Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2015-01-14T14:37:12Z

MalP: /* Tim Howard */ new section

Mr Schlafly: this is such a great insight. I'm really impressed by some of the powerful conservative thinking on CP. Do you think most sports players are conservative because being successful at sport means being competitive? i.e trying to do your best instead of being a liberal wuss and complaining about other people doing well. Is it OK to add conservatives in UK sports like rugby, cricket and football? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 17:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

:Competitive sports is a [[meritocracy]], which is a [[conservative]] value. Liberals prefer to "spread the wealth," which in sports would mean leveling the wins and losses.

:Please do add legitimate examples from around the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

::I agree this is a fascinating page; enough so that I joined to help edit! Many athletes praise God in postgame interviews, etc., across all sports. I wonder if there's a way to work that into this page? [[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 17:18, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Football ==

Hi Andy, For Gavin Peacock, you changed "football" to "soccer" but you've left the sport beside some other people's names (Tim Tebow and Kurt Warner - sorry, I've never heard of them) as plain "football". Does that mean American football? (like rugby league with padding). Shouldn't we change "football" for those guys to "American football" so as not to confuse people outside the USA? Otherwise, this is a great page - and I don't see any nit-picky socialists whining about any of their guys being top sports(wo)men! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)
: I disagree. It is pretty obvious that football is American football. What the Europeans call football is really called "Association football" or "soccer" for short. [[User:JamieM|JamieM]] 20:36, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:: It's not obvious to people outside the USA. And I think you'll find that football was invented in England. (Except I expect archaeologists will find it came from France, like cricket...)[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 16:36, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::I am for getting rid of the non-American stars. At a minimum, a separate section. Plus, we do need to some conservative women on this page. Who follows women's sports in the Olympics, WNBA, NCAA Basketball, Fast Pitch Softball?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would expect that the American flag on the Conservapedia logo should give plenty of evidence that this is an American site. Anyone used to visiting sites outside their home country should be aware that "football" means different things in different countries (there's Australian, Canadian, and Gaelic - association football is by no means the only "football" outside the U.S.) and that in the USA it means American football. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Track and Field ==

Would Al Oerter qualify? He was the greatest discus thrower ever, one of only two athletes to win their event at four conservative Olympics. He was critical of the "drug culture" that had overtaken sports when he finally retired (at an age much older than when most athletes retire). He criticized steroid use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 30 November 2011 (EST)

== Sunday Sport ==

Can anyone clarify the actual significance of playing sport on a Sunday? Many people are included here for refusing to play on Sunday, and yet Lewis Hamilton is listed, when his sport take place exclusively on Sundays. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:26, 30 November 2011 (EST)
: Perhaps God has guided Ewen Murray to honour Him by observing the Sabbath, but Lewis Hamilton to glorify Him with outstanding achievements on the Sabbath. Questioning how the Lord has revealed himself to different people is awfully dangerous territory. Be humble enough to understand that He is working in different ways in different people with perfect wisdom. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:30, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:: You may well be right [[User:HollyS|HollyS]], but the problem is this page is not about sports stars who have been moved to act in particular ways by God; it's about conservative sports stars. It's hardly conservative to say that any behaviour is laudable as long as it's guided by God. Conservationism (thought I hate to oversimplify) is about sticking to some very strict ideas of what is right and what is wrong.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Maradona ==

I don't think Maradona should be on this list. First of all, the "Hand of God" Goal was actually a cheated goal. Maradona touched the ball with his hand and later called it the Hand of God... 
His personal life, according to the other Wiki, seems not so conservative as well. Maradona is divorced, cheated on his ex-wife, was addicted to cocaine and is nowadays very much befriended with Fidel Castro (according to TOW, he has a tattoo of Castro and Che Guevara) and highly critical of George W. Bush and the United States in general.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:20, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:We don't use the other wiki as a source of information, but I agree that Maradona is not conservative at all. Here is a video of Maradona talking at a Hugo Chavez speech. It is in Spanish, what Maradona says is: "Argentina is a worthy country. Lets throw Bush out!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzYNxAb36cI] --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 12:33, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:: Thanks for the info cooncerning the use of TOW. I crosschecked it with the German version, but was otherwise just too busy to find reliable data. I knew though beforehand, from reliable sources, that the "Hand of God" Goal had nothing to do with God, but was at best Maradona joking or at worst being blasphemous. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:05, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Moe Berg ==

Was Moe Berg really a conservative? I could not find any information on his political views. Being a spy ''during'', not ''before'' WWII, seems insufficient to make him a conservative. I thought he might have been conservative because he turned down the Medal of Freedom which would have been awarded by Harry Truman ( a Democrat), but I couldn't find anything on his reasons to do that either. Additionaly, from what I've read he was not really a great, but rather mediocre sports star, although an extremely interesting one. In conclusion: I don't think he belongs on this list. Any differing opinions?--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments. Does anyone else have information about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

::I added him initially. One of our characteristics of a [[Conservative]] is the belief "A strong national defense." Keep in mind he was spying on Japan because there was a strong feeling that we might go to war with them; there were certainly tensions already, and being caught spying in such a context would have had serious consequences for Mr. Berg. Needless to say, no liberal would put his neck on the line like that! I'll go ahead and add him in a few days unless there are objections.[[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 14:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::: Well from what I've read, his spying on Japan consisted of him making a few videos from the roof of a hospital. I'm not quite sure if such an action would have lead to serious consequences. Seems more like normal tourist behaviour. I'm also not quite sure if he did the filming with the intention of spying, or if the OSS aproached him later asking for the film. But be that as it may. Another reason why I'm not too convinced about the national defense angle is that I've read that Mr. Berg mainly wanted to work for the CIA after the War, so he could travel on their expense, which was one of the reasons, why the CIA did not rehire him. As you can see from my comment above, I could not find any other signs that Mr. Berg was a conservative. He seems to have been rather apolitical. But if you want to readd him, be my guest. He was certainly a very interesting individual, that deserves to be admired.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 15:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:::: All good points. In doing more research myself he does seem like more of an oddball than a hero, so I'll look around for some more inspiring entries. Thanks![[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 13:20, 6 January 2012 (EST)

== Possible Addition? ==

The Conservapedia article on Jeremy Lin talks about his strong Christian faith, and contains a quote of Lin talking about his faith. It looks like it would meet the criteria for "conservative" [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 11:55, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

:Jeremy is a great person but I'm not sure he has achieved enough yet to make it on this esteemed list. Can you find quotes about his politics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

== Ted Williams ==

Can we find a better example of media bias against Ted Williams? As I recall, the same year Ted hit .400, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio had a 56-game hit streak, and only one of them could win MVP. (Or they could tie in the voting, I guess, but you can't vote for Co-MVPs). Maybe I'm just biased since I'm a Yankees fan, but I think DiMaggio deserved it more that year. Either way, it's questionable. Can anyone think of anything? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 23:00, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak was spectacular, and one of the few baseball records that may never be broken. But a baseball season is 162 games (or 154 games then), and Ted Williams hit .400 over the entire season, not merely part of it.

:An analysis of the media voting shows it was bias that deprived Williams of the MVP that year. I think one sportswriter left Williams off his ballot entirely, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Fair enough Andy. I will add information on that sportswriter to the article to make it more clear. And like I said, it's questionable whether Williams or Dimmagio was more impressive. Williams could go 0-for-4 one day and get back on track by going 3-for-4 the next day. Jolting Joe didn't have that luxury. But this isn't a baseball debate, so let's end it. That information about Williams being left off the ballot does indeed show bias. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:46, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Your point is well-taken. I do think DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak is one of the greatest records in all of sports. After his streak was broken, he then had another hitting game streak after that, in the same season. Your edit to the content page is perfect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

== Rick Monday ==

I can find no proof of him being a conservative, per se, but he did once save an American Flag from a burning in 1976 during a Chicago Cubs - Los Angeles Dodgers game. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:That rescue of the American flag -- which was widely publicized -- does suggest that Rick Monday is probably conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
::Well, it is something I would do as well, although I'm not as conservative as most here. I'll add him to the list nonetheless. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:45, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== Sir John Major ==

I am for deleting this entry. The person in question must be recognized for their sporting achievements. For example, I wanted to add Lou Holtz, but he is known for his coaching and not his days playing for Kent State. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:54, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== If the speaker is obscure and irrelevent... ==

Then why include the quote? The quote isn't important unless the speaker is. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Moving quote about Tebow ==

Moving part of the quote about Tebow removes context. The analysist was talking about Tebow not being a team player, and him trying to draw attention to himself rather than the coach and starting quarterback. Without the context, the remaining quote could be interpreted by a reader as to apply to Tebow due to his religious beliefs - which ''it did not''. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:I clarified Tebow's entry based on my comment above. The way it was before implied the statement from the ESPN reporter referred to Tebow's religion. It wasn't, and without clarification, the quote is cherry-picking. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:38, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

==New Addition==
I'm not that good at wiki-code, so if someone better could put marathoner Ryan Hall up on the list, I believe he'd be a welcome addition. I first read about him [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sports/olympics/faith-is-central-to-marathoner-ryan-halls-approach.html?_r=1 here], where when asked to list his coach on a form at a routine drug test, he answered "God" --[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 22:54, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:I added him. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:58, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

David Icke is a madman who thinks lizard men run the world.
Eric liddle was a deeply christian man, but he was a socialist who would turn in his grave to be called conservative.

