakespeare, produced the greatest plays ever
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, William Shakespeare, produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Electoral College]] was intended to be composed of the best of the public, who would judge who was best qualified to be President.
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]].
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]].