https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=LetusratiocinateConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T19:27:17ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=74985Scientific theory2007-03-30T16:22:18Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Clarified vague terminology</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but might not yet be well verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, scientists referred to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking, and both are now discounted.</ref> <br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory. It is wise to keep such meanings separate from meanings used in science.<br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena. A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory. Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref><br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists refer to untested theories and competing theories before the theories become well confirmed. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]].<br />
<br />
== Common usage == <br />
The word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref> <br />
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''<br />
<br />
The American Museum of Natural History exhibit on Darwin says: <ref>http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php</ref> <br />
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''<br />
<br />
<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=73462Occam's razor2007-03-29T22:35:25Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Removed single quotes from unreferenced statement.</p>
<hr />
<div>Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan Friar who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centirues. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:<br />
<br />
From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise.<br />
<br />
This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.<br />
<br />
Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.<br />
<br />
[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].<br />
<br />
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between theism and atheism, correctly by the atheists. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. The development of intelligent life can be explained very well by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. However, many theists postulate God as another transcendental cause. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the latter explanation is the most reasonable to believe. <ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Ontological Principles]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=73432Occam's razor2007-03-29T22:23:10Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Undo revision 71758 by Special:Contributions/Jaques (User talk:Jaques)</p>
<hr />
<div>Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan Friar who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centirues. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:<br />
<br />
'From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise'<br />
<br />
This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.<br />
<br />
Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.<br />
<br />
[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].<br />
<br />
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between theism and atheism, correctly by the atheists. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. The development of intelligent life can be explained very well by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. However, many theists postulate God as another transcendental cause. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the latter explanation is the most reasonable to believe. <ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Ontological Principles]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=70914Liberal2007-03-28T21:03:32Z<p>Letusratiocinate: grammar, tweaks</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe a person who generally is [[left-wing]] in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref><br />
<br />
In the United States, the term ''liberal'' characterizes people who favor transfers of autonomy and personal responsibility to the government. This is different from [[classical liberalism]] (which has more to do with what would be called [[libertarianism]] in the United States). Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times. The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today:<br />
<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights<br />
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of group prayer in school<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care<br />
* increased power for labor unions<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]<br />
* private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory <br />
* reduction of the military<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* government-sponsored education provided for all school-age citizens<br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.<br />
* reduction of gender roles and differentiation <br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]], civility and sensitivity in everyday speech<br />
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policy that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref><br />
* refusal to view the G. W. Bush administration foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref> <br />
<br />
Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=70393Liberal2007-03-28T15:17:35Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Included definitions for additional understanding</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref><br />
<br />
In the United States, the term ''liberal'' characterizes people who favor transfers of autonomy and personal responsibility to the government. This is different from [[classical liberalism]] (which has more to do with what would be called [[libertarianism]] in the United States). Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times. The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today:<br />
<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights<br />
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of group prayer in school<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care<br />
* increased power for labor unions<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]<br />
* private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory <br />
* reduction of the military<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* government-sponsored education <br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.<br />
* reduction of gender roles and differentiation <br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]] in every day speech<br />
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref><br />
* refusal to view current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref> <br />
<br />
Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=70378Scientific theory2007-03-28T14:54:05Z<p>Letusratiocinate: moved parenthesis</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not yet be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] </ref> Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref><br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory. These usages (and less rigorous ones) ought not to be confused or interchanged with the scientific usage.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/theory Note: American Heritage Dictionary, meaning 1 vs. meanings 2, 4, 5 and 6</ref><br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena. A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]]. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. <ref>Lawrence Krauss argues that what he had been calling "string theory" should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html]</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=70006Occam's razor2007-03-28T06:07:17Z<p>Letusratiocinate: corrected reference attribution</p>
<hr />
<div>Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan Friar who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centirues. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:<br />
<br />
'From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise'<br />
<br />
This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.<br />
<br />
Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.<br />
<br />
[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].<br />
<br />
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between theism and atheism, correctly by the atheists. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. The development of intelligent life can be explained very well by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. However, many theists postulate God as another transcendental cause. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the latter explanation is the most reasonable to believe. <ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Ontological Principles]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=70004Occam's razor2007-03-28T06:04:45Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan Friar who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centirues. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:<br />