==Charles Barkley==

I'm removing Charles Barkley's entry. Yes, he has supported guns, but [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/charles-barkley-dui-bust he has served time for a DUI and admitted frequenting prostitutes and indulging in oral copulation], [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/sports/charles-barkley-91 has been charged with assault] (though acquitted, he still became involved in the fight), and [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/sports/charles-barkley-97 charged with aggravated battery and resisting arrest] for hurling an Orlando bar patron through a plate-glass window. Such a man is exactly the type of man who should not be allowed carry a gun - his behaviour is hardly fitting of mention in a list of 'Greatest Conservative Sports Stars', is it? [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 16:34, 21 January 2013 (EST)

==David Icke==

David Icke should have no part in this list either. 1) "Greatest"? Hardly - he retired from professional soccer at the age of 21 from injuries having had a completely unremarkable career in the bottom divisions of UK soccer; 2) "Conservative"? Hardly - he is a believer in Extraterrestrial Lizard Gods, Man's evolution from these extraterrestrial lizards and all forms of strange conspiracy theories in between; 3) "Sports"? See 1); "Stars"? See 1). [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 19:40, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Well in most of his works he opposes the idea of big government as well as the Illuminati/New World Order. His work is similar to Alex Jones. So I'd say he is conservative or at least Right-Leaning Libertarian. -Ted D

: I agree. In addition Icke said that Christianity and Judaism "are Illuminati creations designed to divide and conquer the human race through endless conflicts, as are racial, ethnic and sexual divisions".--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:21, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

== Tim Howard ==

I am fairly surprised to see him missing on this list. Tim Howard is an American soccer goalkeeper who gained a lot of popularity during 2014's world cup. He later said that he attributes his achievements to God, in a very open testimony about his faith. Shall I go ahead and add him to the list? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:37, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2014-03-30T05:45:59Z

MalP: /* Large focus on what is untrue */

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book ''Principles of Geology''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/contents.htm] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

==Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating==

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:We already briefly discuss these in [[Young Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explanation ==

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific ''community'' hasn't been around that long. The people of God ''have'' been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

==Atheism and Old Earth Theories==

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

:: Yes, it's to general of a statement – ''conservatives'' oppose the ''liberal policies'' of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.
:::: And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=6 thousand years old=

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

::You're right. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=Exact age=

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o".
Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

: No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Why the removal? ==

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Decay rates ==

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:It is obviously "implausible" because the universe is cooling over time, which would cause decay rates to change. It's no more possible for decay rates to remain constant than it would be for a sun to remain constant in energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 30 December 2011 (EST)

== Decay rates, again ==

Do we discuss anything here or is everything too scared of the 90/10 rule to bother? In changing "unreliable" to "imprecise", I took the time to try to explain in the edit summary why I was doing so yet it seems others can't actually be bothered to explain why they disagree with the change. Once it's simply "Unnecessary Edit" and now you can apparently just indicate you agree with someone else by stating "Consensus". It would be nice to at least have the opportunity of trying to understand the objections to the change. I do wonder if I'd be wasting my time expanding on my reasoning. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:32, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:Since your reasoning is flawed, yes, it would be a waste of your time to expand on it. By the way, nitpicking individual words in a post doesn't count towards your 90/10 count, so focus on creating content, instead of pushing some nonsensical agenda against certain words. Does the word unreliable offend you, or is it that we don't treat evolutionists with kid gloves and euphemisms?
[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)

::I wouldn't accept that it is nitpicking. When I looked up info on some of the variations in decay rate that have been identified, none of them would make a significant difference to the magnitude of the time periods involved. None of them would explain the gap between 6,000-10,000 years old and the billions of years at the other end of the scale. They impact on the precision, not the reliability. That isn't to say there aren't other problems in assuming decay rate is a good way of determining the age of the earth but the possibility of variation in decay rate identified don't support the suggestion that what is known about decay is so wrong that the the figures calculated from it could be millions of times out. The facts as to the known variation of radioactive decay just don't support that. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

So you admit that radioactive dating is wrong, but you won't admit that the results are wrong. I find your arguments to be non-sensical. TypicL liberal claptrap. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't accept that radiometric dating is wrong or that the results are wrong, at least not to the degree you are alluding. I accept that some variations in decay rate have been identified which can affect the precision to which the method can date samples but what I cannot accept is that those undermine the fundamental principles behind radiometric dating. It seems you're trying to use these variations to suggest that the method must be so wrong that there could be scope for samples thought to be billions of years old actually being 6,000-10,000 years old but I just don't see how the facts as to what is known about those variations supports that. What we have here is a criticism of an assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant followed by what is effectively simply an opposite assumption, that the rate of radioactive decay is completely not a constant. That despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that assumption. If it is unwise to assume the rate is constant then surely it is just as unwise to assume the rate isn't constant. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Large focus on what is untrue ==

I just read this page, and noticed one strange thing. It mentions several reasons why old-earth theories are flawed, then lists several views of different people throughout the ages, while the '''actual accepted theory''' is described in one single, fairly vague line. Would it not be more useful to dedicate this article to a summary of proof/evidence for young-earth creationism? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 13:56, 29 March 2014 (EDT)

:This entry is not about "creationism". It is about the age of the earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 29 March 2014 (EDT)
::Mal Peters, via an essay, why don't you attempt to refute the work [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] by the scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]? It is a chapter from the book'' Refuting Evolution'' by Dr. Sarfati. ''Refuting Evolution'' is a very prominent creationist work and it sold 350,000 plus copies (which probably makes it the most prominent creationist work dealing with the age of earth). To date, no evolutionist and/or proponent of an old earth has been able to refute the work [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:27, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
:::Perfect! That's exactly the kind of source I'm referring to. This page should at least have a section summarizing the evidence described in the book you mentioned. So far, it's just one single sentence.

:::By the way, I am not trying to refute anything -- I am not sure why you are assuming that. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 01:45, 30 March 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2014-03-29T17:56:52Z

MalP: /* Large focus on what is untrue */

Talk:Age of the Earth

2014-03-29T17:55:41Z

MalP: /* Large focus on what is untrue */ new section

Energy

2011-03-12T21:24:08Z

MalP: /* see also */

'''Energy''' is the ability to do work.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With [[Chemistry]]''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> In [[physics]], energy is a conserved quantity, and a closed system of interacting particles is known to always have the same value for its energy; this is known as the law of conservation of energy.<ref>Halliday, Resnick, Walker: '' Fundamentals of Physics'', 6th Edition</ref>

Energy is also a source of usable heat or power.
==Energy efficiency==
There is unanimous agreement from all points of the spectrum that the cheapest, easiest and quickest way to save on energy costs and reduce imported oil is to reduce waste and be more efficient on the consumer side--especially in insulating residences and using more efficient appliances and automobiles. Many local electricity and gas companies have rebate programs; the federal government offers $1500 tax rebates to ordinary Americans, and many states have somilar programs in 2010.<ref> See [http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index "Federal Tax Credits for Consumer Energy Efficiency" 2010]; for state rebates see [http://www.dsireusa.org/ The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE)]</ref>

==See also==
* [[Alternative Energy]]
==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/energy/ What Liberals Say - Category: Energy], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml E=mc2, Law of Inertia of Energy]

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Energy]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-09-14T18:59:28Z

MalP:

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]

== My plans for this article ==

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

:I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in '''point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section''' there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.

::All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.

:Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::::::::Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

== Chipmunks on Devil's tower? ==

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

: By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
::::::However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9i30Mwjo4 here] is a video of a red-tailed hawk ([http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r6/devil.htm which is fairly common to the area]) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Turkish Angoras ==

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that ''all'' cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-09-14T18:59:05Z

MalP: /* Turkish Angoras */ new section

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-09-14T18:57:34Z

MalP: /* Turkish Angoras */ new section

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-08-09T18:13:17Z

MalP: /* "Resist admitting" */

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-08-09T13:23:30Z

MalP: /* "Resist admitting" */

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-08-09T13:20:31Z

MalP:

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-09T02:33:02Z

MalP:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T21:20:41Z

MalP: /* Explanation for some counterexamples */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T21:20:16Z

MalP: /* Explanation for some counterexamples */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T21:19:45Z

MalP: /* Explanation for some counterexamples */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T19:36:16Z

MalP: /* Explanation for some counterexamples */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T16:25:17Z

MalP:

Talk:Bruce Springsteen

2010-08-08T16:14:24Z

MalP:

== "Bash" as a verb ==
I think it would do the article well to change bash to something along the lines of "speak against" or really anything with a more neutral tone. Is this ok? --[[User:BLJones|BLJones]] 22:35, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

== Politics ==
I think this article isn't really correct when it says that Springsteen is was nonpolitical until 2004. He may not have said much in interviews about it (this shows his humble attitude towards the media; he generally doesn't think he's supposed to be a person who dumbstrikes the world every other day with political opinions), but his lyrics have always had a political touch in them, especially after 2000. Early examples of songs are '''War''' and '''Born In The USA'''. After 2000, he released a live version of the song '''American Skin (41 Shots)''', which speaks about how he thinks America is maybe the most dangerous country to live in, and the song '''can''' be interpret as being in favor of gun control.

Further mentionworthy things are two of his studio albums; '''The Rising''', '''Devils And Dust''' and 2009's '''Working On A Dream'''. '''The Rising''' is an album he wrote as a response to America's reaction to 9/11. The album shows his anti-Bush standards, with songs like '''Worlds Apart''' and '''Let's Be Friends''', where he seems to say that George Bush's way of dealing with the situation only made things worse. '''Working On A Dream''' generally speaks of his delight coming from Obama's election. Springsteen had been in favor of John Kerry, and wrote the '''Devils And Dust''' as a response to Bush's election ('''Devils And Dust''' has a very depressed sound, and talks a lot about people who live in misery).

I don't really know how relevant all of this is, though. Does anybody think it's notable enough to mention this in the article? [[User:MalP|MalP]] 11:53, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Best of the public

2010-08-08T16:00:03Z

MalP: /* Linux/open-source an example of this? */

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The funny thing is that while [[Linux]] shows how good The Best of the Public can be, [[Microsoft]] simultaneously shows the other end; being a company that is looked down upon by very many informaticians, while it is generally seen as the best IT company in the world. A closer look on their software, though, shows that their products are of very poor quality, and their programs would probably not be nearly as populair if it wasn't for Microsoft's monopoly in the IT market. [[User:MalP|MalP]]

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting about the Founding Fathers: they tried to ensure the Best of the Public in government. They restricted the franchise to only property owners. This was intended so that only those with intelligence and a work ethic could vote. The point was to ensure that only the best of the public could control government. This was the real check against mobocracy. A mobocracy occurs in anytime time and place where there's universal franchise.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:30, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your fascinating point about how Founders might have viewed the restriction on franchise. But the universal franchise may have made the nation more conservative in many respects. Many [[pro-lifers]], for example, would not have qualified for voting under the Founders' view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.

: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

My point was not that wealth should dictate the franchise, but that there should be qualifications, and I have alternatives to property ownership. Further, if universal franchise made the government more conservative, how do you explain the election of George Bush or Barack Obama. It's obvious that a limited franchise would result in more limited government. Take any nanny state program like social security, universal health care, or free public education, and you find that the wealthy aren't the ones who actually benefit from these programs. Only the poor can stand to benefit from these programs. Take into account also, the way our tax system is set up. The federal tax system, taxes the poor substantially less than the rich. Many Americans pay no taxes at all because they are poor. Why would the wealthy be in favor of a tax system that favors the poor over the rich. So at this point, not only is the tax system redistributing the wealth, but the government is running programs (that no one has any intention of stopping) that give goodies like education and health care to the poor. Now, if the American voters are so conservative, answer this: why does the government favor the poor so much. Better yet, tell me why poor Americans will vote for a flat tax rate, which would increase their taxes. I sincerely doubt that universal franchise has helped, and it's obvious that a qualified voter is always preferable to unqualified voter. Wealth isn't necessarily the ideal qualification, but if only rich people had been voting throughout American history, I doubt we'd have social security. The current problem is that many wealthy people have been taught to accept a particular ideology without question. When you have an open mind, it's hard to deny the wisdom of the Founding Fathers limiting the franchise. The problem is, most people have been taught from their childhood to accept universal franchise unquestionably.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:22, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:Your theory, while ostensibly using logic, doesn't match up with the data: wealthy areas tend to be very liberal. Atheists, who tend to be wealthy, want bigger government to squeeze out charity and religion.

