Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order

2009-11-22T12:49:08Z

Stitch75: /* Information theory? */

"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."

Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm not trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it.

:::The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::Oh, okay. I see where you made an honest mistake.

::::There are two numbers at play here: there's the ''observed'' precession of Mercury's orbit, and then there's the ''anomaly.'' The anomaly is the amount by which the observed precession differs from the mathematically predicted precession. What you did was quote a figure for the ''anomaly'' using the figure for the ''observed'' precession. Hang on, lemme splain.

::::The precession of an orbit is the sum of several effects. Newton's approximation for gravity predicted three different effects: axial precession of 5,025 arc seconds per century, 530 additional arc seconds per century from the gravitational effects of the other planets, and a tiny amount, less than one arc second per century, due to the fact that the sun isn't a perfect sphere. (Those numbers are all rounded off; the precise figures are trivially googlable.)

::::If you add up the precession predicted by Newton's approximation, you get exactly 5,557.02 arc seconds per century.

::::But if you run the numbers using the Einstein equations instead of the Newton equations — using the same constants for things like the mass and shape of the sun — you get a precession of exactly 5,600±0.04 arc seconds per century. It's really weird that it would be a round number like that, but that's how the math works out.

::::The observed precession of Mercury's orbit? It's 5,599.7 arc seconds per century. Which is where you got your number from. And that means the general relativity prediction was accurate to within (deep breath) one half of one one hundredth of one percent.

::::That's like shooting an arrow from Los Angeles and hitting the bullseye in Melbourne.

::::Would you be a dear and remove the incorrect anomaly figure from your essay now? I know it's a work in progress and I hate nitpickers, but somebody could stumble across that and be misinformed.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Your point is an excellent one. Thank you. The 30% figure was wrong for the reasons you provide.

:::::But the underlying point in this entry remains correct: due to advances in precision in measurement, the prediction of relativity no longer matches the data on the precession. The discrepancy is much greater than the margin of error, which is all that matters from a logical perspective. The entry has been updated accordingly, and I welcome further comments you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) I'm not sure you're going to welcome these comments, sir. Because you're just flat-out, provably, unequivocally wrong on this one. The observed value of the precession of Mercury hasn't been changed in a hundred years, because it's a direct observation. We measured it with telescopes, and those were just fine at that scale a century ago.

I'm afraid your edit made the offending section paragraph ''even more misleading than it was.'' Predicted value of the precession (via Newton) in 1915: 5,557. Observed value in 1915? 5,600. Difference? 43. Predicted value from the Einstein equations? 5,600. Observed value today? Still 5,600. Difference? Ridiculously small. I ''know'' you're actively working on this essay, and I feel ''really'' bad about beating you up over this, but you wouldn't have the paragraph in there unless you thought it had value.

Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I don't have an ax to grind about this. General Relativity was developed to explain the Mercury precession, so the theory certainly should fit the data. I expected that it would. But the fit isn't there anymore, due to more precise measurements. It's beyond the margin of error, and logically that's all that matters. You're using rounding above that obscures what the margin of error is. Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why. Those are the facts, and logic applied to the facts. Anyone has free will to accept or deny it. I accept the facts and logic as they require.

:You make an interesting point about position, but I don't think the essay is incorrect because it says nothing about momentum. Observation can pin down the position, which is relevant to establishing order. But without observation there is disorder. That is the basic point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Right, but there's an error of fact buried in there. It's a totally innocent one, I'm sure; I'm not accusing you of axe-grinding. It's just that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury ''has not changed'' since 1916 when the theory was published. It's not that we measured it with telescopes before 1916 and got a rough estimate, and now we measure it with better telescopes and have a much more precise figure. We measured it before 1916 and got a very accurate figure because measuring the motion of Mercury just isn't that hard, and the measurements we make today with better telescopes say only that yup, the older measurements were pretty much spot on.

::What we ''have'' done since then is to much more precisely measure the oblateness of the sun. There was a big controversy about that back in the … hmm … 80s I think it was? Goldberg and Dicke claimed that the sun was much "fatter" than previously thought, which ''would have'' made the predictions from general relativity different from the observed precession. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? For a while there was a lot of disagreement about what shape the sun actually is, but that's been pretty much put to bed with both more accurate ground-based observations in the 90s and helioseismography.

::Anyway, saying that the prediction matched the observation in 1916 and doesn't today is simply flat-out false. If your argument depends on it, then you're hurting your argument with this point. If it doesn't, then what's the harm in fixing it?

::Thanks for clarifying your point about quantum mechanics. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:35, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Perhaps this is what Mr. Schlafly is referring to. The article states that 5599.7 arc-seconds is the observed value. KSorenson is quoting a value of 5,600 (±0.04). 5600-.04=5599.96. From just those values then yes the relativity value is higher by .26 arc-seconds even factoring in the error. The only thing I ask is what is the error range for the observed value? [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:08, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent again because I'm lazy with bullets) We can do a heck of a lot better than "presumably," Andy, and as a person who cares deeply about facts and logic, you darned well know that. I happen to have the Pijpers paper from 94 here; I dug it out when I thought you might have been thinking of helioseismography. In it he cites radar ranging studies from 1976 to 1992. Here's the data, ''with margins of error.'' Note that these numbers are for ''the anomaly,'' and not the precession total, and remember that the figure from the Einstein equation is 42.98 ± 0.04, okay?

*43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro 76)
*42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson 87)
*42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson 91)
*43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson 92)

So the Einstein prediction is within the margin of error of those four radar-ranging measurements of the Mercury anomaly. I'm sure there've been more recent studies, but I don't have them literally sitting in front of my face at the moment, so those are the ones I'm citing. Can I see your numbers that say the Einstein prediction is outside the margin? More recent data than what I have in my hand here maybe? (This Pijpers paper is [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9804258v1 on ARXIV], by the way, if you want to check it out.)--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Oh, and just incidentally? Will didn't leave Mercury out of his paper; he just talked about it in really jargony physics-paper language.

:Three decades of experiments, ranging from the standard light-deﬂection and perihelion-shift tests to lunar laser ranging, planetary and satellite tracking, and geophysical and astronomical observations, have placed bounds on the PPN parameters consistent with general relativity.

"PPN" is the ''parameterized post''-''Newton'' formalism, a rewriting of the law of universal gravitation to include coefficients derived from general relativity. The Einstein field equations are nightmarish to solve, so PPN was created as a middle-ground approximation between the (good but not good enough in some contexts) Newton approximation and the agonizing pain of having to actually ''solve'' the Einstein field equations every time you want to calculate the delta-vee required during a solar slingshot maneuver for a planetary probe. What Will said in that paper is the PPN approximation has been tested ''against general relativity'' and supported by 30 years of experiments.

This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I have an open mind about this but, quite honestly, the relativists protest too much. Why do you care so much about defending relativity? Not to pick on you, however, because many trained in math and physics likewise defend relativity like they are defending their own reputation. It's bizarre. Regardless of the reason, protesting too much is not scientific.

:Answering the substance of your post, your most recent data is from 1992 (17 years ago, with the data probably older than that), and its margin of error confirms what I said: it's approaching 0.1. Combine that 0.1 (or 0.14 if you like) with the most recent data and it's clear that GR no longer fits the data. Of course, no one is going to dare publish a paper claiming GR is disproved by the data, and even if they tried, no journal would accept it. So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::"Why do you care so much about defending relativity?" 'Cause teaching physics is something I do for a living. 'Cause I think it's really neat. 'Cause seeing somebody totally misunderstand it, and then go on to draw incorrect conclusions based on his misunderstanding of it, and finally to pass those incorrect conclusions on to impressionable kids who trust him … well, that just breaks my heart. You can call it protesting too much if you want, Andy. But I wish you could understand that it's really just me trying to help.

::I wouldn't have fought you on this at all if you'd said something like "A dozen eggs contains fifteen eggs, plus or minus two." That's just ''obviously'' wrong, and nobody who reads it would fall for it. But you're hiding your false conclusion behind a wall of data that you know most people won't bother looking up for themselves, and that's just dishonest. That's unworthy of anybody who'd call himself a teacher, and what's more I think you know that in your heart. You seem like a conscientious guy; what does your conscience say to you about this?

::Anyway, it's your essay, you can obviously write what you want. But let me just give you a heads up: Next week, when I put your [[theory of relativity]] page on the table for major surgery? I don't think you're gonna like it. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:24, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it. The bottom line is clear: no physics major, no physics grad student, and no physics teacher should dare criticize relativity, no matter what the data say. The political grip on this issue is intense. In fact, to be honest, I would advise against your criticizing it in any way. It could harm your (or any other teacher's or physicist's) career. There are examples of people who were denied tenure simply because they criticized evolution, and the politics here is just as strong.

:::I look forward to learning from your entry on the theory of relativity. The math is fascinating regardless of its manifestation in reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) "Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it." What was there to address? You made an arithmetic error. Do you want me to send you the Mathematica scatterplot I made just to triple-check that I was interpreting the data correctly? It's pretty. The error bars are blue.

Andy, I wish I could get you to come to my department for a week. Just one week, any week. Our students, grad students, associates, profs, chair, heck, even the ''janitor'' criticizes relativity every day. I could get you a meeting with one of our theoretical cosmologist; he's been pulling his ''hair'' out for years trying to make some progress on the vacuum energy problem. For a while there he was coming into my office a couple times a week and saying … well, unprintable things about partial differential equations. Even we theoretical physicists think general relativity is a mathematical mess.

But we respect it anyway. Because it ''works,'' at least as far as anybody's been able to measure.

Can I ask you a question? What's your beef with relativity? I mean, I know you question the data, but … why? Are you just being iconoclastic? I don't mean that in a dismissive way; I totally understand and respect the impulse to say "Everybody agrees that this is true, so I'm going to question it!" I'd really just like to understand your point of view on this, whatever it may be. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

: GR's predictions are off by more than the margin of error, as we discussed in detail above; it and special relativity have absurd discontinuities; there are logical flaws, as in relativistic mass; it conflicts with QM; and it predicts gravitons that have never been found despite wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it. Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible and relativity is pushed big-time by liberals. It chills progress by intimidating people against criticizing it. Other than that, the theory is pretty good!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::Wow, Mr. Schlafly must really like this conversation, he actually made a joke. ;) jk [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 00:15, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks very much for taking the time to reply; I understand better now. Of course, some of that is unmitigated garbage, and we'll have plenty of chances to deal with it when I fix your [[theory of relativity]] article next week, so I'll skip some points for now.

:::*''You'' discussed the fact that the predictions are outside the margin of error; ''I'' pointed out to you repeatedly that you were mistaken. I even offered to show you a plot. So come on.

:::*To be frank, relativity doesn't ''conflict'' with quantum mechanics; the two theories don't overlap in any domains we can presently observe. But that's the problem. They don't overlap, so we don't know how we're going to understand systems where both gravity and quantum mechanics have non-negligible effects. It's entirely possible that every such region of spacetime is sequestered behind an event horizon; that's jokingly called the "convenient cosmic censorship hypothesis" by one of my colleagues.

:::*General relativity doesn't predict gravitons at all. General relativity doesn't say anything about particles; the Standard Model predicts the existence of particles (like the Higgs). Gravitons are part of the various attempts to reformulate general relativity as a vector gauge theory, none of which have gotten there yet. And, uh, since none of the gauge theories have gotten there yet, Andy, ''not one dollar'' has been spent looking for gravitons. Because we don't know where to look. But we ''do'' know that if they could be detected by existing particle accelerators, they would've been. So if and when physicists decide to look for them, it's going to have to start with building an accelerator the size of our galaxy<ref>WARNING: exaggeration for humorous effect, do not take literally.</ref>, and you'll have your chance to lobby the appropriations committee then.

:::*Yes, studying relativity does take people away from time they could spend in religious activities. So does reading this site. Just give me a chance to copy-and-paste my contributions out before you shut it down to remove the temptation.

:::Anyway, like I said, we'll have plenty of time to have these arguments when I start work on [[theory of relativity]]. All I ask is that you ''engage in constructive collaboration'' with me and whomever else chooses to help out, rather than pouncing on the "undo" button like you did when I rewrote [[black hole]]. We've both demonstrated that we're reasonable adults, I think; we can work together. Deal? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

{{reflist}}

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button! Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time. It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory. I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either. (Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture). It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate. General relativity could be spot on. Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]! But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton. Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:37, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Ugh, I really should be sleeping, but this is just such an engaging conversation I can't seem to break away.

:::::If you make a measurement to test a theory and the measurement doesn't match the prediction, there are three possibilities. Either the measurement is wrong ("That's not Mercury, that's Saturn!") or the theory is wrong ("Turns out gravity ''isn't'' really caused by leprechauns!") or both are fundamentally right but you failed to take something into account ("We really shouldn't have assumed the sun is a sphere.")

:::::The thing about the Mercury anomaly is that the observed and predicted numbers are ''insanely'' close together. So close as to be declared equal within the margin of error. So either general relativity is ''absolutely'' right and we accounted for ''everything'' — no physicist believes this, by the way — or general relativity is at least ''incredibly close'' to being right, so close that the factors we failed to account for are negligible at the scale of the Mercury anomaly.

:::::But the thing is, Mercury is really thin sauce, as gravity goes. The fields are weak, and the prediction we're testing doesn't say anything terribly interesting about the theory. If you want to get a real feel for how general relativity holds up as a ''physical'' theory, and not just a mathematical one, you really need to look at the Gravity Probe B data. (Conflict of interest alert: I worked on that project.) That experiment didn't measure gravitation indirectly by observing the motion of a particle; it measured it ''directly'' by parallel transporting a vector in a closed loop around a region of curvature. We ''empirically'' measured the curvature of spacetime around a gravitating object (the Earth) and found it to be non-zero. Spacetime is ''not'' flat, massive bodies ''do'' curve spacetime, and the fundamental ''idea'' of general relativity reflects nature.

:::::General relativity doesn't just say that a falling body moves like such-n-such. It tells us ''why.'' And to see it dismissed out of hand because Andy doesn't care for the size of the error bars on the results of a radar study? That, I confess, rubs me the wrong way. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:51, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Great point about experimental error. Before I ''really do'' sign off for the night, Kate, I'd like to give you an article suggestion: [[Gravity_Probe_B]]. I'm enthusiastically looking forward to hearing how it was done! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 01:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Oh, I'm not the girl to write that one. It'd be 200 pages long and full of equations and whole paragraphs of me going "You guys this is so ''awesome!"'' --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 01:09, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::On the contrary. You are exactly the right girl to write this. But not yet. Do GR first, OK? And you'll have to take off your instructor hat, and put on your explainer-for-lay-people hat, so that it won't be 200 pages long. Whenever you reach the point where you think "You guys this is so ''awesome''", don't go into "and so I have to write the awesome equations". Go into "how can I convey the awesomeness to my reader?". [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 11:32, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted. Relativity has quasi-religious status for many; they'll defend regardless of what the evidence is, regardless of its absurd inconsistencies, and regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability. I don't mind relativity, and look forward to reviewing the updated entry. But open-mindedness is not a trait of many relativists, who will demonize anyone who points out its fairly obvious flaws.