<br />
'From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise'<br />
<br />
This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.<br />
<br />
Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.<br />
<br />
[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].<br />
<br />
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between theism and atheism, correctly by the atheists. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. The development of intelligent life can be explained very well by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. However, many theists postulate God as another transcendental cause. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the latter explanation is the most reasonable to believe.<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
http://skepdic.com/occam.html<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Ontological Principles]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=70002Occam's razor2007-03-28T06:00:45Z<p>Letusratiocinate: grammar</p>
<hr />
<div>Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan Friar who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centirues. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:<br />
<br />
'From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise'<br />
<br />
This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.<br />
<br />
Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.<br />
<br />
[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].<br />
<br />
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between theism and atheism, correctly by the atheists. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. The development of intelligent life can be explained very well by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. However, many theists postulate God as another transcendental cause. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the latter explanation is the most reasonable to believe.<br />
<br />
<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Ontological Principles]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=69995Scientific theory2007-03-28T05:53:55Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Added precision, documentation, readability</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not yet be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] </ref> Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref><br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory. These usages and (less rigorous ones) ought not to be confused or interchanged with the scientific usage.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/theory Note: American Heritage Dictionary, meaning 1 vs. meanings 2, 4, 5 and 6</ref><br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena. A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]]. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=69928Scientific theory2007-03-28T05:01:43Z<p>Letusratiocinate: 47 mentions of "string theory" in an article about string theory does not constitute support for your implication that "theory" means unsubstantiated.</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. It is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not yet be verified as factual. <ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] </ref><br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory.<br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. {{fact}} A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as [[String Theory]]. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=68234Scientific theory2007-03-27T08:46:05Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Further formatting correction</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. {{fact}} It is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as factual. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory.<br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. {{fact}} A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as [[String Theory]]. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=68230Scientific theory2007-03-27T08:43:38Z<p>Letusratiocinate: reference formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. {{fact}} It is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as factual. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory.<br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. {{fact}} A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as [[String Theory]]. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=68182Scientific theory2007-03-27T07:59:09Z<p>Letusratiocinate: Opinions and conjectures, not supported by definitions, shared understanding or usage</p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. {{fact}} It is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as factual. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory.<br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. {{fact}} A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory. <br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. {{fact}} Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. {{fact}} Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as [[String Theory]].<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time),<br />
which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all<br />
life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Letusratiocinate&diff=66966User talk:Letusratiocinate2007-03-26T21:28:18Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Using <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to get {{fact}} is much easier and is preferred. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 23:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for your kind assistance. I'll use that from now on. --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 17:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=65199Atheism2007-03-25T20:40:56Z<p>Letusratiocinate: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Atheism''' is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.<br />
<br />
Well-known atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]], [[Jon Roberts]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].<br />
<br />
== Atheist morality ==<br />
<br />
Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof.{{fact}} It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist." <br />
<br />
Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.<br />
<br />
Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. <br />
Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in many religious texts.<br />
<br />
== Origins ==<br />
<br />
From an atheist perspective, religion is a social invention of mankind. Thus the appropriate question is, "Where did religion come from?"<br />
<br />
From a fundamentalist Christian perspective atheism can hypothetically be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing. The reasons for this lapsing of belief appear to be unspecified.<br />
<br />
Similarly, other non-Christian religions would have their own explanation for the emergence of atheism.<br />
<br />
=== Christian View of Origins ===<br />
<br />
It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths." In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.<br />
<br />
The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.<br />
<br />
== Atheist Population ==<br />
<br />
In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.<br />
<br />
More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.<br />
<br />
It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.<br />
<br />
== Prejudice Against Atheists ==<br />
<br />
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.<br />
<br />
<b>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):</b><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! <br />
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:<br />
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:<br />
|-<br />
| Atheist<br />
| 39.6%<br />
| 47.6%<br />
|-<br />
| Muslim<br />
| 26.3%<br />
| 33.5%<br />
|-<br />
| Homosexual<br />
| 22.6%<br />
| NA<br />
|-<br />
|Conservative Christian<br />
| 13.5%<br />
| 6.9%<br />
|-<br />
| Recent Immigrant<br />
| 12.5%<br />
| Not Asked<br />
|-<br />
| Hispanic<br />
| 7.6%<br />
| 18.5%<br />
|-<br />
| Jew<br />
| 7.4%<br />
| 11.8%<br />
|-<br />
| Asian American<br />
| 7.0%<br />
| 18.5%<br />
|-<br />
|African American<br />
| 4.6%<br />
| 27.2%<br />
|-<br />
| White American<br />
| 2.2%<br />
| 2.3%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.<br />
<br />
== The Problem of Evil==<br />
<br />
One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:<br />
<br />
:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. <br />
:Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. <br />
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? <br />
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?<br />
<br />
A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many atheists, however, do not regard such arguments as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.<br />