:If wealth were such a factor in political decisions, then why did the socialistic Obama raise far more money than the more conservative McCain? Studies show that church attendance is a better predictor of voting patterns than wealth.

:The flat tax is opposed for valid reasons in addition to invalid ones. Taxing consumption can distort the free market and might increase the power of government over the free market. It would also further marginalize the states.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Remember, wealth doesn't necessarily have to be the qualification. To respond to your points though, atheists are a political minority. Nobody in politics cares about winning the atheist's vote. On the McCain question, no one liked McCain enough to support him (he was a liberal trying to beat a liberal). You still haven't refuted many of my significant arguments. The tax system favors the poor and productive, and why would the poor vote against this? If the poor are so conservative then explain while they'll vote for a tax increase.You'd probably find that the middle class is the most reliably conservative group. It's true, the wealthy and elites are part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. Why would the rich want to have a tax system where they have to pay more, or a government where their tax dollars along go to fund free government programs for the poor, it only redistributes their wealth.

But back to voter qualifications, rather than wealth, let's say military service is a qualification for voting. You have to serve as an officer for at least five years before you can vote. Voters would have intense physical training, meaning they wouldn't be adverse to suffering, they would have good education, and they would be selfless. This is simply a suggestion; I'm open to other ideas on how to limit the franchise. Universal franchise is a uniquely modern idea. Few republics of the past have accepted the idea: the greeks, the thirteen colonies.
Finally, if mobocracy is so bad, then universal franchise is obviously bad. Mobocracy occurs whenever all citizens are allowed to influence the government, even if they do it through elected representatives. Remember, I never said that wealth was the qualification, or that only the wealthy should vote, but there should be some qualification.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:03, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

: Please do ... as long as it does not dilute the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Arthur Ashe ==

Perhaps Arthur Ashe's stunning upset victory to win Wimbledon should be included next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
:Didn't he also receive a presidential medal of freedom? I may be thinking of someone else, but if so, the top civilian award might stand for something too. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:10, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
::Looks like it was awarded posthumously. I don't know too much about him since I was pretty young in '93, but so far he has my vote. (references for the medal: [http://www.nndb.com/people/228/000023159/][http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2010/04/arthur-ashe-citizen-of-the-world/] )[[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Bruce Springsteen

2010-08-08T15:53:48Z

MalP:

== "Bash" as a verb ==
I think it would do the article well to change bash to something along the lines of "speak against" or really anything with a more neutral tone. Is this ok? --[[User:BLJones|BLJones]] 22:35, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

== Politics ==
I think this article isn't really correct when it says that Springsteen is was nonpolitical until 2004. He may not have said much in interviews about it (this shows his humble attitude towards the media; he generally doesn't think he's supposed to be a person who dumbstrikes the world every other day with political opinions), but his lyrics have always had a political touch in them, especially after 2000. Early examples of songs are '''War''' and '''Born In The USA'''. After 2000, he released a live version of the song '''American Skin (41 Shots)''', which speaks about how he thinks America is maybe the most dangerous country to live in, and the song '''can''' be interpret as being in favor of gun control.

Further mentionworthy things are two of his studio albums; '''The Rising''', '''Devils And Dust''' and 2008's '''Working On A Dream'''. '''The Rising''' is an album he wrote as a response to America's reaction to 9/11. The album shows his anti-Bush standards, with songs like '''Worlds Apart''' and '''Let's Be Friends''', where he seems to say that George Bush's way of dealing with the situation only made things worse. '''Working On A Dream''' generally speaks of his delight coming from Obama's election. Springsteen had been in favor of John Kerry, and wrote the '''Devils And Dust''' as a response to Bush's election ('''Devils And Dust''' has a very depressed sound, and talks a lot about people who live in misery).

I don't really know how relevant all of this is, though. Does anybody think it's notable enough to mention this in the article? [[User:MalP|MalP]] 11:53, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

User:MalP

2010-08-08T15:36:36Z

MalP:

Hello, I'm Mal Peeters. I'm an 18 year old Belgian computer science student, and very interested in the world, nature, physics, etc. A few days after I joined Conservapedia, my account was blocked by TK, but after a conversation via emails, he unblocked my account. I told him the following, and he asked me to put this on my user page:

" I'm a Christian, but I'm confused about many things. Conservapedia seems like a great way to learn more about Christianity. The website has an approach to the world that I can't seem to find elsewhere and I would love to communicate with conservative Christians. I think I can learn a lot from doing so. "

As I said, I'm confused about many things. Don't understand me wrong, though. I'm absolutely not confused when it comes to Jesus Christ, God, and other important things in my daily life. Though I'm confused about the world. I can't say I have studied the Bible back to front, but I read it when I have time, and it strikes me that it is very hard for me to find the correct way of interpreting it. As I said, I'm very interested in science and nature, and I try to do research on those criteria; both from Christian and contra-Christian sources and points of view. With this information, I try to get an idea of how the world and all species of plants and animals came to exist, and well, it's not easy. :) That's my primary motivation to read and edit talk pages on Conservapedia.

If you have any questions, please write something on my talk page.

Mal

== 08/08/2010 ==
Wow, it's been a year since I logged in on here. I finally remembered what my password was. :)

Talk:Java (programming language)

2010-03-11T12:26:06Z

MalP:

Java is my favorite programming language, but recently I've moved into [[PHP]], [[HTML]] and [[CSS]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)
: Well, PHP, HTML and CSS are way different from Java. In my opinion they aren't comparable. I like C slightly more than Java though, and looking forward to learning C++ next year. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 20:52, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::PHP is comparable: it is an object-oriented programming language. HTML and CSS are not comparable: they provide ways to mark up and style web pages.

::There is a long-standing rivalry between fans of C and Java, although I'm not sure why it exists. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:33, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, C has more functions to use and is easier to use when you're already good at programming. Java is way more simple to learn, and is way more safe to use. Both have their reasons for being one's favourite. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 08:49, 3 March 2010 (EST)

:::After some assignments for school (in different languages), I actually think Python is my favourite one. Have you ever used it? If you didn't, you really should try it out! Programming is really simple in Python, and it's really powerful, especially for mathematical purposes. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 07:26, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:BCE

2010-03-11T12:23:15Z

MalP: /* A question about usage of this */

== BCE ==

how come [[bce]] isnt allowed?

: Beceause it's anti-Christian. Use a date based on Christ, then acknowledge it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
its not anti christian all it does is treat pepole of other religions equaly somthing pepole like you seem to oppose.

: BCE isn't anti-Christian. It is simply neutral. It recognizes the fact that the gross majority of people in the world are not Christian, and don't call Jesus the Christ. The majority of people in the world don't recognize that the birth of Jesus started a new era, but it is generally accepted that westerners use the Gregorian calendar. They can understand us, and can be understood, if they use the Gregorian calendar, too, which starts counting from that date.

:Of course, the Chinese have their calendar, the Iranians have theirs, and the Hebrews have theirs. Most likely Jews now use the Gregorian calendar, I'd guess even in Israel. I'd suspect there are other calendars out there that are being used within countries.

:When they wish to communicate internationally, they use the western calendar, because it makes being understood simpler. Still, they don't wish to recite a foreign religious idea every time they do.

:Since stating a date is not a religious act, there is no reason why we must do that, either. Using CE or AD should be optional, unless an authority in charge of things feels they should force their own religious ideas on others. -- Gene D.

Do you even know the meaning of BC and AD? What if I don't like that fact that we must use Arabic numerals? I think we should call them something generic, don't you agree? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

yes in fact i do ad means annio dommni wich in latin means in the year of our lord and bc means before christ but i prefer more religously tolrent termnology.

You don't seem to be very religiously tolerant towards Christianity. And you haven't answered my question: should we change the name given to our numerals? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

no in fact i am but i just dont like the radicals like the people on this site that feel that thay have to push coneservatism and christianity on others and no i dont feel that arabic numerals need to be changed becuse thay are not religous in nature.

oh and if conservatives arent how do you explain these quotes made by ardent conservatives
* "The [[feminist]] agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 [[w:Republican Party (United States)|GOP]] convention speech, but this is not the case (see also [http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/1992GOPConvention.asp tran

:I'm concerned that the term "Roman Numerals" refers to Romans, who were Pagans. Everybody uses the numerals today, and most are not Pagans. Then why should we use a Pagan terminology? I suggest we refer to them as "Italian Numerals" henceforth. -- Gene D.

*"Homo." Robertson describing a caller he didn't like. [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2006/01/pat_robertson.wmv Windows Media Video]

*"Big fat nancy nancy-boy faggot." Robertson, in a slightly more whimsical mood, describing a caller he didn't like.

:If Robertson's wife was four months pregnant when he married her, should we take it that Robertson does not always advocate abstinance before marriage? Or should we take it that Robertson believes we should think about it for a long time before we just jump into a marriage? Gene D.

It has muslim connections! I feel a bit oppressed by the use of this term. I really feel that we should change it. I am sure others would agree with me. How about: Seculahumanist Numerals? Yeah, then no one feels intimidated. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I don't know if other conservatives feel the same way as I do about those comments, but I surely do not support those statements in the least, except for the ERA statement. I find nothing non-factual about the accusations.