:::::::One way to evaluate religions, or quasi-religions, is to look at the fruit it bears. What has it helped achieved? In the case of relativity, it has produced nothing. Nil. Zippo. After nearly 100 years and a ton of money. If you find the math in relativity fun, great, but relativity is not going to help anyone. It never has. Pick up a Bible in between some equations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::''"Relativity has quasi-religious status for many…regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability."'' As has already been shown repeatedly by those knowledgeable and qualified in the subject such as KSorenson the theory of general relativity is eminently falsifiable. For instance the two gravity probes (GP-A and GP-B) were launched specifically to measure rate change of a clock in lower gravity and space-time curvature near the Earth respectively, both experiments specifically testing the theory of relativity. As both experiments were to test the theory of relativity this means that the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered falsifiable. This is as patently obvious as stating that 2+2=4. If the theory of relativity is not falsifiable then no experiment can exist to test it. The existence of Gravity Probes A & B automatically that the previous statement cannot be true. So, the undeniable existence of Gravity Probes A & B now proving the falsifiability of the theory of general relativity this means that by Karl Popper's rigorous standard the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be a science. This is immediately obvious to anyone who has made an in depth study of Popper's work, the kind of study that all students of the pure sciences undergo, although strangely enough those students of those subjects which use an applied form of science never seem to be taught such things to the levels required. Presumably this is because the standard of science they are taught is considerably less rigorous or in-depth than the standards expected of and required of students of the pure sciences.

::::::::As the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered a science then this in turn means the first part of your statement: ''"Relativity has a quasi-religious status"'' is itself false. Science is not religion. Religion requires hope, hope that what one believes is true. Science requires absolute cynicism, it requires one to say "this is my idea, help me prove it wrong". To this date tests on the theory of general relativity has failed to show that it is wrong, and where measurements have been made to confirm or deny the accuracy of the general theory of relativity such results have shown that the predictions made by the theory of relativity are accurate to the observed effects well within the scientifically determined margins of error.

::::::::The statement that ''"relativity is not going to help anyone"'' is, of course, as wrong as you can get. The theory of relativity opened up a massive area of study, and there are no known limits to what may be achieved through such studies. It is not hyperbole to state that the creation of the theory of relativity is as important, if not more important, than the discovery of the safe generation and transference of electricity. This is known and accepted by everybody who has an in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge gained through years of learning and self-teaching that begins after one leaves university, after one has gained the bedrock of knowledge required to begin teaching oneself the true depths of a subject.

::::::::I beg of you this one thing. Open up your Bible and truly study the price one pays for Arrogance and Pride. Learn the lesson that the true Student and Teacher must come to the subjects they study in a state of Humility. Of all the posts on the subject of general relativity each and every person that has made an in depth study of the subject have stated that the views you hold on general relativity are wrong. The only person who states that your views are correct are yourself. Look inside yourself and ask if your stubborn resistance to accept what others learned in the subject have to say on this matter is arrogance, pride or humility.(by DanHutchin)

:::::::::Dan, I accept your challenge. I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility." Thank you for suggesting it. In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone? Electricity powers hospitals that save lives, and increase productivity and wealth which help the poor throughout the world. You say relativity "is as important, if not more important." Specific examples, please?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: Sorry for butting in here but I love science, I am a science major currently. In my mind God gave us the scientific method and the tools to explore his creation for his glory. We can debate the merits of relativity all day but the fact remains that if it is true it is part of God's creation and because of that, automatically gives it value. Plus, pure science in a lot of cases leads to applied science. I don't like arguments based on what we don't know. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ameda, that's fine, but surely you'd agree that unproductive theories or beliefs should not squeeze out productive ones. Someone can use rhetoric to defend any belief or activity, from watching television to drinking beer. One can spend hours explaining to an addict why he should, for example, stop smoking. All the explaining in the world is not as powerful as this: ''nothing good comes of it''. Relativity has had nearly 100 years to help somebody, anybody. How many more centuries should we give it priority over alternative, productive work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::GPS, fiber optics, solar panels and PET scans don't count?

:::I'm amusingly reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said when asked what good was the then-freshly-invented hot-air balloon. "What good is a newborn baby?" That was 1783; powered flight didn't happen until 1903. If you don't see ''enough'' benefits from relativity yet, I'd say you need to embrace patience. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::: And by "squeeze out" I assume you mean in funding? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think it is worth it because it is an integral part of God's creation. Plus, I don't think that just because relativity is given grant money that necessarily means that it is taking it from money that would have gone to say genetically engineering bigger crops. There isn't a one-one correspondence.

::::I agree with a lot on here but honestly Andy, with all respect, I think DanHutchin is right. We all suffer from pride and from all I have read on here, from your brother Roger to Kate above, you are suffering from it big time on this issue. Think, is it really a coincidence that the first part of the Conservative Bible Project I translated was talking about humbling oneself and I did it just this very night? Sorry for the long response but know that it comes from the heart. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::: Amen, Ameda. I appreciate your advice for me to read the Bible more, and with a humbler heart. I'd also like your advice about this. If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people ''away'' from the Bible, would you still support the promotion of relativity? A direct answer from your heart, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: From the heart, and '''hopefully''' my understanding of the Word, anything can lead people away from the Lord, even if "based" on the Word of God. What I mean by that is people can use and abuse anything, even the Bible to support xyz. ''You know how many times I see Peter Popoff ripping off my brothers and sisters in Christ for some "Miracle spring water"?''

::::::If relativity is part of the fabric of the universe, and I do think that, then it was created by God just as much as the Bible, the stars, etc. and as I said can be used and abused. The only way science can lead one away from the Lord is if there isn't the secondary component to it, the spiritual one, the one stating that this was created by a being that created you and loves you. That is the only thing that needs to be addressed not relativity itself. Basically it seems like you are arguing that God's creation can lead people away from him? I don't think that is scriptural nor correct. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:04, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::No, that's not what I'm saying, and I humbly requested a ''direct'' answer. People who are taught and then believe relativity are less likely to read the Bible again, or as frequently. If true (as we've seen on this site and in colleges), do you still support the promotion of relativity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't think that is what you're saying, but Ameda has a point: if relativity is true, then God made it, so we can't dismiss it. If it isn't true, and if it does lead people away from the Bible, then we shouldn't be talking about it - but we first need to decide whether relativity is true.

:::::::And could I please see those statistics? I believe relativity, and I read the Bible. I think you're mistaking a correlation for causation: we already know colleges try to move students away from the Bible, and they're where most people happen to learn relativity. So, even though relativity has nothing to do with it, it's quite possible that people who study relativity are less likely to read the Bible because they've happened to spend years at liberal schools. (Incidentally, that's a good reason to teach relativity here at Conservapedia!) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:24, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Andy, you are trying to trap me into some black/white answer here. I believe that relativity is true and therefore when taught in all aspects will not lead people away from God. You might as well ask me the same thing concerning the Sun. Can it lead people away, sure, '''when''' it is couched in naturalistic philosophy. You are making some wild hypothetical based on nothing but your own encounters with vandals on this site, that is not empirical. I can easily make the same hypothetical concerning Conservapedia itself. I view this site as preaching the word of God but that doesn't mean that just because someone thinks less of Christianity after reading it then that means it is a problem with the site, it could be with the person not wanting to hear the truth.

::::::::PS- People misunderstood me, I wasn't saying Andy was arguing that, it simply reads like it as a consequence of what he is saying considering that relativity is correct and was designed by God. My opinion of course.[[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Don't let me jump into the middle of y'all's philosophical debate or anything, but there's a point on the table that needs resolving. Andy, your essay (yes, I know, still a work in progress) contains falsehoods. Are you at all interested in correcting them? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Indeed. The essay contained the claim that the theory of general relativity is non-falsifiable. This is patently wrong. There are well documented experiments that seek, through observation of physical phenomena, to disprove predictions made by the application of the theory of the general relativity. Whether the results of these observations match the predictions made (within scientifically determined margins of error) is completely immaterial. The fact that the experiments contain the potential to show that the theory of relativity is false shows that the theory of relativity meets the most basic test required to be considered falsifiable. It is impossible to deny such a basic and obvious fact and retain any kind of credibility.

''"In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone?"'' As has been stated above, PET scans. Please show how PET scans have never helped anybody. And all those inventions mentioned above are just the tip of the 'berg of how the theory of relativity has helped people.

''"Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible"'' Please show the empirical evidence you have gathered for this. Please also provide the empirical evidence that shows that the people not reading the Bible '''a)''' have done so because of relativity and '''b)''' were reading the Bible before they became involved with relativity.

''"I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility.""'' So you refuse to reconsider your belief that relativity is wrong, and refuse to remove the falsehoods contained within the essay. Instead you seek to rewrite sacred texts so that they say only what you want to say. Much in the same way you seek to rewrite what falsifiability means so that it says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the good that the theory of relativity has led to so that it now says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the experiments that test the theory of reliability and also seek to rewrite the results of those experiments so that they say only what you want them to say. I'm sorry. I truly am, for while I can see a pattern there, I cannot see any true humility in any of these actions.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 11:23, 16 November 2009 (EST)

:Dan, I find your rants to be nonsensical. The theory of relativity no more helped develop PET scans than it helped land a man on the moon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 21 November 2009 (EST)

== Information theory? ==

In this essay am missing (among some other things which where partly already discussed in the talk page) the connection between physical reality and information theory. Maybe introducing the definition of entropy itself (and not a selected spotlight on the thermodynamic relations) would help to generate some more context.

:Please improve as you think best. Information theory does deal with physical reality, as in communication errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ok I'll try, but it may take time, because i'll have to review some literature - I may hold a phd in physics and deal with effects of disorder in my experiments on a daily basis, but the (theoretical) developments in the last 100 years in that respect were a little steep. I feel that when discussing the topic Hawking deserves to mentioned, as well as the dissipation-fluctuation theorem, the Boltzmann radiation, entanglement, ergodicity, and maybe more (or a well selected set of topics to make it more clear). I'll try to write first a small independent text on how I see the subject (An kind of "reply" essay), which we can compare. I'll announce in this talk page, ok? (And i will not refer to relativity at all, because i find the discussions here about that topic highly uninspiring and counterproductive. Everything what needs to be said has been said already a hundred times.). If we feel that the content can be merged without messing things up, we can do so. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 03:10, 21 November 2009 (EST)

::: To be candid, Stitch, if one's mind is completely made up and closed with respect to relativity, then I'm not optimistic about how insightful one can be on other topics. The essence of advancing knowledge is an open mind that is constantly challenging existing theories. That's what we do here, and I hope you can accept that approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:::: As all most physicist in the world, i am expecting what the next LIGO upgrade will bring. If it does not show gravity wave events then the colleagues in the relativity community may have to explain sth to us, since the general claim would be that it should be possible to observe these events then. However I am not an expert on relativity, so this is not my bussiness. And i find it sad that you suppose that somebody doing actual experiments and evaluating the data himself can tell less about modern physics than somebody who has comparatively little personal experience in experimental physics, and negligible one in theoretical physics. I am used to judge people based on what their statements and not on their non-statements. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 07:49, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order

2009-11-21T08:10:47Z

Stitch75: /* Information theory? */

"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."

Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm not trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it.

:::The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::Oh, okay. I see where you made an honest mistake.

::::There are two numbers at play here: there's the ''observed'' precession of Mercury's orbit, and then there's the ''anomaly.'' The anomaly is the amount by which the observed precession differs from the mathematically predicted precession. What you did was quote a figure for the ''anomaly'' using the figure for the ''observed'' precession. Hang on, lemme splain.

::::The precession of an orbit is the sum of several effects. Newton's approximation for gravity predicted three different effects: axial precession of 5,025 arc seconds per century, 530 additional arc seconds per century from the gravitational effects of the other planets, and a tiny amount, less than one arc second per century, due to the fact that the sun isn't a perfect sphere. (Those numbers are all rounded off; the precise figures are trivially googlable.)

::::If you add up the precession predicted by Newton's approximation, you get exactly 5,557.02 arc seconds per century.

::::But if you run the numbers using the Einstein equations instead of the Newton equations — using the same constants for things like the mass and shape of the sun — you get a precession of exactly 5,600±0.04 arc seconds per century. It's really weird that it would be a round number like that, but that's how the math works out.

::::The observed precession of Mercury's orbit? It's 5,599.7 arc seconds per century. Which is where you got your number from. And that means the general relativity prediction was accurate to within (deep breath) one half of one one hundredth of one percent.

::::That's like shooting an arrow from Los Angeles and hitting the bullseye in Melbourne.

::::Would you be a dear and remove the incorrect anomaly figure from your essay now? I know it's a work in progress and I hate nitpickers, but somebody could stumble across that and be misinformed.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Your point is an excellent one. Thank you. The 30% figure was wrong for the reasons you provide.

:::::But the underlying point in this entry remains correct: due to advances in precision in measurement, the prediction of relativity no longer matches the data on the precession. The discrepancy is much greater than the margin of error, which is all that matters from a logical perspective. The entry has been updated accordingly, and I welcome further comments you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) I'm not sure you're going to welcome these comments, sir. Because you're just flat-out, provably, unequivocally wrong on this one. The observed value of the precession of Mercury hasn't been changed in a hundred years, because it's a direct observation. We measured it with telescopes, and those were just fine at that scale a century ago.

I'm afraid your edit made the offending section paragraph ''even more misleading than it was.'' Predicted value of the precession (via Newton) in 1915: 5,557. Observed value in 1915? 5,600. Difference? 43. Predicted value from the Einstein equations? 5,600. Observed value today? Still 5,600. Difference? Ridiculously small. I ''know'' you're actively working on this essay, and I feel ''really'' bad about beating you up over this, but you wouldn't have the paragraph in there unless you thought it had value.

Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I don't have an ax to grind about this. General Relativity was developed to explain the Mercury precession, so the theory certainly should fit the data. I expected that it would. But the fit isn't there anymore, due to more precise measurements. It's beyond the margin of error, and logically that's all that matters. You're using rounding above that obscures what the margin of error is. Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why. Those are the facts, and logic applied to the facts. Anyone has free will to accept or deny it. I accept the facts and logic as they require.

:You make an interesting point about position, but I don't think the essay is incorrect because it says nothing about momentum. Observation can pin down the position, which is relevant to establishing order. But without observation there is disorder. That is the basic point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Right, but there's an error of fact buried in there. It's a totally innocent one, I'm sure; I'm not accusing you of axe-grinding. It's just that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury ''has not changed'' since 1916 when the theory was published. It's not that we measured it with telescopes before 1916 and got a rough estimate, and now we measure it with better telescopes and have a much more precise figure. We measured it before 1916 and got a very accurate figure because measuring the motion of Mercury just isn't that hard, and the measurements we make today with better telescopes say only that yup, the older measurements were pretty much spot on.

::What we ''have'' done since then is to much more precisely measure the oblateness of the sun. There was a big controversy about that back in the … hmm … 80s I think it was? Goldberg and Dicke claimed that the sun was much "fatter" than previously thought, which ''would have'' made the predictions from general relativity different from the observed precession. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? For a while there was a lot of disagreement about what shape the sun actually is, but that's been pretty much put to bed with both more accurate ground-based observations in the 90s and helioseismography.

::Anyway, saying that the prediction matched the observation in 1916 and doesn't today is simply flat-out false. If your argument depends on it, then you're hurting your argument with this point. If it doesn't, then what's the harm in fixing it?

::Thanks for clarifying your point about quantum mechanics. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:35, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Perhaps this is what Mr. Schlafly is referring to. The article states that 5599.7 arc-seconds is the observed value. KSorenson is quoting a value of 5,600 (±0.04). 5600-.04=5599.96. From just those values then yes the relativity value is higher by .26 arc-seconds even factoring in the error. The only thing I ask is what is the error range for the observed value? [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:08, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent again because I'm lazy with bullets) We can do a heck of a lot better than "presumably," Andy, and as a person who cares deeply about facts and logic, you darned well know that. I happen to have the Pijpers paper from 94 here; I dug it out when I thought you might have been thinking of helioseismography. In it he cites radar ranging studies from 1976 to 1992. Here's the data, ''with margins of error.'' Note that these numbers are for ''the anomaly,'' and not the precession total, and remember that the figure from the Einstein equation is 42.98 ± 0.04, okay?

