Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Proof

2007-04-07T09:39:53Z

Sciencebuff: putting back JC's contribution

==Mathematical proof==
A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth of a mathematical theorem. Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof, as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

==Scientific proof==
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true in the same sense that a mathematical theorem is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

== Legal Proof ==
In American courts, crimes are proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, based on the jury's own analysis of the admissible evidence. Other legal issues may be decided by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

==Biblical proof==
God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

[[category:Mathematics]]
[[category:Science]]
[[category:Law]]

Talk:Proof

2007-04-07T09:38:40Z

Sciencebuff:

Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science ''never'' tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof.

:I'm not against a section on biblical proof per se. Just not that one. The definition of 'God' is already in the [[God]] article, and as for the statement that proof of all things can be found in the Bible...well, I invite anyone who believes that to provide a proof (or disproof) of, say, Goldbach's Conjecture. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Legal Proof ==

Is there a reason that legal proofs should not be included in this article? In summary, a criminal case is considered "proved" if the prosecution case can be made "beyond reasonable doubt", and a civil case is considered "proved" if the case can be made on the basis of more likely than not (although I'm not a lawyer and don't know the proper terminology). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sillybear25' edit comment ==

In removing the "Biblical Proof" section (which I'm not reinstating because I don't really understand what it was getting at), he said, "''the bible doesn't give proof. the point of religion is tthat it is faith-based, and cannot be proven. That's why not everyone is a Christian. See Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide for the reasons)''". When oh when are bibliosceptics going to stop telling Christians what the basis of their beliefs are? "Faith", in the Bible, is ''not'' something without evidence. It is ''trust, based on evidence''. Sure, there may not be scientific/mathematical/etc. "proof", but neither is it evidence-free. And citing a work of fiction in support...??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so again I am going to put back the section on "Biblical proof". --[[User:Sciencebuff|Sciencebuff]] 05:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Milton Friedman

2007-04-04T13:04:17Z

Sciencebuff: linking

[[Image:Trw6543.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Milton Friedman''' (1912-2006) was a [[libertarian]] economist who emphasized freedom. He was the favorite economist of many conservatives (including [[Ronald Reagan]]), in part because nearly all other economists have been [[liberal]]. Friedman was an early advocate of free choice in education, such that parents could spend their school tax dollars on the school of their choice.<ref>[http://www.ideachannel.tv/ "Free to Choose" (1980)]</ref> Friedman received the 1976 Nobel Prize for economics.

In one celebrated case, Milton Friedman called a special meeting at the University of Chicago, where he taught, to prove that the [[Coase theorem]] was false. But within two hours of discussion, Friedman had the intellectual courage and objectivity to reverse himself and admit that he was wrong and Ronald Coase was right. Many lesser intellectuals can spend their entire lives refusing to admit that they were wrong about something.

Milton Friedman in his own words:

:I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.

:Maybe I did well and maybe I led the battle but nobody ever said we were going to win this thing at any point in time. Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty, and who are willing to fight for it.

:Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.

:Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

:The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.

:The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.

:Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

:The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.

:If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

:The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.

:Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself ... Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

:The heart of the [classic] liberal philosophy is a belief in the dignity of the individual, in his freedom to make the most of his capacities and opportunities according to his own lights…This implies a belief in the equality of man in one sense; in their inequality in another.

:The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.

:The most unresolved problem of the day is precisely the problem that concerned the founders of this nation: how to limit the scope and power of government. Tyranny, restrictions on human freedom, come primarily from governmental restrictions that we ourselves have set up.

:Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.

:Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.

:Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.

:The black market was a way of getting around government controls. It was a way of enabling the free market to work. It was a way of opening up, enabling people.

:Governments never learn. Only people learn.

:Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.

:History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.

:Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.

:The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.

:The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.

:The most important ways in which I think the Internet will affect the big issue is that it will make it more difficult for government to collect taxes.

:The power to do good is also the power to do harm.

:There's no such thing as a free lunch.

:If, for example, existing government intervention is minor, we shall attach a smaller weight to the negative effect of additional government intervention. This is an important reason why many earlier liberals, like Henry Simons, writing at a time when government was small by today’s standards, were willing to have government undertake activities that today’s liberals would not accept now that government has become so overgrown.

:We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.

:Most economic fallacies derive - from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Friedman, Milton}}
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Economics]]

Proof

2007-04-04T13:00:46Z

Sciencebuff: (putting back JC's contribution)

==Mathematical proof==
A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth of a mathematical theorem. Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof, as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

==Scientific proof==
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true in the same sense that a mathematical theorem is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

==Biblical proof==

God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

[[category:Mathematics]]
[[category:Science]]

Natural science

2007-03-16T22:45:10Z

Sciencebuff: clarifying theory, fact, proof

A branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc 2000</ref>

Science is based on the ontological position of [[Empiricism]], which states that knowledge must be based upon observable phenomena that are both testable (their valididty can be falsified) and repeatable (another researcher, working under the same conditions, can produce a similar result). Science is not to be confused with [[Materialism]], the view that the material realm is all that exists. As a rule, science does not discount the existence of non-observable phenomena, however since theories concerned with such matters are not falsifiable they are not amenable to empirical investigation, and are therefore not topics that science addresses.

Our understanding of the universe has been increasing [[exponentially]] since Mankind discovered [[agriculture]] 5000 years ago, accelerating yet further with the notable developments of [[Scientific Method]]- the system of [[hypothesis]], [[experiment]], and [[refinement]] that must be used to meet strict peer-review procedures used today, and increasing [[computer]] power over the last 50 years.

An idea that can explain many observations and experimental results is called a scientific [[theory]]. Scientific theories are not absolute, since they can not be [[proof | proved]] correct; they can only be proved false by finding contrary evidence. A theory will be widely accepted by scientists if it explains many facts without clear contrary evidence.