The complaining editor above needs to sign his comments and take them to an appropriate talk page. Thanks for your rebuttal for me here, David.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A question about usage of this ==
Hi, I know this is not an easy subject, and I'd like so say I'm a Christian and I support Christianity for 100%. Though I also respect people with different religions, who do not put as much value to Jesus's existence as we do. When you talk about things that are not related to religion and that should be as neutral as possible, which notation should you use? AD (with a heavy pro-Christian connotation) or BCE (with an equal anti-Christian notation)? I myself would honestly choose for BCE, but I'm not sure. Could anybody give me a solid reason as to why I should use either one? Thank you. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)

:It is modern in usage, most likely developed by secular liberals to be inclusive of others, a promotion of non-Christian values. I would be interested to know what the Chinese or Israelis use since their cultures predate the Gregorian calender of the West.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:31, 4 March 2010 (EST)

:: I see... But can't it also mean that the user of "BCE" uses it in order to avoid religious bias? In my opinion, using AD can be very inapplicable in certain situations. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 14:57, 7 March 2010 (EST)
That's utter nonsense. If you'd like to use a non-Christian dating system for non-Christian societies in your personal life, be my guest. For pre-Christian Rome, there's AUC, which measures time from April 21, 753 BC, the date Rome was founded. The Hebrew calendar, which counts from the creation of the world, or the Chinese calendar counting from the reign of Huang-Di.
But by using BCE, you're STILL counting from the birth of Christ, so you're not being any more "respectful" of non-Christian cultures, and you're disrespecting Christianity as well by ignoring the basis of our calendar. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:13, 7 March 2010 (EST)
::: If you look at it from that perspective, you're right indeed. Thanks, Jacob. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 07:23, 11 March 2010 (EST)
: Very well put, Jacob. MalP, use whatever dating system you like, but if your dates are based on the birth of Christ, then have the honesty to say so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 7 March 2010 (EST)

== arabic numerals ==

arabic numerals is in refrence to the arabic culture/civilisation not the muslim religion.

But the people of Arabia are muslim. Therefore "arabic" numerals is a islamic term. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

so just becuse the pepole of arabia are muslim doesent mean arabic numerals are muslim.

Actually it does. And I find it very offensive that I am forced to have my numerals given an arabic name. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am not really opposed to arabic numerals. I am just showing the stupidity of BCE/CE. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, because we call something "arabic" (numbers) or. for instance. "gregorian" (calendar) doesn't mean that they are Islamic or Christian, it references where these things came from. It is a ''completely'' different matter to expecting peoples of different faiths across the world to refer to something as "in the year of our Lord" when their respective faiths may have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is out of respect for other cultures that BCE and CE are used.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

ad bc and this site is what is stupid--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: If that is what you really believe then by all means return to Wikipedia. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:BCE

2010-03-07T19:57:44Z

MalP: /* A question about usage of this */

== BCE ==

how come [[bce]] isnt allowed?

: Beceause it's anti-Christian. Use a date based on Christ, then acknowledge it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
its not anti christian all it does is treat pepole of other religions equaly somthing pepole like you seem to oppose.

: BCE isn't anti-Christian. It is simply neutral. It recognizes the fact that the gross majority of people in the world are not Christian, and don't call Jesus the Christ. The majority of people in the world don't recognize that the birth of Jesus started a new era, but it is generally accepted that westerners use the Gregorian calendar. They can understand us, and can be understood, if they use the Gregorian calendar, too, which starts counting from that date.

:Of course, the Chinese have their calendar, the Iranians have theirs, and the Hebrews have theirs. Most likely Jews now use the Gregorian calendar, I'd guess even in Israel. I'd suspect there are other calendars out there that are being used within countries.

:When they wish to communicate internationally, they use the western calendar, because it makes being understood simpler. Still, they don't wish to recite a foreign religious idea every time they do.

:Since stating a date is not a religious act, there is no reason why we must do that, either. Using CE or AD should be optional, unless an authority in charge of things feels they should force their own religious ideas on others. -- Gene D.

Do you even know the meaning of BC and AD? What if I don't like that fact that we must use Arabic numerals? I think we should call them something generic, don't you agree? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

yes in fact i do ad means annio dommni wich in latin means in the year of our lord and bc means before christ but i prefer more religously tolrent termnology.

You don't seem to be very religiously tolerant towards Christianity. And you haven't answered my question: should we change the name given to our numerals? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

no in fact i am but i just dont like the radicals like the people on this site that feel that thay have to push coneservatism and christianity on others and no i dont feel that arabic numerals need to be changed becuse thay are not religous in nature.

oh and if conservatives arent how do you explain these quotes made by ardent conservatives
* "The [[feminist]] agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 [[w:Republican Party (United States)|GOP]] convention speech, but this is not the case (see also [http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/1992GOPConvention.asp tran

:I'm concerned that the term "Roman Numerals" refers to Romans, who were Pagans. Everybody uses the numerals today, and most are not Pagans. Then why should we use a Pagan terminology? I suggest we refer to them as "Italian Numerals" henceforth. -- Gene D.

*"Homo." Robertson describing a caller he didn't like. [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2006/01/pat_robertson.wmv Windows Media Video]

*"Big fat nancy nancy-boy faggot." Robertson, in a slightly more whimsical mood, describing a caller he didn't like.

:If Robertson's wife was four months pregnant when he married her, should we take it that Robertson does not always advocate abstinance before marriage? Or should we take it that Robertson believes we should think about it for a long time before we just jump into a marriage? Gene D.

It has muslim connections! I feel a bit oppressed by the use of this term. I really feel that we should change it. I am sure others would agree with me. How about: Seculahumanist Numerals? Yeah, then no one feels intimidated. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I don't know if other conservatives feel the same way as I do about those comments, but I surely do not support those statements in the least, except for the ERA statement. I find nothing non-factual about the accusations.

The complaining editor above needs to sign his comments and take them to an appropriate talk page. Thanks for your rebuttal for me here, David.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A question about usage of this ==
Hi, I know this is not an easy subject, and I'd like so say I'm a Christian and I support Christianity for 100%. Though I also respect people with different religions, who do not put as much value to Jesus's existence as we do. When you talk about things that are not related to religion and that should be as neutral as possible, which notation should you use? AD (with a heavy pro-Christian connotation) or BCE (with an equal anti-Christian notation)? I myself would honestly choose for BCE, but I'm not sure. Could anybody give me a solid reason as to why I should use either one? Thank you. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)

:It is modern in usage, most likely developed by secular liberals to be inclusive of others, a promotion of non-Christian values. I would be interested to know what the Chinese or Israelis use since their cultures predate the Gregorian calender of the West.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:31, 4 March 2010 (EST)

:: I see... But can't it also mean that the user of "BCE" uses it in order to avoid religious bias? In my opinion, using AD can be very inapplicable in certain situations. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 14:57, 7 March 2010 (EST)

== arabic numerals ==

arabic numerals is in refrence to the arabic culture/civilisation not the muslim religion.

But the people of Arabia are muslim. Therefore "arabic" numerals is a islamic term. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

so just becuse the pepole of arabia are muslim doesent mean arabic numerals are muslim.

Actually it does. And I find it very offensive that I am forced to have my numerals given an arabic name. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am not really opposed to arabic numerals. I am just showing the stupidity of BCE/CE. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, because we call something "arabic" (numbers) or. for instance. "gregorian" (calendar) doesn't mean that they are Islamic or Christian, it references where these things came from. It is a ''completely'' different matter to expecting peoples of different faiths across the world to refer to something as "in the year of our Lord" when their respective faiths may have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is out of respect for other cultures that BCE and CE are used.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

ad bc and this site is what is stupid--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: If that is what you really believe then by all means return to Wikipedia. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:BCE

2010-03-05T02:19:11Z

MalP: /* BCE */

== BCE ==

how come [[bce]] isnt allowed?

: Beceause it's anti-Christian. Use a date based on Christ, then acknowledge it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
its not anti christian all it does is treat pepole of other religions equaly somthing pepole like you seem to oppose.

: BCE isn't anti-Christian. It is simply neutral. It recognizes the fact that the gross majority of people in the world are not Christian, and don't call Jesus the Christ. The majority of people in the world don't recognize that the birth of Jesus started a new era, but it is generally accepted that westerners use the Gregorian calendar. They can understand us, and can be understood, if they use the Gregorian calendar, too, which starts counting from that date.

:Of course, the Chinese have their calendar, the Iranians have theirs, and the Hebrews have theirs. Most likely Jews now use the Gregorian calendar, I'd guess even in Israel. I'd suspect there are other calendars out there that are being used within countries.

:When they wish to communicate internationally, they use the western calendar, because it makes being understood simpler. Still, they don't wish to recite a foreign religious idea every time they do.

:Since stating a date is not a religious act, there is no reason why we must do that, either. Using CE or AD should be optional, unless an authority in charge of things feels they should force their own religious ideas on others. -- Gene D.

Do you even know the meaning of BC and AD? What if I don't like that fact that we must use Arabic numerals? I think we should call them something generic, don't you agree? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

yes in fact i do ad means annio dommni wich in latin means in the year of our lord and bc means before christ but i prefer more religously tolrent termnology.

You don't seem to be very religiously tolerant towards Christianity. And you haven't answered my question: should we change the name given to our numerals? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

no in fact i am but i just dont like the radicals like the people on this site that feel that thay have to push coneservatism and christianity on others and no i dont feel that arabic numerals need to be changed becuse thay are not religous in nature.

oh and if conservatives arent how do you explain these quotes made by ardent conservatives
* "The [[feminist]] agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 [[w:Republican Party (United States)|GOP]] convention speech, but this is not the case (see also [http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/1992GOPConvention.asp tran

:I'm concerned that the term "Roman Numerals" refers to Romans, who were Pagans. Everybody uses the numerals today, and most are not Pagans. Then why should we use a Pagan terminology? I suggest we refer to them as "Italian Numerals" henceforth. -- Gene D.

*"Homo." Robertson describing a caller he didn't like. [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2006/01/pat_robertson.wmv Windows Media Video]

*"Big fat nancy nancy-boy faggot." Robertson, in a slightly more whimsical mood, describing a caller he didn't like.

:If Robertson's wife was four months pregnant when he married her, should we take it that Robertson does not always advocate abstinance before marriage? Or should we take it that Robertson believes we should think about it for a long time before we just jump into a marriage? Gene D.

It has muslim connections! I feel a bit oppressed by the use of this term. I really feel that we should change it. I am sure others would agree with me. How about: Seculahumanist Numerals? Yeah, then no one feels intimidated. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I don't know if other conservatives feel the same way as I do about those comments, but I surely do not support those statements in the least, except for the ERA statement. I find nothing non-factual about the accusations.

The complaining editor above needs to sign his comments and take them to an appropriate talk page. Thanks for your rebuttal for me here, David.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A question about usage of this ==
Hi, I know this is not an easy subject, and I'd like so say I'm a Christian and I support Christianity for 100%. Though I also respect people with different religions, who do not put as much value to Jesus's existence as we do. When you talk about things that are not related to religion and that should be as neutral as possible, which notation should you use? AD (with a heavy pro-Christian connotation) or BCE (with an equal anti-Christian notation)? I myself would honestly choose for BCE, but I'm not sure. Could anybody give me a solid reason as to why I should use either one? Thank you. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)

== arabic numerals ==

arabic numerals is in refrence to the arabic culture/civilisation not the muslim religion.