*43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro 76)
*42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson 87)
*42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson 91)
*43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson 92)

So the Einstein prediction is within the margin of error of those four radar-ranging measurements of the Mercury anomaly. I'm sure there've been more recent studies, but I don't have them literally sitting in front of my face at the moment, so those are the ones I'm citing. Can I see your numbers that say the Einstein prediction is outside the margin? More recent data than what I have in my hand here maybe? (This Pijpers paper is [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9804258v1 on ARXIV], by the way, if you want to check it out.)--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Oh, and just incidentally? Will didn't leave Mercury out of his paper; he just talked about it in really jargony physics-paper language.

:Three decades of experiments, ranging from the standard light-deﬂection and perihelion-shift tests to lunar laser ranging, planetary and satellite tracking, and geophysical and astronomical observations, have placed bounds on the PPN parameters consistent with general relativity.

"PPN" is the ''parameterized post''-''Newton'' formalism, a rewriting of the law of universal gravitation to include coefficients derived from general relativity. The Einstein field equations are nightmarish to solve, so PPN was created as a middle-ground approximation between the (good but not good enough in some contexts) Newton approximation and the agonizing pain of having to actually ''solve'' the Einstein field equations every time you want to calculate the delta-vee required during a solar slingshot maneuver for a planetary probe. What Will said in that paper is the PPN approximation has been tested ''against general relativity'' and supported by 30 years of experiments.

This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I have an open mind about this but, quite honestly, the relativists protest too much. Why do you care so much about defending relativity? Not to pick on you, however, because many trained in math and physics likewise defend relativity like they are defending their own reputation. It's bizarre. Regardless of the reason, protesting too much is not scientific.

:Answering the substance of your post, your most recent data is from 1992 (17 years ago, with the data probably older than that), and its margin of error confirms what I said: it's approaching 0.1. Combine that 0.1 (or 0.14 if you like) with the most recent data and it's clear that GR no longer fits the data. Of course, no one is going to dare publish a paper claiming GR is disproved by the data, and even if they tried, no journal would accept it. So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::"Why do you care so much about defending relativity?" 'Cause teaching physics is something I do for a living. 'Cause I think it's really neat. 'Cause seeing somebody totally misunderstand it, and then go on to draw incorrect conclusions based on his misunderstanding of it, and finally to pass those incorrect conclusions on to impressionable kids who trust him … well, that just breaks my heart. You can call it protesting too much if you want, Andy. But I wish you could understand that it's really just me trying to help.

::I wouldn't have fought you on this at all if you'd said something like "A dozen eggs contains fifteen eggs, plus or minus two." That's just ''obviously'' wrong, and nobody who reads it would fall for it. But you're hiding your false conclusion behind a wall of data that you know most people won't bother looking up for themselves, and that's just dishonest. That's unworthy of anybody who'd call himself a teacher, and what's more I think you know that in your heart. You seem like a conscientious guy; what does your conscience say to you about this?

::Anyway, it's your essay, you can obviously write what you want. But let me just give you a heads up: Next week, when I put your [[theory of relativity]] page on the table for major surgery? I don't think you're gonna like it. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:24, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it. The bottom line is clear: no physics major, no physics grad student, and no physics teacher should dare criticize relativity, no matter what the data say. The political grip on this issue is intense. In fact, to be honest, I would advise against your criticizing it in any way. It could harm your (or any other teacher's or physicist's) career. There are examples of people who were denied tenure simply because they criticized evolution, and the politics here is just as strong.

:::I look forward to learning from your entry on the theory of relativity. The math is fascinating regardless of its manifestation in reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) "Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it." What was there to address? You made an arithmetic error. Do you want me to send you the Mathematica scatterplot I made just to triple-check that I was interpreting the data correctly? It's pretty. The error bars are blue.

Andy, I wish I could get you to come to my department for a week. Just one week, any week. Our students, grad students, associates, profs, chair, heck, even the ''janitor'' criticizes relativity every day. I could get you a meeting with one of our theoretical cosmologist; he's been pulling his ''hair'' out for years trying to make some progress on the vacuum energy problem. For a while there he was coming into my office a couple times a week and saying … well, unprintable things about partial differential equations. Even we theoretical physicists think general relativity is a mathematical mess.

But we respect it anyway. Because it ''works,'' at least as far as anybody's been able to measure.

Can I ask you a question? What's your beef with relativity? I mean, I know you question the data, but … why? Are you just being iconoclastic? I don't mean that in a dismissive way; I totally understand and respect the impulse to say "Everybody agrees that this is true, so I'm going to question it!" I'd really just like to understand your point of view on this, whatever it may be. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

: GR's predictions are off by more than the margin of error, as we discussed in detail above; it and special relativity have absurd discontinuities; there are logical flaws, as in relativistic mass; it conflicts with QM; and it predicts gravitons that have never been found despite wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it. Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible and relativity is pushed big-time by liberals. It chills progress by intimidating people against criticizing it. Other than that, the theory is pretty good!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::Wow, Mr. Schlafly must really like this conversation, he actually made a joke. ;) jk [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 00:15, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks very much for taking the time to reply; I understand better now. Of course, some of that is unmitigated garbage, and we'll have plenty of chances to deal with it when I fix your [[theory of relativity]] article next week, so I'll skip some points for now.

:::*''You'' discussed the fact that the predictions are outside the margin of error; ''I'' pointed out to you repeatedly that you were mistaken. I even offered to show you a plot. So come on.

:::*To be frank, relativity doesn't ''conflict'' with quantum mechanics; the two theories don't overlap in any domains we can presently observe. But that's the problem. They don't overlap, so we don't know how we're going to understand systems where both gravity and quantum mechanics have non-negligible effects. It's entirely possible that every such region of spacetime is sequestered behind an event horizon; that's jokingly called the "convenient cosmic censorship hypothesis" by one of my colleagues.

:::*General relativity doesn't predict gravitons at all. General relativity doesn't say anything about particles; the Standard Model predicts the existence of particles (like the Higgs). Gravitons are part of the various attempts to reformulate general relativity as a vector gauge theory, none of which have gotten there yet. And, uh, since none of the gauge theories have gotten there yet, Andy, ''not one dollar'' has been spent looking for gravitons. Because we don't know where to look. But we ''do'' know that if they could be detected by existing particle accelerators, they would've been. So if and when physicists decide to look for them, it's going to have to start with building an accelerator the size of our galaxy<ref>WARNING: exaggeration for humorous effect, do not take literally.</ref>, and you'll have your chance to lobby the appropriations committee then.

:::*Yes, studying relativity does take people away from time they could spend in religious activities. So does reading this site. Just give me a chance to copy-and-paste my contributions out before you shut it down to remove the temptation.

:::Anyway, like I said, we'll have plenty of time to have these arguments when I start work on [[theory of relativity]]. All I ask is that you ''engage in constructive collaboration'' with me and whomever else chooses to help out, rather than pouncing on the "undo" button like you did when I rewrote [[black hole]]. We've both demonstrated that we're reasonable adults, I think; we can work together. Deal? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

{{reflist}}

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button! Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time. It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory. I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either. (Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture). It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate. General relativity could be spot on. Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]! But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton. Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:37, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Ugh, I really should be sleeping, but this is just such an engaging conversation I can't seem to break away.

:::::If you make a measurement to test a theory and the measurement doesn't match the prediction, there are three possibilities. Either the measurement is wrong ("That's not Mercury, that's Saturn!") or the theory is wrong ("Turns out gravity ''isn't'' really caused by leprechauns!") or both are fundamentally right but you failed to take something into account ("We really shouldn't have assumed the sun is a sphere.")

:::::The thing about the Mercury anomaly is that the observed and predicted numbers are ''insanely'' close together. So close as to be declared equal within the margin of error. So either general relativity is ''absolutely'' right and we accounted for ''everything'' — no physicist believes this, by the way — or general relativity is at least ''incredibly close'' to being right, so close that the factors we failed to account for are negligible at the scale of the Mercury anomaly.

:::::But the thing is, Mercury is really thin sauce, as gravity goes. The fields are weak, and the prediction we're testing doesn't say anything terribly interesting about the theory. If you want to get a real feel for how general relativity holds up as a ''physical'' theory, and not just a mathematical one, you really need to look at the Gravity Probe B data. (Conflict of interest alert: I worked on that project.) That experiment didn't measure gravitation indirectly by observing the motion of a particle; it measured it ''directly'' by parallel transporting a vector in a closed loop around a region of curvature. We ''empirically'' measured the curvature of spacetime around a gravitating object (the Earth) and found it to be non-zero. Spacetime is ''not'' flat, massive bodies ''do'' curve spacetime, and the fundamental ''idea'' of general relativity reflects nature.

:::::General relativity doesn't just say that a falling body moves like such-n-such. It tells us ''why.'' And to see it dismissed out of hand because Andy doesn't care for the size of the error bars on the results of a radar study? That, I confess, rubs me the wrong way. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:51, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Great point about experimental error. Before I ''really do'' sign off for the night, Kate, I'd like to give you an article suggestion: [[Gravity_Probe_B]]. I'm enthusiastically looking forward to hearing how it was done! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 01:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Oh, I'm not the girl to write that one. It'd be 200 pages long and full of equations and whole paragraphs of me going "You guys this is so ''awesome!"'' --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 01:09, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::On the contrary. You are exactly the right girl to write this. But not yet. Do GR first, OK? And you'll have to take off your instructor hat, and put on your explainer-for-lay-people hat, so that it won't be 200 pages long. Whenever you reach the point where you think "You guys this is so ''awesome''", don't go into "and so I have to write the awesome equations". Go into "how can I convey the awesomeness to my reader?". [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 11:32, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted. Relativity has quasi-religious status for many; they'll defend regardless of what the evidence is, regardless of its absurd inconsistencies, and regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability. I don't mind relativity, and look forward to reviewing the updated entry. But open-mindedness is not a trait of many relativists, who will demonize anyone who points out its fairly obvious flaws.

:::::::One way to evaluate religions, or quasi-religions, is to look at the fruit it bears. What has it helped achieved? In the case of relativity, it has produced nothing. Nil. Zippo. After nearly 100 years and a ton of money. If you find the math in relativity fun, great, but relativity is not going to help anyone. It never has. Pick up a Bible in between some equations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::''"Relativity has quasi-religious status for many…regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability."'' As has already been shown repeatedly by those knowledgeable and qualified in the subject such as KSorenson the theory of general relativity is eminently falsifiable. For instance the two gravity probes (GP-A and GP-B) were launched specifically to measure rate change of a clock in lower gravity and space-time curvature near the Earth respectively, both experiments specifically testing the theory of relativity. As both experiments were to test the theory of relativity this means that the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered falsifiable. This is as patently obvious as stating that 2+2=4. If the theory of relativity is not falsifiable then no experiment can exist to test it. The existence of Gravity Probes A & B automatically that the previous statement cannot be true. So, the undeniable existence of Gravity Probes A & B now proving the falsifiability of the theory of general relativity this means that by Karl Popper's rigorous standard the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be a science. This is immediately obvious to anyone who has made an in depth study of Popper's work, the kind of study that all students of the pure sciences undergo, although strangely enough those students of those subjects which use an applied form of science never seem to be taught such things to the levels required. Presumably this is because the standard of science they are taught is considerably less rigorous or in-depth than the standards expected of and required of students of the pure sciences.

::::::::As the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered a science then this in turn means the first part of your statement: ''"Relativity has a quasi-religious status"'' is itself false. Science is not religion. Religion requires hope, hope that what one believes is true. Science requires absolute cynicism, it requires one to say "this is my idea, help me prove it wrong". To this date tests on the theory of general relativity has failed to show that it is wrong, and where measurements have been made to confirm or deny the accuracy of the general theory of relativity such results have shown that the predictions made by the theory of relativity are accurate to the observed effects well within the scientifically determined margins of error.

::::::::The statement that ''"relativity is not going to help anyone"'' is, of course, as wrong as you can get. The theory of relativity opened up a massive area of study, and there are no known limits to what may be achieved through such studies. It is not hyperbole to state that the creation of the theory of relativity is as important, if not more important, than the discovery of the safe generation and transference of electricity. This is known and accepted by everybody who has an in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge gained through years of learning and self-teaching that begins after one leaves university, after one has gained the bedrock of knowledge required to begin teaching oneself the true depths of a subject.

::::::::I beg of you this one thing. Open up your Bible and truly study the price one pays for Arrogance and Pride. Learn the lesson that the true Student and Teacher must come to the subjects they study in a state of Humility. Of all the posts on the subject of general relativity each and every person that has made an in depth study of the subject have stated that the views you hold on general relativity are wrong. The only person who states that your views are correct are yourself. Look inside yourself and ask if your stubborn resistance to accept what others learned in the subject have to say on this matter is arrogance, pride or humility.(by DanHutchin)

:::::::::Dan, I accept your challenge. I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility." Thank you for suggesting it. In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone? Electricity powers hospitals that save lives, and increase productivity and wealth which help the poor throughout the world. You say relativity "is as important, if not more important." Specific examples, please?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: Sorry for butting in here but I love science, I am a science major currently. In my mind God gave us the scientific method and the tools to explore his creation for his glory. We can debate the merits of relativity all day but the fact remains that if it is true it is part of God's creation and because of that, automatically gives it value. Plus, pure science in a lot of cases leads to applied science. I don't like arguments based on what we don't know. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ameda, that's fine, but surely you'd agree that unproductive theories or beliefs should not squeeze out productive ones. Someone can use rhetoric to defend any belief or activity, from watching television to drinking beer. One can spend hours explaining to an addict why he should, for example, stop smoking. All the explaining in the world is not as powerful as this: ''nothing good comes of it''. Relativity has had nearly 100 years to help somebody, anybody. How many more centuries should we give it priority over alternative, productive work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::GPS, fiber optics, solar panels and PET scans don't count?

:::I'm amusingly reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said when asked what good was the then-freshly-invented hot-air balloon. "What good is a newborn baby?" That was 1783; powered flight didn't happen until 1903. If you don't see ''enough'' benefits from relativity yet, I'd say you need to embrace patience. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::: And by "squeeze out" I assume you mean in funding? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think it is worth it because it is an integral part of God's creation. Plus, I don't think that just because relativity is given grant money that necessarily means that it is taking it from money that would have gone to say genetically engineering bigger crops. There isn't a one-one correspondence.

::::I agree with a lot on here but honestly Andy, with all respect, I think DanHutchin is right. We all suffer from pride and from all I have read on here, from your brother Roger to Kate above, you are suffering from it big time on this issue. Think, is it really a coincidence that the first part of the Conservative Bible Project I translated was talking about humbling oneself and I did it just this very night? Sorry for the long response but know that it comes from the heart. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::: Amen, Ameda. I appreciate your advice for me to read the Bible more, and with a humbler heart. I'd also like your advice about this. If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people ''away'' from the Bible, would you still support the promotion of relativity? A direct answer from your heart, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: From the heart, and '''hopefully''' my understanding of the Word, anything can lead people away from the Lord, even if "based" on the Word of God. What I mean by that is people can use and abuse anything, even the Bible to support xyz. ''You know how many times I see Peter Popoff ripping off my brothers and sisters in Christ for some "Miracle spring water"?''

::::::If relativity is part of the fabric of the universe, and I do think that, then it was created by God just as much as the Bible, the stars, etc. and as I said can be used and abused. The only way science can lead one away from the Lord is if there isn't the secondary component to it, the spiritual one, the one stating that this was created by a being that created you and loves you. That is the only thing that needs to be addressed not relativity itself. Basically it seems like you are arguing that God's creation can lead people away from him? I don't think that is scriptural nor correct. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:04, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::No, that's not what I'm saying, and I humbly requested a ''direct'' answer. People who are taught and then believe relativity are less likely to read the Bible again, or as frequently. If true (as we've seen on this site and in colleges), do you still support the promotion of relativity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't think that is what you're saying, but Ameda has a point: if relativity is true, then God made it, so we can't dismiss it. If it isn't true, and if it does lead people away from the Bible, then we shouldn't be talking about it - but we first need to decide whether relativity is true.

