Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arthur Eddington"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Liberal)
(Conscientious Objector)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
::The claims derived from the paper cited indicated he twisted science in an effort to enact a revolutionary change in the paradigm of one of its major fields.  That is an ambitious act, ''ex hypothesis'' demonstrating careerism on Eddington's part.  A conscientious objector status could have handicapped Eddington's career as it is not universally respected as a legitimate exception for avoiding military service.  Therefore Eddington would have needed a project like this to expedite his career ambitions.
 
::The claims derived from the paper cited indicated he twisted science in an effort to enact a revolutionary change in the paradigm of one of its major fields.  That is an ambitious act, ''ex hypothesis'' demonstrating careerism on Eddington's part.  A conscientious objector status could have handicapped Eddington's career as it is not universally respected as a legitimate exception for avoiding military service.  Therefore Eddington would have needed a project like this to expedite his career ambitions.
 
::Evidently, if the project didn't actually prove the single object of what it set out to prove, it wasn't a scientifically important project. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (EST)
 
::Evidently, if the project didn't actually prove the single object of what it set out to prove, it wasn't a scientifically important project. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (EST)
 +
 +
:::You introduced "careerism" as a straw-man.
 +
:::It was a scientifically important project at its time.
 +
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 06:33, 18 February 2016 (EST)
  
 
==Eddington liked publicity==
 
==Eddington liked publicity==

Revision as of 11:33, February 18, 2016

I know that there is a commonly held view that Eddington fudged his results, but I can't find a good internet source to back this up. If anyone knows one, please insert.--AvengingAngel 17:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

In which sense was Arthur Eddington a "liberal"? --AugustO (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2016 (EST)

The claims derived from the cited paper indicate he carried out a severe twisting of science simply to enthrone the idea of "relativity", an enthronement catalytical of the growth of liberal dogma. VargasMilan (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2016 (EST)
He certainly wasn't aware that Andrew Schlafly would declare the theory of relativity to be liberal 90 years later: at his time, it was a just pleasing physical theory! --AugustO (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Conscientious Objector

He needed an important-sounding project to justify his avoidance of military service.

I think that such a phrase is called character assassination.

  • His justification for the "avoidance of military service" was that he was a conscientious objector
  • He didn't "need" a project, he was willing to serve with the Red Cross - or as a harvest labourer
  • The project was not only "important sounding", it was important.

--AugustO (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2016 (EST)

The claims derived from the paper cited indicated he twisted science in an effort to enact a revolutionary change in the paradigm of one of its major fields. That is an ambitious act, ex hypothesis demonstrating careerism on Eddington's part. A conscientious objector status could have handicapped Eddington's career as it is not universally respected as a legitimate exception for avoiding military service. Therefore Eddington would have needed a project like this to expedite his career ambitions.
Evidently, if the project didn't actually prove the single object of what it set out to prove, it wasn't a scientifically important project. VargasMilan (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (EST)
You introduced "careerism" as a straw-man.
It was a scientifically important project at its time.
--AugustO (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Eddington liked publicity

Did he like publicity more than other physicists? Was he especially well known for this? He was good at making science popular, which put him in the spot-light, but this phrase sounds as vanity was his foremost motive for doing so... --AugustO (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2016 (EST)

According to the explanation given in the above sections the citation and Eddington's further intensive labors at detecting broad explanations of the visible universe through simplifying its properties to integer values show Eddington was out to make a big splash, based on substantiated science or not. VargasMilan (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2016 (EST)

He probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize

He probably dreamed of winning the lottery, too. No information is given: it doesn't seem that he yearned for the Nobel Prize more than other physicists. --AugustO (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Nobel Committee

"The Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award" Andy, how do you know this? Was he proposed to get the prize? Perhaps the committee was impressed, but just not impressed enough. Mere speculation presented as fact - that shouldn't happen in a "trustworthy encyclopedia"! --AugustO (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2016 (EST)

"I have answered three questions, and that is enough,"
says my conscience; "don't give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I'll kick you down stairs!"
VargasMilan (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Recent analysis of Eddington’s work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data was inconclusive about the theory of relativity.

ANDY, WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING? --AugustO (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Reply to the above

Is Eddington a sacred cow who simply cannot be criticized despite his breach of scientific integrity??--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (EST)

He can be criticized for his breach of scientific integrity. I just think it is a breach of integrity to make things up - as you have done in the examples above. --AugustO (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2016 (EST)