But the people of Arabia are muslim. Therefore "arabic" numerals is a islamic term. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

so just becuse the pepole of arabia are muslim doesent mean arabic numerals are muslim.

Actually it does. And I find it very offensive that I am forced to have my numerals given an arabic name. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am not really opposed to arabic numerals. I am just showing the stupidity of BCE/CE. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, because we call something "arabic" (numbers) or. for instance. "gregorian" (calendar) doesn't mean that they are Islamic or Christian, it references where these things came from. It is a ''completely'' different matter to expecting peoples of different faiths across the world to refer to something as "in the year of our Lord" when their respective faiths may have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is out of respect for other cultures that BCE and CE are used.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

ad bc and this site is what is stupid--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: If that is what you really believe then by all means return to Wikipedia. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Java (programming language)

2010-03-03T13:49:00Z

MalP:

Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?

2010-03-03T13:41:24Z

MalP:

::'''Do you think the exponent of ''r'' in Newtonian gravity can be slightly different than 2, such as 2.000001?'''

Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

: I do think it is quite possible that the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity is not precisely exact, and that a slight deviation from 2 (such as 2.0000001) is to be expected. The physical world is not a perfect in a mathematical sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmmm, that's an interesting question. It seems to me that the power of 2 would be forced to be exact if we take two other facts for granted, which seem plausible:
* The universe is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space
* Gravitational fields are divergence-free away from a source. This physically means that there is no contribution to the gravitational field of a mass from any point that's not part of the mass.
::This is basically a consequence of the [[divergence theorem]] (if I'm thinking straight). These are both basic tenets of the Newtonian picture. It's really not possible to do Newtonian mechanics where gravity is an inverse-2.00001 law: it would look to bodies as if gravitational force was being exerted by a body outside the mass in question! Similarly the fact that Coulomb's law is precisely an inverse-square law is a consequence of Gauss's law, which also follows from very basic assumptions. On the other hand, Newtonian physics isn't exact in the first place. I think I have read that gravity seems to be weaker than an inverse square law over extremely large distances (on the astronomical scale). This is because of some non-Newtonian, and perhaps not fully understood, physics. But there's no way to describe gravity in GR by something as simple as an inverse-square law anyway! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a great analysis, Mark. Even before the invention of calculus, Newton figured this with basic geometry, on the assumption that the force of gravity caused by a point mass would be the same in any direction, that is, at any other point at some distance from the mass. This logically means the force would be spread out equally over a sphere at a given radius r. Then the strength of the force at a point at radius r would be some "inherent" strength, divided by the area of the sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. That is where the exponent 2 comes from.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.

::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further. I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.

:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance. We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations. There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here. Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Is it '''possible''' that the exponent is slightly more or less than 2? Of course it is, although the difference would be amazingly small for us not to have noticed it by now. Is it likely? Well as I've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I don't mean to argue that it's a priori impossible that the exponent isn't exactly 2. My point is that the strength of gravity is something that's closely tied to the geometry of space, it's not just an arbitrary constant. In Newtonian mechanics, space is flat, and there's no escaping an inverse square law. If the exponent weren't exactly 2, this would just mean that space isn't quite flat. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is wrong: relativity too is just another prediction of how space is curved! DouglasA, I'm not a physicist by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. The effect in either case would really be the same phenomenon: deviations from a flat Newtonian universe.

::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind. I'll do some looking myself too.

:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space. But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement? There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I know I said I wouldn't get re-involved with this debate, but let me just make a few points. Re: the red shift - yes it's true a massive object is slightly red-shifted due to the energy light loses to its gravitational field, but this effect is no stronger for distant objects than near ones, and the effect is extremely minuscule for all but the strongest gravitational fields. The red shift of distant cosmic object is a result of their incredible speed away from us, or at least their speed away from us at the time the light was emitted.

Second, 2 and 2.000001 would not be close enough to "match up" the geometry of space with the mathematics of geometry, here is why. The equation for the surface area for a perfect sphere isn't an approximation, or a guess, it's exact. Therefore, the imaginary spheres of different radii we imagine around a point mass would, if made manifest, actually have area<math>4 \pi r^2 \ </math>, and nothing else, just as the circumference of a circle is precisely <math>2\pi r \ </math>. On this, there can be no debate - it's math, not physics.

So lets move to physics now. Newtons formula for the acceleration caused on a test particle a distance r from a point mass was <math>a_g = G \frac{m_1}{r^2} \ </math>. (Marking the mass of the test particle <math>m_2 </math> gives, by <math>F=ma </math> the more familiar <math>F= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \ </math>) Basically, what his formula for acceleration is saying is that no matter how far you are from a point mass, there is a constant effect due to that point mass' gravity, but spread out over the area of the sphere which has the radius that is the test particles distance from the point mass. Since these spheres grow larger and larger as the test particle moves away, the acceleration grows smaller.

Now, moving to physics, let's ignore all theories of relativity, just for a moment, since the question was, after all, asked about Newtonian gravity. If the force of gravity <math>a_g \propto \frac{1}{r^{2+x}}, x>0 \ </math> where x is some tiny positive number, say, 0.00001, then there are either two possibilities: you have the part of this which is due to the spreading out of the effect over the spheres, and another component, <math> G \frac{m}{r^x} </math>, which would mean the gravitational constant is not constant at all but a function of distance, OR, the surface areas of the spheres different than expected.

The former of these possibilities is what must be true if the exponent is indeed 2.0001, because the latter implies that space is negatively curved far away from the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in larger-than-Euclidean surface areas, and positively curved close in to the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in smaller surface areas - this would mean that the formula would work only for this one point mass, and no others in the universe; that this point mass occupied a place of privilege, the only part of the universe where space would be positively curved. Keep in mind this isn't the ST curvature of GR, which causes the effect we call gravity, and is itself caused by mass; this would be a curvature of 3-space independent of the mass distribution and having no properties that might be interpreted as a force.

But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further. But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere. The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy. The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective. It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''. There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001."

:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind. Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I never attempted to claim that mathematics "defines" physics, only that mathematical models are developed to describe physical behavior. Once again, I agree with you that real-world observations necessitate refinements to these models, but this does not invalidate the models themselves. I fail to see why this makes me "close-minded." We must understand gravity fairly well if we can land rovers on Mars! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

: Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. [[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:: The orbits crash ... when? The orbits are not going to be significantly different over reasonable periods of time for an exponent that only slightly differs from 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 25 February 2010 (EST)
::: At first glance that is the most logical deduction. However I challenge you to run the simulation with any commercial or free physics or mathematic software suite. I'm sure you can give this as a homework assignment to one of your students. The orbits change in very significant ways, and as I said, they are going to move through the sun (not near, exactly through).[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:56, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: My statement is not merely at "first glance ... the most logical deduction." It is the ''only'' logical deduction. It is true with a mathematical certainty, which is why the denial of it is so illustrative of a closed mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: You accuse ME of having a closed mind because I actually looked for evidence? The evidence might not be what you want it to be, but that doesn't make it less true. 2.00000001 will crash the planets into the sun, that's a mathematical and physical fact. I dare you to test it with a simulation, that would really show how open minded you are. Also admitting you're wrong is part of being open minded. I'm correct. Run the tests and admit it. You're so proud of your open mind, this shouldn't be a difficult task, now would it? Really mr Schlafly, run the simulation. As I said, I doubted my teacher so with my open mind I immediatly did some tests. And they confirmed what I learned. Sometimes logical deductions are simply wrong.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 09:16, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: Marnick, it's not necessary or helpful to run a simulation to test a logical truth. One doesn't "look for evidence" that "2+2=4", and your claim that the planets "will crash" into the sun (within a reasonable time) for any value of the exponent slightly different from 2 is mathematically fallacious. For starters, it implies an absurd discontinuity in the limit as the exponent approaches 2. Open your mind, please, and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: I'd like to add a bit of my own view on this. The world as we know it is strictly consequent in every way. When you change numbers, you change what happens.It is actually a fact that planets will crash into the sun when the variable is changed. For instance, if Newton's number was 3, planets would follow a path shaped like an 8, the sun being right in the middle of the 8. When you make in 2.5 , the shape will become more complex. It doesn't matter how close you get to 2; the sun will be right on the path of your planet. Though when it's 2, the path will be elliptical. I understand that this can be hard to understand / believe, but it's not a matter of "the closer it gets to 2, the closer it gets to being an ellipse." It'll only look even slightly like an ellipse when the number is exactly 2. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 08:41, 3 March 2010 (EST)

I'm quite skeptical of Marnik's claimed simulation. Crashing into the Sun in a single orbit is just not credible for an exponent not wildly different from 2. And "moving through the Sun" is incredible. It implies that he entered the Sun's own radius as one of the simulation parameters. In any case, the planet would have to lose nearly all of its angular momentum. (This is what makes Solar exploration spacecraft trajectories so difficult.)

Running simulations of gravity is not easy. I admit I haven't done this, so I suppose I could be accused of closed-mindedness on this issue. But I ''have'' done an analysis of the equations. The results are below. I agree with Andy that the only thing that will happen, for small perturbations in the exponent, is that the orbits will precess slowly.

The paper to which Andy refers near the top of this page was presumably the one by Simon Newcomb, who proposed an exponent other than 2 for the purpose of explaining the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. The value he gave was 2.0000001574. This was one of a number of proposed explanations for the precession, prior to general relativity. So, in the last couple of hours (when I should have been thinking about multivariable calculus!) I worked out the equations. Let the gravitational force be formulated as
::<math>F = \frac{G M m}{r^{2+k}}</math>
Now if we let δ be the precession, as a fraction of an orbit, per orbit (that is, if δ is 1/360, the orbit will precess by 1 degree for each of the planet's own years) then (to first order):
::<math>\delta = \frac{k}{2}</math>
This is (to first order) independent of the orbital eccentricity, and independent of the radius!

For Mercury, δ is observed to be .077E-6 (43 arcseconds per (Earth) year.) This gives k=.154E-6, in good agreement with Newcomb's figure.

So why was Newcomb's theory discarded? Because it doesn't work in general. It was first found to be in error in analyzing the orbit of the Earth's moon. But it also gives the same precession for all the planets! We now know that the anomalous precession for the other planets (the δ value) is much less than the value for Mercury.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:35, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Roger Waters

2010-02-17T19:09:37Z

MalP: Created page with ''''Roger Waters''' is a singer, songwriter and lyricist, who often plays bass guitar, and sometimes guitars. He is primarily known for being one of the creative geniuses of the p...'