:::::::And could I please see those statistics? I believe relativity, and I read the Bible. I think you're mistaking a correlation for causation: we already know colleges try to move students away from the Bible, and they're where most people happen to learn relativity. So, even though relativity has nothing to do with it, it's quite possible that people who study relativity are less likely to read the Bible because they've happened to spend years at liberal schools. (Incidentally, that's a good reason to teach relativity here at Conservapedia!) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:24, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Andy, you are trying to trap me into some black/white answer here. I believe that relativity is true and therefore when taught in all aspects will not lead people away from God. You might as well ask me the same thing concerning the Sun. Can it lead people away, sure, '''when''' it is couched in naturalistic philosophy. You are making some wild hypothetical based on nothing but your own encounters with vandals on this site, that is not empirical. I can easily make the same hypothetical concerning Conservapedia itself. I view this site as preaching the word of God but that doesn't mean that just because someone thinks less of Christianity after reading it then that means it is a problem with the site, it could be with the person not wanting to hear the truth.

::::::::PS- People misunderstood me, I wasn't saying Andy was arguing that, it simply reads like it as a consequence of what he is saying considering that relativity is correct and was designed by God. My opinion of course.[[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Don't let me jump into the middle of y'all's philosophical debate or anything, but there's a point on the table that needs resolving. Andy, your essay (yes, I know, still a work in progress) contains falsehoods. Are you at all interested in correcting them? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Indeed. The essay contained the claim that the theory of general relativity is non-falsifiable. This is patently wrong. There are well documented experiments that seek, through observation of physical phenomena, to disprove predictions made by the application of the theory of the general relativity. Whether the results of these observations match the predictions made (within scientifically determined margins of error) is completely immaterial. The fact that the experiments contain the potential to show that the theory of relativity is false shows that the theory of relativity meets the most basic test required to be considered falsifiable. It is impossible to deny such a basic and obvious fact and retain any kind of credibility.

''"In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone?"'' As has been stated above, PET scans. Please show how PET scans have never helped anybody. And all those inventions mentioned above are just the tip of the 'berg of how the theory of relativity has helped people.

''"Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible"'' Please show the empirical evidence you have gathered for this. Please also provide the empirical evidence that shows that the people not reading the Bible '''a)''' have done so because of relativity and '''b)''' were reading the Bible before they became involved with relativity.

''"I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility.""'' So you refuse to reconsider your belief that relativity is wrong, and refuse to remove the falsehoods contained within the essay. Instead you seek to rewrite sacred texts so that they say only what you want to say. Much in the same way you seek to rewrite what falsifiability means so that it says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the good that the theory of relativity has led to so that it now says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the experiments that test the theory of reliability and also seek to rewrite the results of those experiments so that they say only what you want them to say. I'm sorry. I truly am, for while I can see a pattern there, I cannot see any true humility in any of these actions.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 11:23, 16 November 2009 (EST)

== Information theory? ==

In this essay am missing (among some other things which where partly already discussed in the talk page) the connection between physical reality and information theory. Maybe introducing the definition of entropy itself (and not a selected spotlight on the thermodynamic relations) would help to generate some more context.

:Please improve as you think best. Information theory does deal with physical reality, as in communication errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ok I'll try, but it may take time, because i'll have to review some literature - I may hold a phd in physics and deal with effects of disorder in my experiments on a daily basis, but the (theoretical) developments in the last 100 years in that respect were a little steep. I feel that when discussing the topic Hawking deserves to mentioned, as well as the dissipation-fluctuation theorem, the Boltzmann radiation, entanglement, ergodicity, and maybe more (or a well selected set of topics to make it more clear). I'll try to write first a small independent text on how I see the subject (An kind of "reply" essay), which we can compare. I'll announce in this talk page, ok? (And i will not refer to relativity at all, because i find the discussions here about that topic highly uninspiring and counterproductive. Everything what needs to be said has been said already a hundred times.). If we feel that the content can be merged without messing things up, we can do so. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 03:10, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order

2009-11-21T05:19:17Z

Stitch75: /* Information theory? */ new section

"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."

Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm not trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it.

:::The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::Oh, okay. I see where you made an honest mistake.

::::There are two numbers at play here: there's the ''observed'' precession of Mercury's orbit, and then there's the ''anomaly.'' The anomaly is the amount by which the observed precession differs from the mathematically predicted precession. What you did was quote a figure for the ''anomaly'' using the figure for the ''observed'' precession. Hang on, lemme splain.

::::The precession of an orbit is the sum of several effects. Newton's approximation for gravity predicted three different effects: axial precession of 5,025 arc seconds per century, 530 additional arc seconds per century from the gravitational effects of the other planets, and a tiny amount, less than one arc second per century, due to the fact that the sun isn't a perfect sphere. (Those numbers are all rounded off; the precise figures are trivially googlable.)

::::If you add up the precession predicted by Newton's approximation, you get exactly 5,557.02 arc seconds per century.

::::But if you run the numbers using the Einstein equations instead of the Newton equations — using the same constants for things like the mass and shape of the sun — you get a precession of exactly 5,600±0.04 arc seconds per century. It's really weird that it would be a round number like that, but that's how the math works out.

::::The observed precession of Mercury's orbit? It's 5,599.7 arc seconds per century. Which is where you got your number from. And that means the general relativity prediction was accurate to within (deep breath) one half of one one hundredth of one percent.

::::That's like shooting an arrow from Los Angeles and hitting the bullseye in Melbourne.

::::Would you be a dear and remove the incorrect anomaly figure from your essay now? I know it's a work in progress and I hate nitpickers, but somebody could stumble across that and be misinformed.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Your point is an excellent one. Thank you. The 30% figure was wrong for the reasons you provide.

:::::But the underlying point in this entry remains correct: due to advances in precision in measurement, the prediction of relativity no longer matches the data on the precession. The discrepancy is much greater than the margin of error, which is all that matters from a logical perspective. The entry has been updated accordingly, and I welcome further comments you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) I'm not sure you're going to welcome these comments, sir. Because you're just flat-out, provably, unequivocally wrong on this one. The observed value of the precession of Mercury hasn't been changed in a hundred years, because it's a direct observation. We measured it with telescopes, and those were just fine at that scale a century ago.

I'm afraid your edit made the offending section paragraph ''even more misleading than it was.'' Predicted value of the precession (via Newton) in 1915: 5,557. Observed value in 1915? 5,600. Difference? 43. Predicted value from the Einstein equations? 5,600. Observed value today? Still 5,600. Difference? Ridiculously small. I ''know'' you're actively working on this essay, and I feel ''really'' bad about beating you up over this, but you wouldn't have the paragraph in there unless you thought it had value.

Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I don't have an ax to grind about this. General Relativity was developed to explain the Mercury precession, so the theory certainly should fit the data. I expected that it would. But the fit isn't there anymore, due to more precise measurements. It's beyond the margin of error, and logically that's all that matters. You're using rounding above that obscures what the margin of error is. Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why. Those are the facts, and logic applied to the facts. Anyone has free will to accept or deny it. I accept the facts and logic as they require.

:You make an interesting point about position, but I don't think the essay is incorrect because it says nothing about momentum. Observation can pin down the position, which is relevant to establishing order. But without observation there is disorder. That is the basic point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Right, but there's an error of fact buried in there. It's a totally innocent one, I'm sure; I'm not accusing you of axe-grinding. It's just that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury ''has not changed'' since 1916 when the theory was published. It's not that we measured it with telescopes before 1916 and got a rough estimate, and now we measure it with better telescopes and have a much more precise figure. We measured it before 1916 and got a very accurate figure because measuring the motion of Mercury just isn't that hard, and the measurements we make today with better telescopes say only that yup, the older measurements were pretty much spot on.

::What we ''have'' done since then is to much more precisely measure the oblateness of the sun. There was a big controversy about that back in the … hmm … 80s I think it was? Goldberg and Dicke claimed that the sun was much "fatter" than previously thought, which ''would have'' made the predictions from general relativity different from the observed precession. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? For a while there was a lot of disagreement about what shape the sun actually is, but that's been pretty much put to bed with both more accurate ground-based observations in the 90s and helioseismography.

::Anyway, saying that the prediction matched the observation in 1916 and doesn't today is simply flat-out false. If your argument depends on it, then you're hurting your argument with this point. If it doesn't, then what's the harm in fixing it?

::Thanks for clarifying your point about quantum mechanics. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:35, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Perhaps this is what Mr. Schlafly is referring to. The article states that 5599.7 arc-seconds is the observed value. KSorenson is quoting a value of 5,600 (±0.04). 5600-.04=5599.96. From just those values then yes the relativity value is higher by .26 arc-seconds even factoring in the error. The only thing I ask is what is the error range for the observed value? [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:08, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent again because I'm lazy with bullets) We can do a heck of a lot better than "presumably," Andy, and as a person who cares deeply about facts and logic, you darned well know that. I happen to have the Pijpers paper from 94 here; I dug it out when I thought you might have been thinking of helioseismography. In it he cites radar ranging studies from 1976 to 1992. Here's the data, ''with margins of error.'' Note that these numbers are for ''the anomaly,'' and not the precession total, and remember that the figure from the Einstein equation is 42.98 ± 0.04, okay?

*43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro 76)
*42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson 87)
*42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson 91)
*43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson 92)

So the Einstein prediction is within the margin of error of those four radar-ranging measurements of the Mercury anomaly. I'm sure there've been more recent studies, but I don't have them literally sitting in front of my face at the moment, so those are the ones I'm citing. Can I see your numbers that say the Einstein prediction is outside the margin? More recent data than what I have in my hand here maybe? (This Pijpers paper is [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9804258v1 on ARXIV], by the way, if you want to check it out.)--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Oh, and just incidentally? Will didn't leave Mercury out of his paper; he just talked about it in really jargony physics-paper language.

:Three decades of experiments, ranging from the standard light-deﬂection and perihelion-shift tests to lunar laser ranging, planetary and satellite tracking, and geophysical and astronomical observations, have placed bounds on the PPN parameters consistent with general relativity.

"PPN" is the ''parameterized post''-''Newton'' formalism, a rewriting of the law of universal gravitation to include coefficients derived from general relativity. The Einstein field equations are nightmarish to solve, so PPN was created as a middle-ground approximation between the (good but not good enough in some contexts) Newton approximation and the agonizing pain of having to actually ''solve'' the Einstein field equations every time you want to calculate the delta-vee required during a solar slingshot maneuver for a planetary probe. What Will said in that paper is the PPN approximation has been tested ''against general relativity'' and supported by 30 years of experiments.

This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I have an open mind about this but, quite honestly, the relativists protest too much. Why do you care so much about defending relativity? Not to pick on you, however, because many trained in math and physics likewise defend relativity like they are defending their own reputation. It's bizarre. Regardless of the reason, protesting too much is not scientific.

:Answering the substance of your post, your most recent data is from 1992 (17 years ago, with the data probably older than that), and its margin of error confirms what I said: it's approaching 0.1. Combine that 0.1 (or 0.14 if you like) with the most recent data and it's clear that GR no longer fits the data. Of course, no one is going to dare publish a paper claiming GR is disproved by the data, and even if they tried, no journal would accept it. So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::"Why do you care so much about defending relativity?" 'Cause teaching physics is something I do for a living. 'Cause I think it's really neat. 'Cause seeing somebody totally misunderstand it, and then go on to draw incorrect conclusions based on his misunderstanding of it, and finally to pass those incorrect conclusions on to impressionable kids who trust him … well, that just breaks my heart. You can call it protesting too much if you want, Andy. But I wish you could understand that it's really just me trying to help.

::I wouldn't have fought you on this at all if you'd said something like "A dozen eggs contains fifteen eggs, plus or minus two." That's just ''obviously'' wrong, and nobody who reads it would fall for it. But you're hiding your false conclusion behind a wall of data that you know most people won't bother looking up for themselves, and that's just dishonest. That's unworthy of anybody who'd call himself a teacher, and what's more I think you know that in your heart. You seem like a conscientious guy; what does your conscience say to you about this?

::Anyway, it's your essay, you can obviously write what you want. But let me just give you a heads up: Next week, when I put your [[theory of relativity]] page on the table for major surgery? I don't think you're gonna like it. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:24, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it. The bottom line is clear: no physics major, no physics grad student, and no physics teacher should dare criticize relativity, no matter what the data say. The political grip on this issue is intense. In fact, to be honest, I would advise against your criticizing it in any way. It could harm your (or any other teacher's or physicist's) career. There are examples of people who were denied tenure simply because they criticized evolution, and the politics here is just as strong.

:::I look forward to learning from your entry on the theory of relativity. The math is fascinating regardless of its manifestation in reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) "Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it." What was there to address? You made an arithmetic error. Do you want me to send you the Mathematica scatterplot I made just to triple-check that I was interpreting the data correctly? It's pretty. The error bars are blue.

Andy, I wish I could get you to come to my department for a week. Just one week, any week. Our students, grad students, associates, profs, chair, heck, even the ''janitor'' criticizes relativity every day. I could get you a meeting with one of our theoretical cosmologist; he's been pulling his ''hair'' out for years trying to make some progress on the vacuum energy problem. For a while there he was coming into my office a couple times a week and saying … well, unprintable things about partial differential equations. Even we theoretical physicists think general relativity is a mathematical mess.

But we respect it anyway. Because it ''works,'' at least as far as anybody's been able to measure.

Can I ask you a question? What's your beef with relativity? I mean, I know you question the data, but … why? Are you just being iconoclastic? I don't mean that in a dismissive way; I totally understand and respect the impulse to say "Everybody agrees that this is true, so I'm going to question it!" I'd really just like to understand your point of view on this, whatever it may be. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

: GR's predictions are off by more than the margin of error, as we discussed in detail above; it and special relativity have absurd discontinuities; there are logical flaws, as in relativistic mass; it conflicts with QM; and it predicts gravitons that have never been found despite wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it. Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible and relativity is pushed big-time by liberals. It chills progress by intimidating people against criticizing it. Other than that, the theory is pretty good!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::Wow, Mr. Schlafly must really like this conversation, he actually made a joke. ;) jk [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 00:15, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks very much for taking the time to reply; I understand better now. Of course, some of that is unmitigated garbage, and we'll have plenty of chances to deal with it when I fix your [[theory of relativity]] article next week, so I'll skip some points for now.

:::*''You'' discussed the fact that the predictions are outside the margin of error; ''I'' pointed out to you repeatedly that you were mistaken. I even offered to show you a plot. So come on.

:::*To be frank, relativity doesn't ''conflict'' with quantum mechanics; the two theories don't overlap in any domains we can presently observe. But that's the problem. They don't overlap, so we don't know how we're going to understand systems where both gravity and quantum mechanics have non-negligible effects. It's entirely possible that every such region of spacetime is sequestered behind an event horizon; that's jokingly called the "convenient cosmic censorship hypothesis" by one of my colleagues.

:::*General relativity doesn't predict gravitons at all. General relativity doesn't say anything about particles; the Standard Model predicts the existence of particles (like the Higgs). Gravitons are part of the various attempts to reformulate general relativity as a vector gauge theory, none of which have gotten there yet. And, uh, since none of the gauge theories have gotten there yet, Andy, ''not one dollar'' has been spent looking for gravitons. Because we don't know where to look. But we ''do'' know that if they could be detected by existing particle accelerators, they would've been. So if and when physicists decide to look for them, it's going to have to start with building an accelerator the size of our galaxy<ref>WARNING: exaggeration for humorous effect, do not take literally.</ref>, and you'll have your chance to lobby the appropriations committee then.