Some scientific discoveries appear to be in conflict with a [[literal]] interpretation of many [[holy books]], including the [[Bible]]. However, science and empiricism make no claims about the nature of any potential [[supernatural]], [[immaterial]] realm, as these are impossible to assess empirically. Many scientists use philosophical tools such as [[Occam's Razor]] and point to phenomena such as [[The God of the Gaps]] to argue for an implicit rejection of untestable hypotheses.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Natural science

2007-03-16T22:38:35Z

Sciencebuff:

A branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc 2000</ref> Science is based on the ontological position of [[Empiricism]], which states that knowledge must be based upon observable phenomena that are both testable (their valididty can be falsified) and repeatable (another researcher, working under the same conditions, can produce a similar result). Science is not to be confused with [[Materialism]], the view that the material realm is all that exists. As a rule, science does not discount the existence of non-observable phenomena, however since theories concerned with such matters are not falsifiable they are not amenable to empirical investigation, and are therefore not topics that science addresses.

Our understanding of the universe has been increasing [[exponentially]] since Mankind discovered [[agriculture]] 5000 years ago, accelerating yet further with the notable developments of [[Scientific Method]]- the system of [[hypothesis]], [[experiment]], and [[refinement]] that must be used to meet strict peer-review procedures used today, and increasing [[computer]] power over the last 50 years.

An idea that can explain many experimental results is called a scientific [[theory]]. Scientific theories, while not absolute, represent the best knowledge Mankind has accumulated over centuries of experiments and observations, and are generally accepted by a majority of scientists around the world as fact. Over time, a few theories become scientific laws as they are proven to be true across the observable universe. The Universal Law of Gravitation is one such example.

Recent scientific discoveries appear to be in conflict with a [[literal]] interpretation of many [[holy books]], including the [[Bible]]. However, science and empiricism make no claims about the nature of any potential [[supernatural]], [[immaterial]] realm, as these are impossible to assess empirically. Many scientists use philosophical tools such as [[Occam's Razor]] and point to phenomena such as [[The God of the Gaps]] to argue for an implicit rejection of untestable hypotheses.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Embryonic stem cells

2007-03-16T22:31:37Z

Sciencebuff:

Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a blastocyst. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after fertilization. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

But there hasn't yet been a single clinical trial showing any success from embryonic stem cells. Moreover, even if were possible to provide cures (which is not yet proven), then an approved cure based on embryonic stem cells would be at least ten years away.[citation needed]

Embryonic stem cells

2007-03-16T22:30:52Z

Sciencebuff:

Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a blastocyst. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after fertilization. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

But there hasn't yet been a single clinical trial showing any success from embryonic stem cells. Moreover, even if were possible to provide cures (which is unproven), then an approved cure based on embryonic stem cells would be at least ten years away.

Elementary proof

2007-03-16T22:18:31Z

Sciencebuff: linking to proof

The term "elementary proof" or "elementary techniques" in mathematics means [[proof | proofs]] that use only [[real numbers]] or real analysis rather than the use of complex analysis.<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref>

The prime number theorem has long been proven using complex analysis (Riemann's zeta function), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the Fields medal.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Proof

2007-03-16T22:17:24Z

Sciencebuff:

==Mathematical proof==

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".

==Scientific proof==
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

==Biblical proof==

God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

===Problem of Evil===

Without editing the previous subtopic, I must challenge its assertions:

Omniscience - Infinite knowledge

Omnipotence - Infinite power

Omnipresence - The property of transcending the boundries of space and time

Evil - The antithesis of good

If one follows the new testament and asserts God is benevolent (all-good)...

Why does evil exist in the world?

God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresense, or goodness must be suspect, unless one accepts that evil does not exist.

For more information please see the Stanford Free Philosophy Archive @ http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=problem+of+evil

Proof

2007-03-16T22:15:20Z

Sciencebuff: reverting discussion of scientific proof

==Mathematical proof==

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".

==Scientific proof==
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

==Biblical proof==

God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

==Problem of Evil==

Without editing the previous article, I must challenge its assertions:

Omniscience - Infinite knowledge

Omnipotence - Infinite power

Omnipresence - The property of transcending the boundries of space and time

Evil - The antithesis of good

If one follows the new testament and asserts God is benevolent (all-good)...

Why does evil exist in the world?

God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresense, or goodness must be suspect, unless one accepts that evil does not exist.

For more information please see the Stanford Free Philosophy Archive @ http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=problem+of+evil

Proof

2007-03-14T10:23:56Z

Sciencebuff:

==Mathematical proof==

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".

==Scientific proof==

Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

==Biblical proof==

God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

Proof

2007-03-14T10:19:31Z

Sciencebuff: (scientific and biblical proof are not the same thing-- so it's helpful to distinguish them)

==Mathematical proof==

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".

==Scientific proof==

Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known facts. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].

==Biblical proof==

God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].

Talk:Proof

2007-03-14T10:18:24Z

Sciencebuff:

Proof

2007-03-14T10:00:09Z

Sciencebuff: /* Scientific proof */

Proof

2007-03-14T09:59:37Z

Sciencebuff:

Proof

2007-03-14T09:55:48Z

Sciencebuff:

Proof

2007-03-14T09:55:18Z

Sciencebuff:

==Mathematical proof==

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step definition of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".

==Scientific proof==

Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can show that a theory is false. But science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true.

Proof

2007-03-14T09:48:46Z

Sciencebuff:

Proof

2007-03-14T09:47:53Z

Sciencebuff:

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-03-13T13:22:49Z

Sciencebuff: /* The following is incorrect */

== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)