'''Roger Waters''' is a singer, songwriter and lyricist, who often plays bass guitar, and sometimes guitars. He is primarily known for being one of the creative geniuses of the progressive rock band [[Pink Floyd]]. After leaving the band in 1984, he began a moderately successful solo career.

Talk:Belgium

2010-02-17T16:39:51Z

MalP: Created page with '== Edited some outdated information == The article said that Herman Van Rompuy is still Belgium's Prime Minister, though he is currently Europe's President. I changed his name to...'

== Edited some outdated information ==
The article said that Herman Van Rompuy is still Belgium's Prime Minister, though he is currently Europe's President. I changed his name to Yves Leterme, and added some information about how Leterme came to be Prime Minister again. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 11:39, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Belgium

2010-02-17T16:37:20Z

MalP:

{{Country
|name =''Koninkrijk België (Dutch) Royaume de Belgique (French) Königreich Belgien (German)''
|map =Belgium rel 85.jpg
|map2 =Belgium location.png
|flag =Flag of Belgium.png
|arms =Arms of Belgium.png
|capital =Brussels
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional Monarchy/Federal Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Dutch, French, German
|king =Albert II
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Yves Leterme
|pm-raw =
|area =11,787 sq mi
|pop =10,392,226 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$342 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$33,000 (2006)
|currency =Euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Kingdom of Belgium''' is a country in north-west [[Europe]], considered along with the [[Netherlands]] to be one of the Low Countries, and a founding member of the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose headquarters is in the capital of [[Brussels]].

==Geography==
Belgium is located in Western Europe, bordered by the Netherlands, [[Germany]], [[Luxembourg]], [[France]], and the [[North Sea]]. Although generally flat, the terrain becomes increasingly hilly and forested in the southeast (Ardennes) region. Climate is cool, temperate, and rainy; summer temperatures average 77°F, winters average 45°F. Annual extremes (rarely attained) are 10°F and 100°F.

Geographically and culturally, Belgium is at a crossroads of Europe, and during the past 2,000 years has witnessed a constant ebb and flow of different races and cultures. Consequently, Belgium is one of Europe's true melting pots with [[Celtic]], [[Roman]], [[Germanic]], [[French]], [[Dutch]], [[Spanish]], and [[Austrian]] cultures having made an imprint.

The country has since 1977 been divided into three semi-autonomous regions: [[Flanders]] (the Dutch speaking area), [[Wallonia]] (the French speaking area) and Brussels, a bilingual 'island' within Flanders.

==People==
Belgium is divided ethnically into the Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons, the 70,000 residents of the eastern German cantons, and the bilingual capital of Brussels. The population density is the second highest in Europe, after the Netherlands.
*Population (2006): 10,379,067.
*Annual population growth rate (2006 est.): 0.13%.
*Density: 861 per sq. mi. Linguistic regions--(Dutch-speaking) Flanders 58%; (French-speaking) Wallonia 31.7%; (legally bilingual) Brussels Capital Region 9.6%; German-speaking 0.7%.
*Religions: Predominantly Roman Catholic (70%), with Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Anglican, Greek and Russian Orthodox, as well as secularism, "recognized" religions receiving government subsidies.
*Ethnic groups: Flemmings 58%, Walloons 33%, Africans and Asians 4%, Other Europeans 5%.
*Languages: Dutch, French, German.
*Education: Literacy--98%.

[[Same sex marriage]] has been recognized by the Belgian government since 2003.<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm About.com]</ref>

==Government==
Belgium is a hereditary constitutional monarchy. The current [[monarch]] is King Albert II, who took the oath of office on August 9, 1993.

As titular head of state, the King plays a largely ceremonial and symbolic role in the nation. His primary political function is to designate a political leader to attempt to form a new cabinet following either an election, the resignation of a government, or a parliamentary vote of no confidence. The King is seen as playing a symbolic unifying role, representing a common national Belgian identity.

The Belgian Parliament consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has 150 directly elected members. The Senate has 71 elected members. The executive branch of the government consists of ministers and secretaries of state (junior ministers) drawn from the political parties that form the government coalition. The number of ministers is limited to 15, and they have no seat in Parliament. The Council of Ministers is chaired by the Prime Minister and consists of the ministerial heads of the executive departments.

The allocation of powers between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers is somewhat similar to the United States--the Parliament enacts legislation and appropriates funds--but the Belgian Parliament does not have the same degree of independent power that the U.S. Congress has. Members of political parties represented in the government are expected to support all bills presented by the Cabinet. The House of Representatives is the "political" body that votes on motions of confidence and budgets. The Senate deals with long-term issues and votes on an equal footing with the Chamber on a limited range of matters, including constitutional reform bills and international treaties.

The largest parties in the current Chamber are the Flemish Liberal Party (VLD), 25 seats; the Francophone Socialists (PS), 25 seats, the Francophone Liberals (MR), 25 seats; the Flemish Socialists and Spirit alliance (SP.A/Spirit), 23 seats, the Flemish Christian Democratic party (CD&V), 21 seats; the right-wing Vlaams Belang party (VB), 18 seats; and the Francophone Christian Democrats (CDH) 7 seats. The Francophone Greens (ECOLO), have 4 seats, while the New Flemish Alliance (NV.A) and Francophone Front National each have 1 seat. The Flemish Greens (AGALEV -- now Groen!) did not win any Chamber seats in the 2003 election, but have one "co-opted" Senator (see below) as a result of an agreement with the Flemish Socialist Party. National elections have taken place on June 10th, 2007, the major winner being CD&V. A lengthy period of time went into forming a new government, marked by a period of informal talks (led by Herman Van Rompuy) and formal talks (led by Yves Leterme), both being appointed to do so by the King.

Yves Leterme succeeded in forming a government and getting the support of parliamend needed to govern. In December 2008 however, the government fell over a scandal involving the separation of powers, with Yves Leterme and Jo Vandeurzen (then minister of Justice) being accused of trying to influence the course of justice. The King appointed ex-prime minister Wilfried Martens to informal talks, which eventually led to Herman Van Rompuy being named new Prime Minister. Much of Yves Leterme's government was held in place, with only a few spots replaced. As of January 2009, this government led by Herman Van Rompuy was expected to carry its full term until the next election in 2011.

However, when Herman Van Rompuy was chosen to be the first President of the European Council, he had to abandon his job as Prime Minister, in order to avoid conflicts of interests. As such, Yves Leterme was named Prime Minister again. No other major changes were made to the Belgian government.

The Prime Minister and his ministers administer the government and the various public services. Ministers must defend their policies and performance in person before the House.

===The Council of Ministers===
At the federal level, executive power is wielded by the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister chairs the Council. Each minister heads a governmental department. No single party or party "family" across linguistic lines holds an absolute majority of seats in Parliament. Consequently, the Council of Ministers reflects the weight of political parties that constitute the governing coalition for the House, currently the four-party Liberal-Socialist coalition.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Prime Minister--Yves Leterme
*Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Institutional Reforms--Didier Reynders
*Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health--Laurette Onkelinx
*Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior--Guido de Padt
*Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice--Stefaan De Clerck
*Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Employment and Equal Opportunity--Joëlle Milquet
<ref>http://www.belgium.be/nl/over_belgie/overheid/federale_overheid/federale_regering/samenstelling_regering/</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
The Concert of Nations sanctioned the creation of Belgium in 1830 on the condition that the country remains strictly neutral. During the two World Wars Belgium tried but was unable to follow a policy of neutrality due to the German invasions. In 1948, Belgium signed the Treaty of Brussels with Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and a year later became one of the founding members of NATO.

Belgium remains a strong proponent of both NATO and European defense efforts. Belgium also is a strong advocate of strengthening economic and political integration within the EU. Having federalized their own country, many Belgians view themselves as the ultimate "European federalists."

Both NATO (since 1966) and the EU have their headquarters in Brussels; SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, NATO's military headquarters) is in the south of the country, near Mons.

Belgium supported the expansion of NATO and EU membership to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe and is actively engaged in the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe. Belgium served as the Chair-in-Office of the OSCE in 2006. Belgium sits on the United Nations Security Council during 2007-2008.

===The Electoral System===
The number of seats in the House of Representatives is constitutionally set at 150, elected from 11 electoral districts. Each district is given a number of seats proportional to its total population (not number of eligible voters) ranging from 4 for the Luxembourg district to 24 for Antwerp. The districts are divided along linguistic lines: 5 Flemish, 5 Walloon, and the bilingual district of Brussels.

The Senate consists of 71 seats. For electoral purposes, Senators are divided into three categories: 40 directly elected; 21 elected by the community parliaments; and 10 "co-opted" Senators. For the election of the 25 Flemish and 15 francophone directly elected Senators, the country is divided into three electoral districts--Flanders, Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region. Of the 21 Senators representing the communities, 10 are elected by the Flemish Parliament, 10 by the French Community Parliament, and 1 by the German-language Parliament.

The remaining category, the 10 "co-opted" senators, are elected by the first two groups of senators. The princes and princesses of the royal line are also members of the Senate--currently Prince Phillippe, Prince Laurent, and Princess Astrid.

In Belgium, there are no "national" parties operating on both sides of the linguistic border. Consequently, elections are a contest among Flemish parties in Dutch-speaking Flanders and Francophone parties in Wallonia. Only in officially bilingual Brussels can voters choose from either Flemish or Francophone parties. Several months before an election, the parties form a list of candidates for each district. Parties are allowed to place as many candidates on their "list" as there are seats available. The formation of the list is an internal process that varies with each party. The number of seats each party receives and where on a list a candidate is placed, or how many individual votes a candidate receives, determines whether a candidate is elected. Since no single party holds an absolute majority in Parliament, after each election the strongest party or "party family" will create a coalition with other parties to form the government. Voting is compulsory in Belgium; more than 90% of eligible voters participate.

Belgium has 25 seats in the European Parliament.

===Belgium’s Linguistic Divide===
In August 1980, the Belgian Parliament passed a devolution bill and amended the Constitution, establishing "Community autonomy." As a result, in Flanders, the Flemish Parliament and government are competent for both regional and community affairs; in Wallonia, the Francophone Community Parliament and government are competent for community affairs, while the Walloon Regional Parliament and government are responsible for regional affairs. Subsequent constitutional reform established a community Parliament and government governments for the German-speaking cantons in 1983, and a regional Parliament and government for the Brussels Capital Region in 1989.