<br />
== The Problem of Origins==<br />
<br />
Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:<br />
<br />
:All things that exist have causes.<br />
:The universe exists.<br />
:The universe must have a cause.<br />
<br />
Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. <br />
<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]<br />
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gravitation&diff=64993Gravitation2007-03-25T19:01:32Z<p>Letusratiocinate: spelling</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Gravitation''' is a phenomenon which attracts all objects within the universe to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics, it is explained by the general theory of relativity. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is still useful in most situations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. How much depends on the size of the masses and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on the scales. Your weight is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This force depends on your mass and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your distance from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[Inverse Square Law.]] <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.<br />
<br />
Astronauts in the [[space shuttle]] appear to be weightless because they are in a container which is falling. The reason the space shuttle doesn't fall to earth is that it is moving very fast sideways at the same time as it is falling, so it falls in a curve. Its speed makes its curved path the same as the Earth’s curve, so it never comes down but stays in orbit, in free fall.<br />
<br />
Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].<br />
<br />
==Gravity and Modern Physics==<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity can be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas of modern physics. Since the late 1970s [[string theory]] and its [[supersymmetry:supersymmetric]] relative [[superstring theory]] are the theories which the majority of physicists see as the most likely paths to unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<div class="references-small"><br />
<references /></div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=64482User talk:RSchlafly2007-03-25T08:16:19Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Review==<br />
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]<br />
<br />
:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Gospel of Thomas ==<br />
<br />
It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.<br />
<br />
::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== reply ==<br />
<br />
I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out. <br />
<br />
Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Scientology]] ==<br />
<br />
Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ?<br/ > Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==McCarthy==<br />
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Newton ==<br />
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.<br />
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Theory ==<br />
<br />
I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.<br />
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Theory II ==<br />
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Art_movements&diff=64137Art movements2007-03-25T04:14:57Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Impressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Post-Impressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Pointillism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Early Expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Symbolism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Fauvism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Cubism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Futurism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Constructivism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Precisionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[DeStijl]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Dada]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Surrealism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Ashcan School]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[American Scene School]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Abstract Expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Figural Expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Color Field]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Hard Edge]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Pre-Pop]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Pop Art]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Op Art]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Sculpture]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Photography]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Architecture]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Minimalism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Conceptual]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Photo-Realism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Neo-expressionism]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Post-Modern]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor&diff=64039Occam's Razor2007-03-25T03:03:48Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Occam's Razor is the philosophical principle that, all things being equal, the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one (often refered to as the "simplest" solution).<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref> However many scholars have disputed over the definition of "simplest". Some suggest "simplest" means the shortest possible description (called [[Kolmogorov complexity]]); other suggest that it means the description with on average shortest word length.<small>'''[citation needed]'''</small> Still others have argued that the simplest model is the one which makes the most precise predictions with the fewest assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor&diff=64031Occam's Razor2007-03-25T03:02:36Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Occam's Razor is the philosophical principle that, all things being equal, the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one (often refered to as the "simplest" solution).<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref> However many scholars have disputed over the definition of "simplest". Some suggest "simplest" means the shortest possible description (called [[Kolmogorov complexity]]); other suggest that it means the description with on average shortest word length.<small>'''[citation needed]'''</small> Still others have argued that the simplest model is the one which makes the most precise predictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor&diff=64025Occam's Razor2007-03-25T03:01:58Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Occam's Razor is the philosophical principle that, all things being equal, the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one (often refered to as the "simplest" solution).<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref> However many scholars have disputed over the definition of "simplest". Some suggest "simplest" means the shortest possible description (called [[Kolmogorov complexity]]); other suggest that it means the description with on average shortest word length.<small><color=blue>[citation needed]</color></small> Still others have argued that the simplest model is the one which makes the most precise predictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor&diff=64022Occam's Razor2007-03-25T03:01:01Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Occam's Razor is the philosophical principle that, all things being equal, the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one (often refered to as the "simplest" solution).<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref> However many scholars have disputed over the definition of "simplest". Some suggest "simplest" means the shortest possible description (called [[Kolmogorov complexity]]); other suggest that it means the description with on average shortest word length.<small>[citation needed]</small> Still others have argued that the simplest model is the one which makes the most precise predictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor&diff=64020Occam's Razor2007-03-25T03:00:12Z<p>Letusratiocinate: </p>
<hr />
<div>Occam's Razor is the philosophical principle that, all things being equal, the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the right one (often refered to as the "simplest" solution).<ref>http://skepdic.com/occam.html</ref> However many scholars have disputed over the definition of "simplest". Some suggest "simplest" means the shortest possible description (called [[Kolmogorov complexity]]); other suggest that it means the description with on average shortest word length.<small>citation needed</small> Still others have argued that the simplest model is the one which makes the most precise predictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Letusratiocinate