:::*Yes, studying relativity does take people away from time they could spend in religious activities. So does reading this site. Just give me a chance to copy-and-paste my contributions out before you shut it down to remove the temptation.

:::Anyway, like I said, we'll have plenty of time to have these arguments when I start work on [[theory of relativity]]. All I ask is that you ''engage in constructive collaboration'' with me and whomever else chooses to help out, rather than pouncing on the "undo" button like you did when I rewrote [[black hole]]. We've both demonstrated that we're reasonable adults, I think; we can work together. Deal? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

{{reflist}}

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button! Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time. It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory. I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either. (Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture). It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate. General relativity could be spot on. Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]! But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton. Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:37, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Ugh, I really should be sleeping, but this is just such an engaging conversation I can't seem to break away.

:::::If you make a measurement to test a theory and the measurement doesn't match the prediction, there are three possibilities. Either the measurement is wrong ("That's not Mercury, that's Saturn!") or the theory is wrong ("Turns out gravity ''isn't'' really caused by leprechauns!") or both are fundamentally right but you failed to take something into account ("We really shouldn't have assumed the sun is a sphere.")

:::::The thing about the Mercury anomaly is that the observed and predicted numbers are ''insanely'' close together. So close as to be declared equal within the margin of error. So either general relativity is ''absolutely'' right and we accounted for ''everything'' — no physicist believes this, by the way — or general relativity is at least ''incredibly close'' to being right, so close that the factors we failed to account for are negligible at the scale of the Mercury anomaly.

:::::But the thing is, Mercury is really thin sauce, as gravity goes. The fields are weak, and the prediction we're testing doesn't say anything terribly interesting about the theory. If you want to get a real feel for how general relativity holds up as a ''physical'' theory, and not just a mathematical one, you really need to look at the Gravity Probe B data. (Conflict of interest alert: I worked on that project.) That experiment didn't measure gravitation indirectly by observing the motion of a particle; it measured it ''directly'' by parallel transporting a vector in a closed loop around a region of curvature. We ''empirically'' measured the curvature of spacetime around a gravitating object (the Earth) and found it to be non-zero. Spacetime is ''not'' flat, massive bodies ''do'' curve spacetime, and the fundamental ''idea'' of general relativity reflects nature.

:::::General relativity doesn't just say that a falling body moves like such-n-such. It tells us ''why.'' And to see it dismissed out of hand because Andy doesn't care for the size of the error bars on the results of a radar study? That, I confess, rubs me the wrong way. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:51, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Great point about experimental error. Before I ''really do'' sign off for the night, Kate, I'd like to give you an article suggestion: [[Gravity_Probe_B]]. I'm enthusiastically looking forward to hearing how it was done! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 01:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Oh, I'm not the girl to write that one. It'd be 200 pages long and full of equations and whole paragraphs of me going "You guys this is so ''awesome!"'' --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 01:09, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::On the contrary. You are exactly the right girl to write this. But not yet. Do GR first, OK? And you'll have to take off your instructor hat, and put on your explainer-for-lay-people hat, so that it won't be 200 pages long. Whenever you reach the point where you think "You guys this is so ''awesome''", don't go into "and so I have to write the awesome equations". Go into "how can I convey the awesomeness to my reader?". [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 11:32, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted. Relativity has quasi-religious status for many; they'll defend regardless of what the evidence is, regardless of its absurd inconsistencies, and regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability. I don't mind relativity, and look forward to reviewing the updated entry. But open-mindedness is not a trait of many relativists, who will demonize anyone who points out its fairly obvious flaws.

:::::::One way to evaluate religions, or quasi-religions, is to look at the fruit it bears. What has it helped achieved? In the case of relativity, it has produced nothing. Nil. Zippo. After nearly 100 years and a ton of money. If you find the math in relativity fun, great, but relativity is not going to help anyone. It never has. Pick up a Bible in between some equations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::''"Relativity has quasi-religious status for many…regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability."'' As has already been shown repeatedly by those knowledgeable and qualified in the subject such as KSorenson the theory of general relativity is eminently falsifiable. For instance the two gravity probes (GP-A and GP-B) were launched specifically to measure rate change of a clock in lower gravity and space-time curvature near the Earth respectively, both experiments specifically testing the theory of relativity. As both experiments were to test the theory of relativity this means that the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered falsifiable. This is as patently obvious as stating that 2+2=4. If the theory of relativity is not falsifiable then no experiment can exist to test it. The existence of Gravity Probes A & B automatically that the previous statement cannot be true. So, the undeniable existence of Gravity Probes A & B now proving the falsifiability of the theory of general relativity this means that by Karl Popper's rigorous standard the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be a science. This is immediately obvious to anyone who has made an in depth study of Popper's work, the kind of study that all students of the pure sciences undergo, although strangely enough those students of those subjects which use an applied form of science never seem to be taught such things to the levels required. Presumably this is because the standard of science they are taught is considerably less rigorous or in-depth than the standards expected of and required of students of the pure sciences.

::::::::As the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered a science then this in turn means the first part of your statement: ''"Relativity has a quasi-religious status"'' is itself false. Science is not religion. Religion requires hope, hope that what one believes is true. Science requires absolute cynicism, it requires one to say "this is my idea, help me prove it wrong". To this date tests on the theory of general relativity has failed to show that it is wrong, and where measurements have been made to confirm or deny the accuracy of the general theory of relativity such results have shown that the predictions made by the theory of relativity are accurate to the observed effects well within the scientifically determined margins of error.

::::::::The statement that ''"relativity is not going to help anyone"'' is, of course, as wrong as you can get. The theory of relativity opened up a massive area of study, and there are no known limits to what may be achieved through such studies. It is not hyperbole to state that the creation of the theory of relativity is as important, if not more important, than the discovery of the safe generation and transference of electricity. This is known and accepted by everybody who has an in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge gained through years of learning and self-teaching that begins after one leaves university, after one has gained the bedrock of knowledge required to begin teaching oneself the true depths of a subject.

::::::::I beg of you this one thing. Open up your Bible and truly study the price one pays for Arrogance and Pride. Learn the lesson that the true Student and Teacher must come to the subjects they study in a state of Humility. Of all the posts on the subject of general relativity each and every person that has made an in depth study of the subject have stated that the views you hold on general relativity are wrong. The only person who states that your views are correct are yourself. Look inside yourself and ask if your stubborn resistance to accept what others learned in the subject have to say on this matter is arrogance, pride or humility.(by DanHutchin)

:::::::::Dan, I accept your challenge. I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility." Thank you for suggesting it. In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone? Electricity powers hospitals that save lives, and increase productivity and wealth which help the poor throughout the world. You say relativity "is as important, if not more important." Specific examples, please?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: Sorry for butting in here but I love science, I am a science major currently. In my mind God gave us the scientific method and the tools to explore his creation for his glory. We can debate the merits of relativity all day but the fact remains that if it is true it is part of God's creation and because of that, automatically gives it value. Plus, pure science in a lot of cases leads to applied science. I don't like arguments based on what we don't know. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ameda, that's fine, but surely you'd agree that unproductive theories or beliefs should not squeeze out productive ones. Someone can use rhetoric to defend any belief or activity, from watching television to drinking beer. One can spend hours explaining to an addict why he should, for example, stop smoking. All the explaining in the world is not as powerful as this: ''nothing good comes of it''. Relativity has had nearly 100 years to help somebody, anybody. How many more centuries should we give it priority over alternative, productive work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::GPS, fiber optics, solar panels and PET scans don't count?

:::I'm amusingly reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said when asked what good was the then-freshly-invented hot-air balloon. "What good is a newborn baby?" That was 1783; powered flight didn't happen until 1903. If you don't see ''enough'' benefits from relativity yet, I'd say you need to embrace patience. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::: And by "squeeze out" I assume you mean in funding? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think it is worth it because it is an integral part of God's creation. Plus, I don't think that just because relativity is given grant money that necessarily means that it is taking it from money that would have gone to say genetically engineering bigger crops. There isn't a one-one correspondence.

::::I agree with a lot on here but honestly Andy, with all respect, I think DanHutchin is right. We all suffer from pride and from all I have read on here, from your brother Roger to Kate above, you are suffering from it big time on this issue. Think, is it really a coincidence that the first part of the Conservative Bible Project I translated was talking about humbling oneself and I did it just this very night? Sorry for the long response but know that it comes from the heart. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::: Amen, Ameda. I appreciate your advice for me to read the Bible more, and with a humbler heart. I'd also like your advice about this. If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people ''away'' from the Bible, would you still support the promotion of relativity? A direct answer from your heart, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: From the heart, and '''hopefully''' my understanding of the Word, anything can lead people away from the Lord, even if "based" on the Word of God. What I mean by that is people can use and abuse anything, even the Bible to support xyz. ''You know how many times I see Peter Popoff ripping off my brothers and sisters in Christ for some "Miracle spring water"?''

::::::If relativity is part of the fabric of the universe, and I do think that, then it was created by God just as much as the Bible, the stars, etc. and as I said can be used and abused. The only way science can lead one away from the Lord is if there isn't the secondary component to it, the spiritual one, the one stating that this was created by a being that created you and loves you. That is the only thing that needs to be addressed not relativity itself. Basically it seems like you are arguing that God's creation can lead people away from him? I don't think that is scriptural nor correct. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:04, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::No, that's not what I'm saying, and I humbly requested a ''direct'' answer. People who are taught and then believe relativity are less likely to read the Bible again, or as frequently. If true (as we've seen on this site and in colleges), do you still support the promotion of relativity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't think that is what you're saying, but Ameda has a point: if relativity is true, then God made it, so we can't dismiss it. If it isn't true, and if it does lead people away from the Bible, then we shouldn't be talking about it - but we first need to decide whether relativity is true.

:::::::And could I please see those statistics? I believe relativity, and I read the Bible. I think you're mistaking a correlation for causation: we already know colleges try to move students away from the Bible, and they're where most people happen to learn relativity. So, even though relativity has nothing to do with it, it's quite possible that people who study relativity are less likely to read the Bible because they've happened to spend years at liberal schools. (Incidentally, that's a good reason to teach relativity here at Conservapedia!) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:24, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Andy, you are trying to trap me into some black/white answer here. I believe that relativity is true and therefore when taught in all aspects will not lead people away from God. You might as well ask me the same thing concerning the Sun. Can it lead people away, sure, '''when''' it is couched in naturalistic philosophy. You are making some wild hypothetical based on nothing but your own encounters with vandals on this site, that is not empirical. I can easily make the same hypothetical concerning Conservapedia itself. I view this site as preaching the word of God but that doesn't mean that just because someone thinks less of Christianity after reading it then that means it is a problem with the site, it could be with the person not wanting to hear the truth.

::::::::PS- People misunderstood me, I wasn't saying Andy was arguing that, it simply reads like it as a consequence of what he is saying considering that relativity is correct and was designed by God. My opinion of course.[[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Don't let me jump into the middle of y'all's philosophical debate or anything, but there's a point on the table that needs resolving. Andy, your essay (yes, I know, still a work in progress) contains falsehoods. Are you at all interested in correcting them? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Indeed. The essay contained the claim that the theory of general relativity is non-falsifiable. This is patently wrong. There are well documented experiments that seek, through observation of physical phenomena, to disprove predictions made by the application of the theory of the general relativity. Whether the results of these observations match the predictions made (within scientifically determined margins of error) is completely immaterial. The fact that the experiments contain the potential to show that the theory of relativity is false shows that the theory of relativity meets the most basic test required to be considered falsifiable. It is impossible to deny such a basic and obvious fact and retain any kind of credibility.

''"In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone?"'' As has been stated above, PET scans. Please show how PET scans have never helped anybody. And all those inventions mentioned above are just the tip of the 'berg of how the theory of relativity has helped people.

''"Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible"'' Please show the empirical evidence you have gathered for this. Please also provide the empirical evidence that shows that the people not reading the Bible '''a)''' have done so because of relativity and '''b)''' were reading the Bible before they became involved with relativity.

''"I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility.""'' So you refuse to reconsider your belief that relativity is wrong, and refuse to remove the falsehoods contained within the essay. Instead you seek to rewrite sacred texts so that they say only what you want to say. Much in the same way you seek to rewrite what falsifiability means so that it says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the good that the theory of relativity has led to so that it now says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the experiments that test the theory of reliability and also seek to rewrite the results of those experiments so that they say only what you want them to say. I'm sorry. I truly am, for while I can see a pattern there, I cannot see any true humility in any of these actions.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 11:23, 16 November 2009 (EST)

== Information theory? ==

In this essay am missing (among some other things which where partly already discussed in the talk page) the connection between physical reality and information theory. Maybe introducing the definition of entropy itself (and not a selected spotlight on the thermodynamic relations) would help to generate some more context.

Talk:Field theory

2009-11-16T18:09:23Z

Stitch75:

Andy, I'm not going to undo something you've written, but a force field and action at a distance are the same thing. Action at a distance means precisely that - one object, affecting another, without touching it. A force field is precisely that - an object generates a field of force around it, which allows it to affect objects without touching them. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: Action at a distance certainly is not the same as electromagnetic waves, which do not act instantaneously on a distance object as Newtonian gravity does. Perhaps the meaning of "force field" is ambiguous (it's not defined in my dictionary).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:24, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:: You're absolutely right. Newtonian gravity is a theory which implies instant transmission of gravity, and Maxwell's equations set a speed limit. However, both theories constitute "action at a distance," and both constitute "field theories." The term "field theory" is used for theories like Newtonian gravity, Maxwell's electromagnetism, or quantum field theory BECAUSE they describe action at a distance - in opposition to theories like quantum chromodynamics, or general relativity as it is currently incorporated into the standard model, which describe forces as being carried by particles - photons, gravitons, etc. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::No, I don't think that's right, Jacob. "Action at a distance" means instantaneous action. Electromagnetic waves don't fit.

:::"Field theory" used to mean what you say, but I think today it connotes a "field" that takes time to travel ... as in "quantum field theory." I don't think a distinction is made between particles or waves; the key distinction is between instantaneous action versus action at the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:43, 15 November 2009 (EST)
::::We'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::Could I ask you two to lower the temperature of this a bit? The question of "action at a distance" is one that I was going to work on before all my time got sucked up into the black hole that is the general relativity article. I put out requests to [[User:KSorenson]] and [[User:SaraT]] requesting their input, because they both have expertise in historical matters like this. They both were kind enough to reply. See their talk pages. It seems that "action at a distance" probably didn't refer to transmission of force faster than the speed of light back in the 1600's, because such issues weren't considered important then. And Newton's theory couldn't have been a "field theory" back then, because "vector fields" hadn't been invented. The "gravitational field" got invented later, and Newton's theory became a "field theory" retroactively. Whether Newton's gravitational field propagated faster than the speed of light isn't important; it's a classical (pre-1900) theory. Some people were concerned with this issue, but it's been replaced by GR. And Sara seems to say that Newton's concern over action at a distance was about other issues, namely, force between things not in physical contact. We can say now that it refers to speed, but that doesn't seem to be what the issue was in the 1600s. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:54, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Excellent points, PatrickD. Jacob, I have an open mind about this. But if you're right, I'm wondering why the term "field theory" is used for "quantum field theory" (which denies action-at-a-distance and relies on the never-found graviton particles), while classical "quantum theory" is not a field theory (it has action-at-a-distance and no gravitons). Can you fit that difference in terminology to your explanation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:I agree with Patrick; this isn't worth a big fight. Especially considering we're talking about a totally obsolete concept.

:"Action at a distance" is a figure of speech. All it means is an interaction where the mediator hasn't been identified yet. And it has nothing to do with instantaneous anything, so let's not confuse the question.

:To say a theory was "based on action at a distance" is not a meaningful collection of words, because "action at a distance" isn't a scientific principle. We might as well say the theory was based on lamb stew. Tasty, but not scientific.