The regional and community governments have jurisdiction over transportation, public works, water policy, cultural matters, education, public health, environment, housing, zoning, economic and industrial policy, agriculture, foreign trade, and oversight of provincial and local governments. They rely on a system of revenue sharing with the federal government for most of their funds. They have the authority to levy taxes (mostly surcharges) and contract loans. Moreover, they have obtained treaty-making power for those issues coming under their respective jurisdictions.

Of total public spending--interest payments not considered--more than 40% is authorized by the regions and communities.

Provincial and Local Government
In addition to three regions and three cultural communities, Belgium also is divided into 10 provinces and 589 municipalities.

The provincial governments are primarily administrative units and are politically weak. A governor appointed by the King presides over each province. Each governor is supported by an elected Provincial Council of 47 to 84 members (depending on the size of the province), which sits only four weeks a year.

Municipal governments, on the other hand, are vigorous political entities with significant powers and a history of independence dating from medieval times. Many national politicians originate from municipal political bases; and many often double as mayor or alderman in their hometowns in addition to their federal and regional political positions.

===Political Parties===
From the creation of the Belgian state in 1830 and throughout most of the 19th century, two political parties dominated Belgian politics: the Catholic Party and the Liberal Party. In the late 19th century the Socialist Party arose, representing the emerging industrial working class. These three groups still dominate Belgian governments, but they have evolved substantially in character and face new electoral challengers.

====The Christian Democratic Parties====
After World War II, the Catholic (subsequently Christian Democratic) Party severed its formal ties with the Church. It became a mass party of the center (more like a political party in the United States). In 1968, the Christian Democratic Party responded to linguistic tensions in the country by dividing into two independent parties, now known as the Center Democratic and Humanistic (CDH) in Francophone Wallonia and the Flemish Christian Democrats (CD&V) in Flanders. The two parties share similar policies but maintain separate organizations.

====The Socialist Parties====
The modern Belgian Socialist parties are labor-based parties. Despite the post-World War II dominance of the Christian Democrats, the Socialists headed several postwar governments. The Socialists also split along linguistic lines in 1978. The francophone Socialists dominate the cities and towns of Wallonia and Brussels. The Flemish Socialists' support is less concentrated.

====The Liberal Parties====
In modern times, the Liberal Parties in Belgium have chiefly appealed to business people, property owners, shopkeepers, and the self-employed. In American terms, the Liberals' positions could be considered to reflect a more conservative free market oriented economic ideology. This non-interventionist ideology is reflected also in the parties' strong support for gay marriage, homosexual adoption, and euthanasia. The two current Liberal parties were formed in 1971, after the original all-Belgium Liberal Party split along linguistic lines. They are the Flemish Liberals and Democrats (VLD) (Prime Minister Verhofstadt's party) in Flanders and the Reform Movement (MR) in Wallonia.

====Greens====
The Flemish (Groen!) and Francophone (ECOLO) ecologist parties made their Parliamentary breakthrough in 1981. Following significant gains in the 1999 general elections, the two Green parties joined a federal coalition cabinet for the first time in their history in Prime Minister Verhofstadt's first six-party coalition government. The parties experienced significant losses in the May 2003 election, however; with ECOLO winning only four seats in the House and AGALEV failing to win any seats. They were thus excluded from the new coalition formed by returning Liberal Prime Minister Verhofstadt in 2003. Following the election, AGALEV changed its name to "Groen!."

====The Linguistic Parties====
A postwar phenomenon in Belgium was the emergence of linguistic-based parties, which were formed to defend the cultural, political, and economic interests of one of the linguistic groups or regions of Belgian society.

The far-right Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) is the most militant Flemish regional party, with a separatist, anti-immigration, law and order platform. The Vlaams Belang was formerly called the Vlaams Bloc, until a 2004 high court ruling confirmed a lower court verdict that the Bloc was a "racist" party. Faced with further legal problems, the Bloc disbanded and resurrected itself as the Vlaams Belang, with the same party leaders but a less radical party policy. The Vlaams Belang was the second most popular party in the 2004 regional elections, with 24% of the vote. Polls in 2007 showed the Vlaams Belang as the second or third most popular political party in Flanders, after the Christian Democrats (at about 30%), about even with the Socialists (at about 20%), and ahead of the Liberals.

In Wallonia, the small Francophone nationalist Front National (FN) surprised many political pundits by gaining enough votes in the May 2003 federal election to survive the new 5% cutoff limit for votes in any precinct required to enter Parliament. FN retained its 1 Chamber seat and gained 2 new Senate seats.

The now-defunct Volksunie Party (VU) was the most militant Flemish regional party in Parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, drawing nearly one-quarter of Belgium's Dutch-speaking electorate at the height of its popularity. However, as much of the VU's nationalist agenda was realized through subsequent Constitutional reforms that saw the devolution of significant power to the Regions, the VU suffered severe setbacks in more recent elections, winning only 8 seats in the 150-seat Chamber in 1999. In 2001, Volksunie splintered into a traditional Flemish nationalist faction, the NVA (currently in alliance with the CD&V since before the 2004 regional election), and a more liberal faction, Spirit (in an electoral alliance with the Flemish Socialist Party since before the 2003 federal election).

==Labor Unions==
Belgium is a highly unionized country, and organized labor has been a powerful influence in politics, although less so in recent elections. About 53% of all private sector and public service employees are labor union members. Unlike many American unions, Belgian labor unions take positions on a wide range of political issues, including education, public finance, defense spending, environmental protection, women's rights, [[abortion]], and other issues. They also provide a range of services, including the administration of unemployment benefits and health insurance programs.

Belgium's three principal trade union organizations are the Confederation of Catholic Labor Unions (CSC/ACV), the Belgian Socialist Confederation of Labor (FGTB/ABVV), and the Confederation of Liberal Labor Unions (CGSLB/ACLVB). Until the 1950s, the FGTB/ABVV was the largest confederation; since then, however, the CSC/ACV has become the leading trade union force.

The Confederation of Catholic Labor Unions (CSC/ACV). Organized in 1912, the CSC/ACV rejected the Marxist concept of "class struggle" and seeks to achieve a just social order based on Christian principles. The CSC/ACV is not formally linked to its party political counterparts, the Christian Democratic parties (CD&V and CDH) but exercises influence in their councils. The CSC/ACV is the leading union in all Flemish provinces and in Wallonia's Luxembourg province. It has almost equal strength with the socialist confederation in the Brussels area.

The Belgian Socialist Confederation of Labor (FGTB/ABVV). The FGTB/ABVV derives from the Socialist Trade Union Movement, established in the late 19th century in Walloon industrial areas, Brussels, and urban areas of Flanders. Today, the FGTB/ABVV is the leading union in the Hainaut, Namur, and Liège provinces and matches the CSC/ACV in Brussels.

The Confederation of Liberal Labor Unions (CGSLB/ACLVB). With 240,000 members, this is the smallest of the major union groups. Drawing primarily from management positions, the Brussels-based CGLB/ACVB is Belgium's most pro-business union. The union is not formally affiliated with any political party.

==Current Issues==
Belgium is a member of the European Economic and Monetary Union. Budgetary issues remain a key concern of the Verhofstadt government, particularly given the slow economic growth Belgium and most of Europe have experienced of late.

Belgium's reaction to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was strong and supportive. For example, Belgium played a key role in helping to obtain EU-wide agreement on a European arrest warrant and in facilitating extradition of terrorist suspects. In support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Belgium contributed a navy frigate in the Mediterranean, AWAC crews for surveillance flights over the United States, as well as aircraft for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Belgium has contributed ground troops to ISAF since 2002 and provides humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to both Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2006, Belgium sent about 400 peacekeepers to Lebanon in support of the UN mission there.

Current issues before the Verhofstadt government include improving the climate for foreign investment, dealing with rising health care costs, and adjusting the federal social security system to a rapidly aging population.

Belgium continues to increase its counter-terrorism capabilities by adding domestic legislative, judicial, intelligence, and law enforcement tools that increase its ability to prevent or respond to terrorism. The government also cooperates closely with other European states and the United States in investigating cases of international terrorism. In 2006, Belgium convicted ten individuals for their support of attacks in Madrid and Casablanca. Belgium operates within UN and EU frameworks concerning the freezing of terrorist assets, and in 2007 enacted a domestic legal framework to act independently.

==Economy==
Belgium, a highly developed market economy, belongs to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of leading industrialized democracies. With a geographic area about equal to that of Maryland, and a population of 10.4 million, Belgian per capita GDP ranks among the world’s highest. In 2006, the per capita income (PPP) was $31,800. The federal government has managed to present balanced budgets in recent years, but public debt remains high, at 94% at the end of 2005. *GDP growth in 2006 was predicted to be 2.5%.
*GDP (PPP, 2006 est.): $330.4 billion.
*Annual real growth rate (2006): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (PPP, 2006): $31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal.
*Agriculture: (1.4% of GDP) Products--livestock, including dairy cattle, grain, sugarbeets, nursery products, flax, tobacco, potatoes, and other fruits and vegetables.
*Industry: (24% of GDP) Types--machinery, iron, coal, textiles, chemicals, glass, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods.
*Trade: Exports--$335.3 billion (2006 est.): Iron and steel, coal, transportation equipment, tractors, diamonds, petroleum products. Export partners (2005 est.): Germany 19.4%, France 17.3%, Netherlands 11.7%, U.K. 8.2%, U.S. 6.4%, Italy 5.3%. *Imports--$333.5 billion (2006 est.): Fuels, chemical products, grains, foodstuffs. Import partners (2005 est.): Netherlands 17.8%, Germany 17.2%, France 11.4%, U.K. 6.8%, Ireland 6.5%, U.S. 5.4%.

Densely populated Belgium is located at the heart of one of the world's most highly industrialized regions. The first country to undergo an industrial revolution on the continent of Europe in the early 1800s, Belgium developed an excellent transportation infrastructure of ports, canals, railways, and highways to integrate its industry with that of its neighbors. One of the founding members of the European Community (EC), Belgium strongly supports deepening the powers of the present-day European Union to integrate European economies further.

With exports equivalent to over two-thirds of GNP, Belgium depends heavily on world trade. Belgium's trade advantages are derived from its central geographic location and a highly skilled, multilingual, and productive work force.

The Belgian industrial sector can be compared to a complex processing machine: It imports raw materials and semi-finished goods that are further processed and re-exported. Except for its coal, which is no longer economical to exploit, Belgium has virtually no natural resources. Nonetheless, most traditional industrial sectors are represented in the economy, including steel, textiles, refining, chemicals, food processing, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, electronics, and machinery fabrication. Despite the heavy industrial component, services account for 74.6% of GDP. Agriculture accounts for only 1.4% of the GDP.