:I don't think this concept deserves a detailed article, any more than we'd write a detailed article on the luminiferous aether.

:Overall, this article should be erased and replaced with a three-sentence definition and some links:

:"A field theory is any [[theory]] in physics which describes a [[fundamental interaction]] in terms of a [[field]] that mediates that interaction. In an abstract field theory, a particle interacts in some way with a field, and then the field in turn interacts with another particle, thereby transferring some quantity ([[momentum]], [[energy]] or [[charge]], for instance) from one particle to another. Abstract field theories are considered obsolete in [[modern physics]], and have been replaced with [[metric theory|metric theories]] and gauge-invariant [[quantum field theory|quantum field theories]]." --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:11, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::The term "field theory" is still frequently used, so we can't simply "punt" on this. We should explain it as best we can. Under your proposed definition, which is not the meaning of the original term, Newtonian gravity is not a field theory, correct?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::: The functional would be a very special one, which can be aggregated into a function of a few variables since the underlying field does not have any degrees of freedom, but technically you can create a functional which yields the Newtonian gravity. My definition of Field theory would be equivalent to Ksorenson, but i would formulate differently: A field theory formulates equations describing physical reality (equations of motion, for example) in terms of continuous vector-valued degrees of freedom. Solutions of field theories in which fields do not have own degrees of freedom (in the sense that time derivatives of fields do not appear in Hamiltonian Function(al)s/the Equations of motion) are (AFAIU) equivalent to static theories described by effective forces of the point sources of (infinitely fast propagating) fields (e.g. Newtonian Physics, electrostatics). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:09, 16 November 2009 (EST)

:::Still frequently used by whom? I don't hear teenagers on the subway talking about it. It's a technical term and deserves a technical definition.

:::What do you think the "meaning of the original term" was?

:::Newtonian gravity was, in Newton's formulation, an acceleration vector field theory, yes. Lagrange rewrote the equations to express it as a scalar field theory and that's what we used until 1916. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) I really don't want to get bogged down in this just now (I don't think any of us do :-) and I really, really, really should be making the graphs for the GR article (just taking a sanity break). But I think this is roughly the possition we should take on the article: Newton's theory of gravity ''is'' a field theory, sort of. It may not satisfy the modern criteria for a field theory (whatever those criteria are; I defer to Kate on that), but we should certainly give it some kind of "honorary" status. Why? Because people learn about the "gravitational field", and that it's a vector field, in high school or whenever. It's probably the first vector field that people learn about. It's the first thing that gets plugged into F=ma. It would be a shame not to call it a field theory. Now Newton had never heard of vector fields. So we should probably give it some kind of status as an "honorary, retroactive field theory". And not worry about whether it really is one under modern standards. OK? [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Tachyons

2009-10-24T02:58:43Z

Stitch75:

A '''tachyon''' is a hypothetical particle that travels only faster than the [[speed of light]]. Tachyons cause non-causalities <ref>Phys. Rev. D 1, 3224 - 3225 (1970)</ref>.
== References ==
<references/>

{{stub}}

[[category:physics]]

Tachyons

2009-10-24T02:57:40Z

Stitch75: Ref to noncausality paper

A '''tachyon''' is a hypothetical particle that travels only faster than the [[speed of light]]. Tachyons cause non-causalities <ref>Phys. Rev. D 1, 3224 - 3225 (1970)</ref>.

{{stub}}

[[category:physics]]

User talk:RJJensen

2009-04-15T16:49:04Z

Stitch75: Removed special mentioning of relativity; Conservapedia's relativity article does not seem to support the original statement. Neither was there a response the the Naval Research article i cited.

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]]
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

2009-03-23T00:34:25Z

Stitch75: sign

Talk:Exact sciences

2009-03-23T00:33:59Z

Stitch75: /* This article is ironic, i hope. */ new section

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2009-02-15T05:31:48Z

Stitch75: forgot signature

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2009-02-15T05:25:00Z

Stitch75: /* Improvement Proposals */

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Glossary of Kabuki Terms

2009-01-11T03:36:58Z

Stitch75: New page: Remarkably similar page: http://www.kabuki21.com/glossaire_1.php

Remarkably similar page: http://www.kabuki21.com/glossaire_1.php

Talk:Superstition

2008-12-27T14:25:04Z

Stitch75: New page: hmm. the line is a nearly identical copy of a paragraph in the cited MW entry.

hmm. the line is a nearly identical copy of a paragraph in the cited MW entry.

Blade Runner

2008-11-30T18:00:24Z

Stitch75: a start

A movie, set in a dystopian future, where the earths environment is heavily polluted. The Story circles around artificial human-like beings, which were intended to serve humanity. However some of them don't perform as intended and are hunted by a special police unit, the 'blade runners'. While the underlying book circles around the question about the definition of being human the movie focuses more on the creator-creation relationship of these beings to the natural humans.

Evolution syndrome

2008-11-08T01:38:14Z

Stitch75:

'''Evolution [[syndrome]]''' is the word used by creationists to describe the insistence of the biology establishment in the fact that human [[evolution]] from animals is the only scientifically testable theory to explain how humans came into existence. People who seem to be affected are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in science class in school, and they support giving scientific positions in biological research only to people who want to research along the lines of what they themself suppose is scientifically testable.

It is reflected on the Internet by people who devote their time in insisting on [[censoring]] alternative views of the issue, which leads to revert battles in [[wiki]]s, flamewars in [[Usenet]] groups, and insistence on [[last wordism]]. There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome.

== See Also ==

[[Richard Dawkins]]

[[category: Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia terms]]

Evolution syndrome

2008-11-08T01:37:25Z

Stitch75: Making language neutral, but trying to keep the content

'''Evolution [[syndrome]]''' is the word used by creationists to describe the insistence of the biologyy establishment in the fact that human [[evolution]] from animals is the only scientifically testable theory to explain how humans came into existence. People who seem to be affected are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in science class in school, and they support giving scientific positions in biological research only to people who want to research along the lines of what they themself suppose is scientifically testable.

It is reflected on the Internet by people who devote their time in insisting on [[censoring]] alternative views of the issue, which leads to revert battles in [[wiki]]s, flamewars in [[Usenet]] groups, and insistence on [[last wordism]]. There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome.

== See Also ==

[[Richard Dawkins]]

[[category: Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia terms]]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-11-06T18:06:20Z

Stitch75: /* Have we given up? */

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Point 5 Confirmed ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than that of the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! ''P''
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ''P'' is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

Although the combination of data from several experiments is a specialised area of statistics, I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.) Generally speaking, the outcome of a combined analysis of several small experiments which all point in the same direction (or at least in a similar direction) will be more significant than that of any one of those experiments, as is shown in the larger table above.

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's very nicely put, thanks. You should work on some of the stats pages here. Of course, technically any sample is ultimately just a combination of ''n'' samples of size 1. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 13:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::"''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so"''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:''"It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above"''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''"I suggest you try harder with an open mind"''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DeanS&page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted "open mind" of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, "The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.

In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.

When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a "sample" is either:

::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)
::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)

:::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: You say "statistical technique used," but you should have said "statistical technique ''cited''." In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size:

::::::: "When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis."[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].

:::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates
|-
| 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72
|-
| 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340
|-
| 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800
|-
|}

Applying the formula described above..

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p
|-
| Equal || 4.025 || <0.001
|-
|By total Cit+|| 3.576 || <0.001
|-
|By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034
|-
|}

So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0<P<0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P<0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P<0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun).
--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were "extremely significant"). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not"<ref>"We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one." (Lenski paper at 7902).</ref> obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.

: People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.

: Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::'''''"a falsehood is still a falsehood"'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.

::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at <0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at <0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim.

::How do the words Lenski uses "mislead". If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be "misleading".

::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''"Tu Quoque"'' would be too great.

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the "whether or not" wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical. Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.

::: "Toffeeman", your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful. You're not fooling anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the ''generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants''. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much.

::::Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.

::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, "Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the '''reciprocal of its squared standard error'''." It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.
::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply "Whitlock's Z-transform" (actually the test belongs to Mosteller & Bush<ref>Mosteller, F. & Bush, R.R. 1954. Selected quantitative techniques. In: ''Handbook of Social Psychology,'' Vol. 1 (G. Lindzey, ed.)</ref> and/or Liptak<ref>Liptak, T. 1958. On the combination of tests. ''Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl.'' '''3''': 171-197</ref>). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies ''are'' given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what ''you'' think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the ''correct'' application of the Z-transformation would be?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it. Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results. I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.

:::::::: Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to "earn" the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement "The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, '''as you and Lenski have done'''"(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: '''what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment?''' He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give ''my'' answer: '''five'''. Furthermore, I will say ''why'' I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey.

Surely ASchlafly can say ''what'' he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say ''why'' he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. '''After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered.''' Correct?

:Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead. The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment. Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Point 5 Rejected==

Referring to ASchlafly's latest revert: OK, so let's forget about my specialist knowledge of the subject. It really doesn't matter. In science, what matters is what is said, not who says it. Remember that the most outstanding scientific discoveries of the 20th century were made by a patent clerk; the facts that he had no academic position at the time and a rather moderate educational record were irrelevant.

So, I repeat: if you don't agree with me, present a reasoned argument against my points and don't just delete my comments (it's not wiki etiquette to delete other people's comments on a Talk page unless they're abusive or obscence). At least you haven't been so feeble as to block me to prevent me from contributing to this page, as you've done to other contributors. So I now repeat once again my cut-and-paste from Longstop's contribution a couple of weeks ago - as I said, if you don't agree with it, present a rational argument against it.

:The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

:The point that ASchlafly makes (headed '''REPLY''', shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

:The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).

:The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 19:02, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: DavyJones, Whitlock's paper is correct and Lenski should have applied it. You provide nothing meaningful to the contrary. Read my posting below and contribute to this encyclopedia, or go rant somewhere else. Your account will be blocked if you simply continue to rant here.

:: Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:::Aschlafly,
:::1. A reasoned argument is not a rant. No-one should be afraid of a reasoned argument and it would be cowardly to use superior power (i.e. control over who can and cannot contribute to CP) to avoid having one.
:::2. Please see above for my comment regarding Whitlock's paper on whether or not to weight the Z-test. That paper is not decisive (it cannot be decisive as it only considereda limited number of scenarios in computer simulations) so it cannot be considered "correct" (your word). I would say that whether or not to weight the Z-test is purely a matter of choice at the present state of scientific understanding.
:::3. I and many others have pointed out on this page (including discussions which you've archived) that it doesn't actually matter in biological terms whether Lenski used the weighted or unweighted Z-test. The result is still significant, albeit at different levels.
:::4. I understand from that fact you're now arguing about the precise level of significance of Lenski's result that you've conceded my main point, that your Point 5 is not tenable. Can we at least agree on that question? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 18:19, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Refereeing of Scientific Papers==

Another point that Aschlafly and others deleted was my explanation of why CP readers shouldn't be concerned about the fact that the Lenski paper was reviewed within 14 days. This is perfectly normal practice for a leading journal. If you're invited to review a paper for a leading journal and they give you 7/10/14/etc days, you only agree to review it if you're sure you're going to have time before the journal's deadline. So there's absolutely no reason to suppose the review wasn't done properly.

Again, if you disagree, discuss, don't delete and don't block. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Have we given up? ==

Not much activity here in the past few weeks. Have we given up on pursuing this matter further?
Conservapedia should work on continuing to keep the Lenski study and its flaws in the news.
Is there anything else we can do? Perhaps write to local officials about the misuse of public funds for studies like Lenski's, and also to complain about PNAS? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 16:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: We exposed five fundamental flaws in the study, and told the truth. The truth doesn't care whether some refuse to accept it. There will ''always'' be people who deny the truth, particularly when they stand to profit from falsehoods. For now, I've moved onto more pressing issues on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:: What do you mean by "profit from falsehoods"? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who has a different point of view from your own must have mercenary motives for disagreeing with you? That's a very bizarre point of view. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::The suggestion is that those who lie very frequently do so forr reasons of greed. Your denial of this self-evident fact, and your [[deceit]]ful twisting of Mr Schlafly's words, speak volumes of you, DavyJones. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:56, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I don't see how you can accuse me of twisting Aschlafly's words. The implication of his statement above is that he believe that what he wrote was true (although his Point 5, at least, was incorrect) and that people who disagree with him ("deny the truth", in his words) are seeking to profit by doing so, which is not correct.

::::More importantly, I don't see how Aschlafly can give up on an argument he started. It's plain from what KennyMac and other wrote that his Point 5 is not correct. Now, is he going to do CP readers the favour of reaching a rational conclusion to this discussion or is he going to resort to his ploy of blocking contributors with whom he doesn't agree? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::::: "DavyJones" you're making false statements here and that will not be allowed. Point 5 is confirmed and you've provided nothing meaningful to rebut it. Also, [[evolution syndrome]] is not allowed here either. If you do not contribute in a meaningful way to non-evolution entries in this encyclopedia, then your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)

: The local officials have nothing to do with the distibution for scientific money and that is a good thing. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Peer review

2008-10-31T18:02:40Z

Stitch75:

'''Peer review''' refers to prepublication review of a professional's work by others in the same profession. "Peer-reviewed" medical and scientific journals require submitted manuscripts to be reviewed and approved by relevant experts before publication.

Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out to some readers (referees) who have some expertise regarding the article’s subject. These are usually selected from a pool of people who already published in that journal, and sometimes journals aks authors for suggestions for referees. The journal editor collects and anonymizes the answers of the referess and passes them to the authors, who may respond, change the article to clarify things, or retract the article. When enough referees approve the puplication the paper is published.

There are numerous criteria which the scientific journals may ask the referees to check. One of the most important questions is if the referee believes that the topic of the article fits into the journal. If that would not be the case, the referee will usually suggest another journal to publish the article in. The next important thing is that the article should be coherent. This means it should not contradict itself, and if parts (e.g. measurement results) are ambigeous, this should be pointed out. The next criteria is obviously that the article should present sufficiently new material, and that the new material should be clearly distiguised from material cited. The next step is originality of the article. Even if new data are consistently presented, they may not fit into a given Journal. Last but not least, the style guidelines of the Journal should be followed quite exactly, and also a minimum standard in the language used must be adhered to. One should point out that Peer review is not very efficient against scientific misbehaviour or plagiarism.

A controversial form of peer review is when physicians on the staff of a hospital pass judgment on a fellow physician, and recommend that he be excluded from the medical staff. This has potential for abuse to eliminate competitors, which is known as [[sham peer review]].

==Peer review and [[due diligence]]==

[[Steve McIntyre]] wrote:
:[[IPCC]] proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been 'peer reviewed' by a journal. However, as a form of [[due diligence]], journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like ''Nature'' or ''Science'', is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author.
:It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (''Climatic Change'') to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. [http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66]

==Time taken for Peer Review==
The time taken for the peer review varies with the subject and the paper, but it not usually very long and some magazines aim for an ''average'' of 28 days from submission to decision. <ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7H-4HHWW4J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7c00b5c0df5183cb9c02d162a4828ee 28 days from submission to decision.]</ref> The actual time taken by the reviewer is much ''shorter'' and varies from five hours <ref>[http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCPeerReviewSummaryReport-final-e-version.pdf Five hour Peer Review]</ref> to one and a half hours. <ref>[http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3110x.htm One-and-a-half hour Peer Review ]</ref>. Obviously more important papers will tend to be reviewed first.

==See also==
[[Richard Lenski]]

==External links==

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science] - Steve McIntyre
* Kulikovsky, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613 Creationism, Science and Peer Review] 2nd February 2008 (Creation Ministries International) (Documents some problems with and limitations of peer review).

==References==
<references/>

[[category:science]]
[[category:peer review]]

Complex number

2008-10-18T12:15:10Z

Stitch75: /* Polar notation */

A '''complex number''' is a [[number]] composed of two parts - a [[Real number|real]] component and an [[Imaginary number|imaginary]] component, of the form <math>a + bi</math>, where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers and <math>i^2 = -1</math>.

Whereas the real numbers can be represented as all the possible points on an infinitely extended [[number line]], to represent all the complex numbers requires the use of a two dimensional coordinate system, usually with the real components on the horizontal axis (the ''abscissa'') and the imaginary components on the vertical axis (the ''ordinate''). This representation is known as the Argand diagram.

The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] [[field (mathematics)|field]] but do not permit a non-trivial ordering that is preserved under operations. They are the algebraic closure of the [[real numbers]]. One notable consequence, and a very natural way of seeing the necessity of complex numbers is the fact that all matrices of full rank over a vector space over real numbers repesent transformations, which, after a base transformation, are equivalent to a diagonal matrix of the same size with complex entries on the diagonal. Thus, any linear linear equation of motion of arbitrary order and dimension of real numbers can be represented in this way and be decomposed into eigenvectors (or modes). The evolution of the system is fully described by the complex amplitudes.

Many functions used in real analysis can be extended in to complex numbers using [[Taylor series]]. This is the subject of [[complex analysis]].

It is a common belief that [[complex]] numbers have a weaker connection to physical reality than real numbers. Observables in [[Physics]] for example weight, energy, pressure etc. are usually represented as [[real]] [[numbers]], and the SI system of units relies on real numbers. However, the transformation between a SI base unit, e.g. an inductance/capacitance/resistance value and a complex impedance is arbritrary and set by convention, and the "natural" representation depends on the measurement method. As a matter of fact, a number of measurement devices (network analysers, lock in amplifiers) directly output real and imaginary component (where the imaginary component is obviously a real voltage/current value).

===Polar notation===
The complex number <math>a+bi</math> can also be written in the form <math>\rho e^{i\theta}</math>, where
: <math>\rho^2=a^2+b^2</math> is the square of the number's [[Absolute value|magnitude]]
: <math>\tan\theta=\frac{b}{a}</math>,where <math>\theta</math> is the phase
If a line is drawn on the [[complex plane]] (also known as an 'Argand diagram' or the 'Argand plane') from the origin to a given complex number, the length of that line will be <math>\rho</math> and the angle it makes to the real (horizontal) axis will be <math>\theta</math>. This leads to a straight-forward geometric interpretation for multiplication by a complex number: multiplying a complex number by <math>e^{i\theta}</math> is equivalent to an anticlockwise rotation through an angle <math>\theta</math> in the complex plane.

===Complex Numbers as Matrices===
The field F on complex numbers is isomorphic to the field F' of 2x2 matrices of the form
:[a -b]
:[b a],
with <math>a+bi</math> mapping as a function f to the above matrix.
We can see that F and F' are isomorphic because:
The function f is clearly 1-to-1 and onto,
<math>f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)</math>,
and <math>f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y)</math>.

===In popular culture===
In [[Yvgeny Zamyatin]]'s satirical novel ''[[We (novel)|We]]'', the narrator's psychological distress at contemplating the concept of complex numbers becomes a metaphor for the limitations of totalitarian systems of thought.

==See Also==
*[[Arithmetic with complex number]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]

Complex number

2008-10-18T12:11:08Z

Stitch75: arctan covers only half the plane.

A '''complex number''' is a [[number]] composed of two parts - a [[Real number|real]] component and an [[Imaginary number|imaginary]] component, of the form <math>a + bi</math>, where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers and <math>i^2 = -1</math>.

Whereas the real numbers can be represented as all the possible points on an infinitely extended [[number line]], to represent all the complex numbers requires the use of a two dimensional coordinate system, usually with the real components on the horizontal axis (the ''abscissa'') and the imaginary components on the vertical axis (the ''ordinate''). This representation is known as the Argand diagram.

The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] [[field (mathematics)|field]] but do not permit a non-trivial ordering that is preserved under operations. They are the algebraic closure of the [[real numbers]]. One notable consequence, and a very natural way of seeing the necessity of complex numbers is the fact that all matrices of full rank over a vector space over real numbers repesent transformations, which, after a base transformation, are equivalent to a diagonal matrix of the same size with complex entries on the diagonal. Thus, any linear linear equation of motion of arbitrary order and dimension of real numbers can be represented in this way and be decomposed into eigenvectors (or modes). The evolution of the system is fully described by the complex amplitudes.

Many functions used in real analysis can be extended in to complex numbers using [[Taylor series]]. This is the subject of [[complex analysis]].

It is a common belief that [[complex]] numbers have a weaker connection to physical reality than real numbers. Observables in [[Physics]] for example weight, energy, pressure etc. are usually represented as [[real]] [[numbers]], and the SI system of units relies on real numbers. However, the transformation between a SI base unit, e.g. an inductance/capacitance/resistance value and a complex impedance is arbritrary and set by convention, and the "natural" representation depends on the measurement method. As a matter of fact, a number of measurement devices (network analysers, lock in amplifiers) directly output real and imaginary component (where the imaginary component is obviously a real voltage/current value).

===Polar notation===
The complex number <math>a+bi</math> can also be written in the form <math>\rho e^{i\theta}</math>, where
: <math>\rho^2=a^2+b^2</math> is the square of the number's [[Absolute value|magnitude]]
: <math>\tan\theta=\frac{b}{a}</math>,where <math>theta</math> is the phase
If a line is drawn on the [[complex plane]] (also known as an 'Argand diagram' or the 'Argand plane') from the origin to a given complex number, the length of that line will be <math>\rho</math> and the angle it makes to the real (horizontal) axis will be <math>\theta</math>. This leads to a straight-forward geometric interpretation for multiplication by a complex number: multiplying a complex number by <math>e^{i\theta}</math> is equivalent to an anticlockwise rotation through an angle <math>\theta</math> in the complex plane.

===Complex Numbers as Matrices===
The field F on complex numbers is isomorphic to the field F' of 2x2 matrices of the form
:[a -b]
:[b a],
with <math>a+bi</math> mapping as a function f to the above matrix.
We can see that F and F' are isomorphic because:
The function f is clearly 1-to-1 and onto,
<math>f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)</math>,
and <math>f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y)</math>.

===In popular culture===
In [[Yvgeny Zamyatin]]'s satirical novel ''[[We (novel)|We]]'', the narrator's psychological distress at contemplating the concept of complex numbers becomes a metaphor for the limitations of totalitarian systems of thought.

==See Also==
*[[Arithmetic with complex number]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]

Complex number

2008-10-16T14:40:46Z

Stitch75:

A '''complex number''' is a [[number]] composed of two parts - a [[Real number|real]] component and an [[Imaginary number|imaginary]] component, of the form <math>a + bi</math>, where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers and <math>i^2 = -1</math>.

Whereas the real numbers can be represented as all the possible points on an infinitely extended [[number line]], to represent all the complex numbers requires the use of a two dimensional coordinate system, usually with the real components on the horizontal axis (the ''abscissa'') and the imaginary components on the vertical axis (the ''ordinate''). This representation is known as the Argand diagram.

The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] [[field (mathematics)|field]] but do not permit a non-trivial ordering that is preserved under operations. They are the algebraic closure of the [[real numbers]]. One notable consequence, and a very natural way of seeing the necessity of complex numbers is the fact that all matrices of full rank over a vector space over real numbers repesent transformations, which, after a base transformation, are equivalent to a diagonal matrix of the same size with complex entries on the diagonal. Thus, any linear linear equation of motion of arbitrary order and dimension of real numbers can be represented in this way and be decomposed into eigenvectors (or modes). The evolution of the system is fully described by the complex amplitudes.

Many functions used in real analysis can be extended in to complex numbers using [[Taylor series]]. This is the subject of [[complex analysis]].

It is a common belief that [[complex]] numbers have a weaker connection to physical reality than real numbers. Observables in [[Physics]] for example weight, energy, pressure etc. are usually represented as [[real]] [[numbers]], and the SI system of units relies on real numbers. However, the transformation between a SI base unit, e.g. an inductance/capacitance/resistance value and a complex impedance is arbritrary and set by convention, and the "natural" representation depends on the measurement method. As a matter of fact, a number of measurement devices (network analysers, lock in amplifiers) directly output real and imaginary component (where the imaginary component is obviously a real voltage/current value).

===Polar notation===
The complex number <math>a+bi</math> can also be written in the form <math>\rho e^{i\theta}</math>, where
: <math>\rho^2=a^2+b^2</math> is the square of the number's [[Absolute value|magnitude]]
: <math>\theta=\arctan\frac{b}{a}</math> is the phase
If a line is drawn on the [[complex plane]] (also known as an 'Argand diagram' or the 'Argand plane') from the origin to a given complex number, the length of that line will be <math>\rho</math> and the angle it makes to the real (horizontal) axis will be <math>\theta</math>. This leads to a straight-forward geometric interpretation for multiplication by a complex number: multiplying a complex number by <math>e^{i\theta}</math> is equivalent to an anticlockwise rotation through an angle <math>\theta</math> in the complex plane.
===Complex Numbers as Matrices===
The field F on complex numbers is isomorphic to the field F' of 2x2 matrices of the form
:[a -b]
:[b a],
with <math>a+bi</math> mapping as a function f to the above matrix.
We can see that F and F' are isomorphic because:
The function f is clearly 1-to-1 and onto,
<math>f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)</math>,
and <math>f(x*y)=f(x)*f(y)</math>.

===In popular culture===
In [[Yvgeny Zamyatin]]'s satirical novel ''[[We (novel)|We]]'', the narrator's psychological distress at contemplating the concept of complex numbers becomes a metaphor for the limitations of totalitarian systems of thought.

==See Also==
*[[Arithmetic with complex number]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-21T16:03:07Z

Stitch75: /* Point 5 Confirmed */

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-16T17:00:27Z

Stitch75: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome". It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-08-03T16:23:37Z

Stitch75: /* Affiliations */

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Stitch75's advice has already been disregarded, and it seems as though you have arrived at your final word choice for the letter. I think that the letter in its current state is fatally flawed and would not warrant publication by PNAS or any other reputable scientific journal. I say this not because I think that the objections raised in the letter are misguided, but because they are presented as assertions without rationale or supporting evidence. For what it's worth, I'll address the five points individually and offer suggestions to improve them:

: Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:1)Drop the complaint about Fig 3. The paper's hypothesis does not depend upon the jump in mutation rate happening at 31,000 generations; it's merely a graphical representation of the difference between the contingent hypothesis and the rare mutation hypothesis. Nobody has objected that the y-axis of the graph lacks numerical values, have they? Also, since this figure represents the hypothesis formed before the data was obtained, where ''should'' the jump have gone? It's location is arbitrary until the data is collected. The abstract and the results section state that the data supports a potentiating event at the 20,000th generation. Since the paper does state the p-value of the third replay, it's inaccurate to say that the paper fails to admit anything.

:: No scientific paper should present a graphical depiction of a falsehood, without indicating that it is false. Figure 3 suggests that the potentiating mutation occurred at the 31,000th, despite the data proving otherwise. If the authors won't correct that error, then they're unlikely to correct any other error also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not a falsehood; it is a hypothesis. The hypothesis must be formed before data is collected. They hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation occurred that increased the rate of mutation to Cit+. Prior to running the experiment, it is impossible to know when (or even whether) that potentiating mutation occurred. Given that, it is not an 'error' to show the jump at the 31,000th generation, or the 15,000th, or the 10,000th - any point picked for the figure is abitrary. The hypothesis was not that a potentiating mutation took place ''at the 31,000th generation''. For Lenski to put the graph jump at the 20,000th generation would imply that he got the data and then altered the original hypothesis to make it a perfect fit with the results - and ''that'' would be an ethical breach. The data collected suggest that the hypothesis was correct in that a potentiating mutation took place - and they further suggest that this mutation took place at about the 20k generation point. This does not disprove fig 3; it refines it. Again, you may as well object that fig 3 doesn't provide numerical values on the y-axis.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:2)This point is where I think your best argument lies, but it should be restated along the lines of: the null hypothesis suggests a fixed mutation rate rather than historical contingency. However, the largest replay experiment did not demonstrate the expected increase in Cit+ mutations, and was consistent with the null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.0823 by the Monte Carlo test method.

:: Your reply to the second point is unresponsive to the flaw. You seem to completely misunderstand it, or hope others do. Any fixed "mutation rate" should scale with sample size, yet the data prove otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Previous comment removed by [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The paper plainly states, "The third replay experiment was similar in design to the second, but on a larger scale." So I don't know why you imply that the experiments were significantly different. Yet the results from the second and third experiments do NOT scale with sample size, thereby disproving any plausible type of fixed mutation rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Sorry- I reread the supporting materials and methods and you are correct about the experimental conditions. Perhaps I was confusing with the first; I don't know. In any case I have retracted the comment.

::::: Nonetheless, claiming that the lack of expected scaling disproves the entire paper is still an unsupported methodological leap. The point is that based on the good P-values, the Cit+ clones arose later than expected in all three replays (independent of one another) based on the mathematical model of the null hypothesis. Thus it was apparently not a single, fortuitous and completely random event. I explain that under #3 below as it is better suited to that section.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The third replay experiment was similar in design but clearly, not the same in some aspects. As I noted previously, their plating densities were higher in the third experiment. That was an change in the experimental conditions. Blount et al. noted that the results produced a smaller number of mutants than expected -- assuming the conditions really were comparable -- but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You write, "but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same." That's known as circular reasoning. You can't accept that the mutations do not scale, and so you insist that somehow the conditions "apparently" must have been significantly different. Under your approach, you'd insist there must have been a significant difference in the experiments no matter what the evidence is or what the paper says (it says they were similar).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::At a basic level Argon’s argument is not circular. Any appearance of circularity arises from ambiguous wording in the last clause in his statement.

::::::::We have three propositions:

::::::::1. If the conditions were the same the same then the results would be the same (“if C then R”)
::::::::2. The results were not the same (“R”)
::::::::3. The conditions were the same (“C”)

::::::::These three premises are inconsistent. That being so, you can set any two of three as the premises and negate the third as the conclusion. The second proposition is not an issue: all are agreed that the results were not the same (did not scale). So the question is do we accept the first proposition and reject the third or do we accept the third and reject the first? That is to say do we argue:

::::::::'''First argument:'''
::::::::C
::::::::Not-R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-if C then R

::::::::Or do we argue:

::::::::'''Second argument'''
::::::::If C then R
::::::::Not R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-C

::::::::Neither argument is circular (does not have its conclusion as part of its premises). The choice between them may be arbitrary but what we have is a lack of corroboration of the disputed premises (“If C then R” and “C”).

::::::::Except that we do have alternative corroboration for the conclusion of the second argument and the negation of a premise in the first argument: “Not-C” is specifically stated in the paper, necessitating rejection of the first argument.

::::::::If you reject the first argument on the basis of the second argument then it would be circular (you conclude “Not-C”, thus you reject the first argument, thus you adopt the second, thus you conclude “Not-C”, which is where you started from). Whether Argon has done that depends on what “apparently” refers to. If it refers to the paper saying it was not the same then it isn’t circular. The argument is

::::::::the paper says “Not-C”,
::::::::thus you reject the first argument,
::::::::thus you adopt the second,
::::::::thus you conclude “Not-C”

::::::::“Not-C” does not support “the paper says “Not-C”” and the circularity is broken.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::In the third experiment, additional clones were used. The authors write: "Clones were chosen to maximize the diversity of colony morphologies from each sample, in case only certain types could produce Cit+ mutants." This is different from the selection of clones in the first and second experiments. Also in contrast to the second experiment which grew cells in DM500 media, they used DM1000 and DM2000 media to grow the cells in the third replay. Cells were plated at higher densities in the third replay experiment.

:::::::::As the authors comment, when they designed the third replay conditions, they assumed that their changes would not cause significant differences. Still, there clearly were differences in the results and there were some differences in the conditions. Note that if, as Andy initially suggested, the initial cultures were contaminated with Cit+ cells, one might expect that contamination to scale as well between the second and third experiments.

:::::::::In any case, the authors clearly noted the anomaly, admitted that they're not sure why it happened and cited the statistics from the third replay experiment in their paper (The results still trended with the previous experiments). It's up for readers to decide whether their conclusions are reasonable, based on the data the authors have presented. Most likely, future experiments, particularly with whole genome sequencing of the isolated clones, will confirm or deny the paper's conclusions. That's pretty much how science works at the cutting edge. Another method would be for you to find a microbiology lab to request the clones and try reproducing the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:14, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Argon, making basic errors of logic and statistics and ignoring flaws even after they are pointed out is not "pretty much how science works at the cutting edge," as you put it. It's clear that nothing will persuade you to question this paper. Your herculean efforts to claim that the third and second experiments were so different as to explain their failure to scale is disproved by common sense, logic, and the paper's own statement that these experiments were similar. At this point I suggest that you open your mind for your sake. But you have free will to do as you like, including even insisting that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 1 August 2008 (ED

::::::::::::Andy, it's no skin off my teeth if future results disconfirm the current hypothesis. I never publicly called Lenski out or asserted that his conduct was unbecoming when I hadn't read the paper fully. I was never 'rebuked' publicly by Lenski. I don't have papers or grants subject to review by Lenski or a relationship anyone in his lab. So no, I don't 'have a dog' in this debate.

::::::::::::Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments out of Lenski's lab will either more solidly confirm or ultimately reject the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs is a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.

::::::::::::Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper. In any case, as I mentioned previously (message now gone), if you're convinced of what you've written, by all means please fire off your letter --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Argon, I find your comments to be incoherent. You've already been blocked once for your endless, uninformative talk, and if you post more rants rather than contributing to this encyclopedia then your account will be blocked permanently. Godspeed to you if you decide to leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.

:: Monte Carlo resampling will often result in small p values for rarely observed events, and it is error to use that technique to draw conclusions in such circumstances. By the way, I don't accept that approach for analyzing the Third Experiment. The data in the Third Experiment are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: In your own words, "your reply... is unresponsive to the flaw." Would you care to reference that statement about Monte Carlo resampling? Why don't you accept that approach for analyzing the third experiment- would you care to explain that statement or keep repeating it? And what statistical calculations can you present to support how the data for the third experiment are consistent with the null hypothesis? You complain about others' flawed statistics yet your statistics are strangely absent.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If you can formalize your objection to the Monte Carlo resampling, then by all means do so and include it in the letter - with a reference, if possible. This is an honest suggestion, not sarcasm. Something along the lines of 'With one million resamplings without replacement, the Monte Carlo technique will potentially underestimate the p-value by x% if the probability of an event is below y; see Statistician et al, 1997'. If you're basing your acceptance of the null hypothesis on some other statistical technique that gives you some other p-value, then you should report the technique and the p-value. If you think that the Monte Carlo technique gives a lower bound to the p-value, such that it must be higher than 0.08, then say so.

:::Although the P-value for the third experiment was not equal to or less than the arbitrary 0.05, but was instead 0.0823, this is still not consistent with the null hypothesis. Consider the alternative perspective- if you're 91.77% confident in deviation from the null hypothesis (based on P=0.0823), then conversely you could say that you are 8.23% confident that the null hypothesis was verified. To have been consistent with the null hypothesis, the P-value for the third experiment would have been in the ballpark of P=0.95. Thus a P-value of 0.0823 is nowhere near supporting the alternative hypothesis.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::The null hypothesis does not have to be proven; it is assumed to be true by default. The burden is on the experimenter to '''disprove''' the null hypothesis. The 0.05 point is a historical accident and is arbitrary, but hallowed by long use. There may be only an 8% chance that the null hypothesis is correct in the third replay, but that's enough. That doesn't detract from the fact that the combination of replay experiments was highly significant.

::::It is interesting to note that the results for the second and third replays were presented in such a way as to minimize the number of times that an individual cell mutated to Cit+; the data are presented as "''independent'' Cit+ mutants". It is mentioned that in the third replay 7 of the 8 plates gave rise to multiple Cit+ colonies, which was attributed to a two-mutation process; one of which took place during the population growth phase and one that took place after the bacteria were plated. Had the results been reported as 'number of Cit+ colonies formed', the mutations would have 'appeared' to scale better. I'm not arguing that the data should have been presented that way - I think that the inter-replay scaling is a red herring. It would also have made it impossible to include the first replay, since in that setting it was impossible to state just how many times the Cit+ trait arose independently in those cultures - almost certainly just once per culture, but not provably. What matters is that the intra-replay pattern of Cit+ mutation was the same across 3 different experimental setups. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:05, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:4)It was not 'an error' to include later generations in the replay experiments, because those generations provide information that bears on the contingency hypothesis- they can indicate if the contingency 'window' closes. It would be a valid request that the authors provide an explicit description of the techniques used to exclude the presence of occult Cit+ cells from the samples used in the replay experiments. At some point you will have to accept or reject that it is ''possible'' to do so, routinely, using basic laboratory techniques. If you accept that it is possible, the only way to prove that the routine procedures failed is to repeat the experiment with more rigorous controls and show a different result. Otherwise your objection boils down to "because I said so". If you reject categorically that it is possible to screen all Cit+ cells out, then all of microbiology comes into question, because these are truly fundamental techniques used across thousands of labs for many, many years.

:: Your analysis here is absurd. Trace Cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation, and it's foolish to claim otherwise. It was error to include these generations in the data, and there was no valid reason to do so. The potentiating mutation, if any, would have occurred earlier! Indeed, it occurred before the 20,000th generation according to Lenski's own analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::You completely missed the point of Brossa's comment and again only keep repeating yourself without elaborating. Do you have experience employing the bacteriological methods referred to?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::The statement that trace cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation requires that there are no techniques to remove them from the mixed-population sample. As others have told you, these techniques do exist and are reliable. You can request that PNAS publish exactly what technique was used (most likely dilution and plating on an indicator medium). Your option then is either to attack the method (difficult, since the techniques have been around for a very long time) or the execution (which would require that you or someone else repeat the experiment with the same technique and obtain different results).
:::Or, taking a different tack - the paper states that it is impossible to exlude an origin for Cit+ that is earlier than the 31,000th generation. So how many generations prior to 31,000 should have been eliminated from the replay?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:5)This point is, in my opinion, the worst of the lot, mostly because it is meaningless - what does 'combined based on outcome rather than sample size' mean?- but also because it restates the claim in #3, that there was some problem with the technique used to combine the three experiments into a final p-value. If you object to the Z-transformation method, you should state why; if you object to the result, you should be able to say what you think the result should be - with a different p-number that you calculate yourself.

:: The hypothesis of a mutation rate is obviously dependent on sample size, yet the paper combined the results of experiments having vastly different sample sizes as though that did not matter. Point 5 illustrates that the self-contradiction of the statistical analysis in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Again, show what you think is wrong by showing statistically what should have been done and what numerical results should have been obtained. Recall the bridge analogy, if you read it.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The combination of samples of different sizes is standard practice in the sciences - so you must be objecting to the particular technique used. If you object to the Z-method, state your reasons in the letter. If you have a preferred method, state it in the letter and defend it. Best of all, use your preferred method and present your results. By 'the hypothesis of a mutation rate', are you referring to the calculations of mutation rates? Because the data for those calculations were not obtained from the three replay experiments.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I would hope that you would at least run this letter past a sympathetic scientist (someone from DI?) before you submit it, to confirm that these concerns are in a legitimate format.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Oh how you cling to the views of others! Logic does not depend on what some think, or the perception of what some think. The readers of this page are smart enough to look at the logic and admit the truth. So are you. Rest assured that logic does not care that some reject it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh how you cling to your views! The problem with logic is that it only works with knowledge- almost all of the replies on this page have been trying to teach you something about microbiology and/or statistical analysis but you are convinced you understand it better than those who have many years of experience working with them, although you continue to misinterpret basic concepts covered in any undergraduate microbiology, genetics or statistics course. Where is the logic in ignoring the input of all those who have actual training and experience in the fields you are discussing? How is that having an "open mind"?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, how I cling to the views of others! Yes, which is why I have an accountant and an attorney and a doctor and a statistician and an architect - I accept that other people have greater experience and knowledge in certain areas than I do. If I want to charge my lawyer with malpractice, it behooves me to check with another lawyer to see if my complaint has merit, or if I'm even articulating the complaint correctly before I show up in a courtroom.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I wasn’t planning on making any more comments, but in perusing other articles on this site I found that part of the Atheism article reminded me of Brossa’s comment:

:::::“Christian apologist JP Holding rightly states that Bible exegesis and Bible exposition is a multi-disciplinary pursuit, and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required to make an allegation regarding the Bible. Holding states the following:

:::::““Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

:::::"I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrefutable Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves [''sic''] our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.””

::::Now let’s change the academic subject (I leave out the introductory paragraph of Holding’s quote):

:::::“Whenever you run across any person who criticizes ''scientific reports'', claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to '''earn''' it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of ''microbiology and evolutionary biology''-- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any ''field of science'' -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a '''website in his spare time''' titled ''7 Irrefutable Richard Lenski Study Flaws''? Do these persons deserve our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.”

::::I do not post this as satire or mockery, but as another serious attempt to provide perspective. Ironic that Holding’s quote is in an article on Conservapedia, which at the same time is rightly concerned about double standards.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::Brossa has made several excellent points. I would add that there is a disconnect between your primary claim and the list. You should rethink your thesis statement or choose different "flaws" that fit it better, since your primary claim that the flaws "negate [the paper's] claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation" does not follow from those listed. With your flaws, with the possible exception of #4 depending on interpretation (and even then, where did the undetected Cit+ cells come from?), you are arguing against historical contingency, not whether or not Cit+ cells evolved. In other words, the flaws you claim are questions of mechanism, i.e. the dynamics of how the Cit+ cells arose, but your thesis statement questions whether or not they arose at all from Cit- populations. So even if those flaws were true, they would not negate the "evolutionary beneficial mutation" as you say but rather just historical contingency as a path to it. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, point #2 indicates that the paper's data disprove any plausible mutation rate, because the mutations did not scale with sample size. Point #2 thereby negates the claim of "an evolutionary beneficial mutation" as insisted by the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly ''any'' mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a ''fixed'' mutation rate, not, as you just said, ''any'' mutation rate. So which are you claiming?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with what you have said. I think we should send out a separate letter to the congresspeople. There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: If the letter should find a broader audience, I would find i terribly interesting what the scientific advisors of the presidential candidates have to say about this. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me - good idea. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Availability of data==
The comment about the availability of data should be removed. The PNAS guidelines for letters [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml] state that letters must not include "accusations of misconduct". They have a separate procedure for issues regarding data and material availability. ("Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials").--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: I thought about this, but PNAS can simply omit the sentence at the end upon publication. It seems unnecessary and inappropriate to break this letter into two separate ones just for one sentence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::It seems more inappropriate to knowingly submit something to PNAS that is against their guidelines and then expecting them to edit the unacceptable comment out on their end. I'd suggest that the "PNAS Letters" submission will be taken more credibly if we respect their guidelines, and instead send the version with the "withholding data" accusation to the appropriate parties separately, and copy PNAS as a courtesy. My grandfather told me I'd never regret taking the high road, and 40-plus years later his advice has served me well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree fully with DinsdaleP especially because i doubt that they may edit something out. i could imagine some copyright reasons will contradict that. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==My sixpenn'orth==
I think this reads very sharply and is a pretty punchy 250 words worth - I know it's difficult to express complicated ideas so concisely. A couple of very minor, nitpicky comments: should Lenski's article have its PNAS edition/page citation in brackets? And I'd thought the Editor of PNAS would not be a cc, but the principal recipient.

Congratulations to Andy and all who contributed to this. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for your suggestions, which I've incorporated and addressed. Godspeed to you, Bugler!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mailing==
Has it been sent yet?--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 11:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

: Not yet. I had to tend to some other duties recently. Any more suggestions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::This is a very interesting letter. I would love to see how Lenski wriggles out of these points. However, unless it is sent soon I fear the topicality of the original will be lost and it will be buried away somewhere. I hope it gets sent very soon. Regards, [[User:AckerLite|AckerLite]] 10:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affiliations ==

I think the affiliation line is inappropriate, since it should not contain a job description, but the organization under which the reasearcher carries out his research (as a matter of fact i cant figure out the legal structure of conservapedia). In this case it could be no affiliation or Mr. Schlaflys Employer. As far as i understand (see the conservapedia video), conservapedia was founded by Mr. Schlafly as an additional resource to his educational work. As far as i understand he carries out his function as a teacher of precollege students in relation to the Eagle forum university (please correct me if this is wrong), which would make this his affiliation.

: I am correcting you because your comment about Eagle Forum and my teaching program for precollege students is baseless and wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, just for interest and avoiding future misunderstandings: The course advertised on the webpage of the Eagle forum University ([http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/ Eagle Forum University]), led by you is then different from your "pre-college" teacher duties. Did i get it right? Or does eagle Forum University purely advertise for external courses? Anyway i think the discussions here have come to a dead point, so i think it would be good if you make up your mind to send the letter. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::For one who often complains of insulting comments from others, that was an unnecessarily hostile response. The line "please correct me if this is wrong" was straightforwardly ''asking'' for clarification. The appropriate response would have --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)been, "My function as a teacher is not carried out in association with the Eagle Forum, so listing that as my affiliation would be inaccurate." It didn't warrant such an accusatory tone. That's the second time you've had a reaction like that to the Eagle Forum even being mentioned. Please read before you judge.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The conspiracy theories by liberals about conservatives are tiresome, and the liberal denials when confronted with the baseless errors are even worse. Wikipedia is filled with such junk, claiming that anyone the liberals disagree with is a creationist, a John Birch Society member, or some cultist. When the errors are removed, they reappear again and again, without apology by the people who make the errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::He's only asking if you're affiliated with you mother's organization. It's a fair question, it seems to me, and not a very far leap of logic. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:57, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Corry is correct- it was ''just a question''. And there are five problems with Aschlafly's response, all baseless claims of his own: 1) Where is the conspiracy theory he refers to (affiliation and conspiracy are not synonymous)? 2) Where is the denial of his correction that he is not affiliated with [won't mention the name since three out of three times it has been even mentioned, there have been very hostile responses]? There- I acknowledge that there is no affiliation with said other organization. 3) How did the original affiliations comment or my posts indicate political leanings (I in fact do not fit Aschlafly's description of liberals)? 4)What exactly was the error? "As far as I understand it" followed by "please correct me if I'm wrong" are not hallmarks of "baseless claims". The post simply demonstrated and incorrect understanding and a desire to assess its accuracy, a very rational approach. 5) What do any of Aschlafly's disagreements with Wikipedia have to do with being ''asked'' about affiliations on this site?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you got my question wrong. I honestly don't know if you teach your class in some kind of bigger structure (and it is not stated here in conservapedia). And i also don't know what legal status conservapedia has (or how its funded). However, your job title should not appear in the affiliations line. If your work leading to this letter was carried out in any organization bigger than just yourself, this is the right thing to go into the affiliations line. If you (seems to be tha case) did this completely on your own behalf, i think i would skip the affiliation. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Stich75 has it correct. "Teacher of pre-college students" is not an affiliation but a job title. Is "www.conservapedia.com" the actual name of the affiliated organization or is it something like 'Conservapedia, Inc.'--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:02, 31 July 2008 (EDT)