===Belgian Economy in the 20th Century===
For 200 years through World War I, French-speaking Wallonia was a technically advanced, industrial region, while Dutch-speaking Flanders was predominantly agricultural. This disparity began to fade during the interwar period. As Belgium emerged from World War II with its industrial infrastructure relatively undamaged, the stage was set for a period of rapid development, particularly in Flanders. The postwar boom years contributed to the rapid expansion of light industry throughout most of Flanders, particularly along a corridor stretching between Brussels and Antwerp (now the second-largest port in Europe after Rotterdam), where a major concentration of petrochemical industries developed.

The older, traditional industries of Wallonia, particularly steelmaking, began to lose their competitive edge during this period, but the general growth of world prosperity masked this deterioration until the 1973 and 1979 oil price shocks sent the economy into a period of prolonged recession. In the 1980s and 1990s, the economic center of the country continued to shift northward to Flanders.

===Foreign Investment===
Foreign investment contributed significantly to Belgian economic growth in the 1960s. In particular, U.S. firms played a leading role in the expansion of light industrial and petrochemical industries in the 1960s and 1970s. The Belgian Government encourages new foreign investment as a means to promote employment. With regional devolution, Flanders, Brussels, and Wallonia now have substantial autonomy in courting potential foreign investors, as each deems appropriate.

Foreign direct investment totaled more than $36.7 billion in 2005. U.S. and other foreign companies in Belgium account for approximately 11% of the total work force, with the U.S. share at about 6%. U.S. companies are heavily represented in the chemical sector, automotive assembly, and petroleum refining. A number of U.S. service industries followed in the wake of these investments--banks, law firms, public relations, accounting, and executive search firms. The resident American community in Belgium now exceeds 20,000. Attracted by the EU 1992 single-market program, many U.S. law firms and lawyers have settled in Brussels since 1989.

===Monetary===
On May 1, 1998, Belgium became a first-tier member of the European Monetary Union. Belgium switched from the Belgian franc (BF) to the Euro as its currency after January 1, 2002.

===Trade===
About 75% of Belgium's trade is with fellow EU member states. Given this high percentage, Belgium seeks to diversify and expand trade opportunities with non-EC countries. Belgium ranks as the 11th-largest market for the export of U.S. goods and services. If goods in transit to other European countries are excluded, Belgium ranks as the 12th-largest market for U.S. goods.

Bilaterally, there are few points of friction with the U.S. in the trade and economic area. The Belgian authorities are, as a rule, anti-protectionist and try to maintain a hospitable and open trade and investment climate. As a result, the U.S. Government focuses its market-opening efforts on the EU Commission and larger member states. Moreover, the Commission negotiates on trade issues for all member states, which, in turn lessens bilateral trade disputes with Belgium.

===Employment===
The social security system, which expanded rapidly during the prosperous 1950s and 1960s, includes a medical system, unemployment insurance coverage, child allowances, invalid benefits, and other benefits and pensions. With the onset of a recession in the 1970s, this system became an increasing burden on the economy and accounted for much of the government budget deficits. The national unemployment figures mask considerable differences between Flanders and Wallonia. Unemployment in Wallonia is mainly structural, while in Flanders it is cyclical. Flanders' unemployment level equals only half that of Wallonia. The southern region continues a difficult transition out of sunset industries (mainly coal and steel), while sunrise industries (chemicals, high-tech, and services) dominate in Flanders.

Belgium’s unemployment rate was 8.5% in 2006. A total of 4.4 million people make up Belgium’s labor force. The majority of these people (73%) work in the service sector. Belgian industry claims 25% of the labor force and agriculture only 2%. As in other industrialized nations, pension and other social entitlement programs have become a major concern as the "baby boom" generation approaches retirement.

===Budget===
Although Belgium is a wealthy country, public expenditures far exceeded income for many years, and taxes were not diligently pursued. The Belgian Government reacted with poor macroeconomic policies to the 1973 and 1979 oil price hikes by hiring the redundant work force into the public sector and subsidizing industries like coal, steel, textiles, glass, and shipbuilding, which had lost their international competitive edge. As a result, cumulative government debt reached 121% of GDP by the end of the 1980s. However, thanks to Belgium's high personal savings rate, the Belgian Government financed the deficit from mainly domestic savings, minimizing the deleterious effects on the overall economy.

The federal government ran a 7.1% budget deficit in 1992 at the time of the EU’s Treaty of Maastricht, which established conditions for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) that led to adoption of the common Euro currency on January 1, 2002. Among other criteria spelled out under the Maastricht treaty, the Belgian Government had to attain a budget deficit of no greater than 3% of GDP by the end of 1997; Belgium achieved this, with a total budget deficit in 2001 (just prior to implementation of the Euro currency) that amounted to 0.2% of GDP. The government has balanced the budget every year since. Belgium’s accumulated public debt remains high, but the liberal-socialist coalition government has paid it down to 94% of 2005 GDP.

==History==
see [[History of Belgium]]
====notes====
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of Flemish and Dutch painting]]
*[[Flemish School of Painting]]

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2874.htm]

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Belgium]]

User talk:MalP

2010-02-17T16:23:54Z

MalP:

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:34, 15 February 2010 (EST)}}

Welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:32, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Thank you! It's very nice to see that the admins of this website personally come and say "hi" to new people. That's something I've never seen before on other websites![[User:MalP|MalP]] 11:23, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Video games

2010-02-17T02:15:38Z

MalP: /* Biased article */

Alright... The source given at the end of the first paragraph is, honestly, useless. It doesn't prove any claim made in the paragraph, let alone the last sentence, and some of the stuff given there sounds absolutely ludicrious. 124 incidents of violence in 10 minutes? Unless you're counting every punch as an incident, that's incredibly high...

Anyway. Under normal circumstances I'd simply delete the reference and replace it with a citation needed tag, but given that I'm coming fresh of a banning for misinterpreting instructions, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to remove a source that really adds nothing to the article. Cheers. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Alright. Should nobody post a response to this in the next... Ehh, few hours, I'm going to replace that source with a fact tag. Reason: Source is irrelevant to that section of the article. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

==Final Fantasy==
Oh dang. I just noticed the what the previous edits said about the series. It's about purging evil in a make believe world! Narnia is almost the same. (both have magic/occult themes!)

I've been playing the series for a while, what homosexuality has there been besides Kefka, the arguable transvestite, from FFVI? And transvestism?! So what if Cloud was needed to infiltrate an area via "en femme"? It's a short section of the game and it was a pixelated mess.

Sexuality, let me think (my memory is half good on gaming). VI, nope. VII, nope (Tifa was "top-heavy"). VIII, didn't play. IX, nope. X, underwater make-out scene and Lulu's attire is iffy. X-2, that massage mini-game freaked me out and their attire. XI, didn't play due to online. XII, still playing and the only dispute are the Vieras' attire. Undercover cops in prostitution have just as much sexuality, but it's a necessary good, no?

Suicide... not really (from my experience). Homicide, very much so. Sephiroth killed Aerith, so Cloud killed Sephiroth. The only time I can think of was when Tidus (FFX) jumped off the Fahrenheit at the end, but he was just an apparition anyway. Also, it's not like it glorifying it either.

Religion. FFXII, the villains defy "the gods/fates". What do they get? Most are burned up by their manufactured idols ("manufacted nethicite") while the others are destroyed by Ashelia and the crew. Gabranth also comes to see the errors of his ways and joins the final fight for good against his superior, Vayne. Gabranth was saved in one way or another. Ruling out the villains of Final Fantasy, there hasn't been--if my memory serves correct--a defiance/negativity towards religion... except maybe the false religion of Yevon, which said that a summoner should die for their people to rid the world of pain for 3 years, "Sin". FFX was about defeating "Sin" and the false gods.
I think I am done with my ranting for today. I would like to see some counter-points though. +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Many characters are unnecessarily sexualized (specially on concept art), just look at FFX-2. There's also a few sexual references here and there. (Though its not as bad as other games.) Also, Faris and Kuja are definitely transvestives.
:There's also plenty of suicide in FFVI, with at least two of your main characters practicing it. There's also Dyne in FFVII committing it.
:And if Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't a subtle attempt at subversion against Christianity, I don't know what it is. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::it isn't a subtle attempt at subverting christianity, it was a successful attempt to make money by creating a video game that took place in a fantasy world. (and as for the other things i have no idea cause i dont play FF, although their are other games with more violence and sexuallity, try picking on gta, that will be easier)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, yes, but more specifically it was a successful attempt to make money by creation a video game that took place in a fantasy world were Christianity is basically evil. I'll eventually get to work on the gta articles though. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:FFX-2 was Square's only first attempt to make an actual sequel. With the name that sequel brings it immediately brings less sales. How to counteract that? Scanty clothing! It's about making money. I preferred to use a party of 2 white mages and one dark knight (most amount of clothing), with the exception of using special dress-spheres when necessary (Riku's and Paine's special form were fully clothed). Gunner, hot pants and side skirt. Gun Mage, side skirt and midriff. Alchemist, nothing revealing. Warrior, bike shorts(?) at least. Dark Knight, nothing. Samurai, tube top Riku. Berserker, major problem. Songstress, miniskirt balanced with really up high boots/stockings. Black Mage, mix samurai with songstress format. White Mage, nothing. Lady Luck, problem. Mascot, definitely nothing wrong. Trainer, same top as Ashelia from FFXII--reveals top 1/3 of breasts. Actually useful dress-spheres: Berserker, White Mage, Lady Luck (if your timing is correct), Warrior, Songstress (if you give it time), and the special spheres.
:Weren't Kuja and Zidane both genderless genomes? How can a mechanically engineered, soulless being be a transvestite? They were containers for the souls of Terra. Souls have gender/sex. True nature, a purified version of the body/container God made for us to use. If you have no soul, and you're just a container, then you have no true nature/gender. Kuja absorbed a plethora of souls of the Terrans... woman, child, man. Wouldn't that make "him" multi-gendered?
:And.. I never played FF Tactics. I've played Mystic Quest, FFIII (JP), FFVI, FFVII, FFIX, FFX (best game ever! - spent 300 hours on it, 250 on one file), FFX-2 (just wanted to see how a sequel would be and what happened to Tidus), FFXII (still playing, good vocabulary too). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I don't doubt the sexualizing of women in the series (not just FFX-2) was made in an effort to increase sales for the games (I would even say it applies to other themes not suitable for children such as profanity), however, that doesn't make it right or more appropriate.

::Its true that Kuja is a genome, but they still have male bodies and are treated essentially like men in the game, in fact, you don't even get to know they aren't really human until nearly the end of the game. Also, even taking these technicalities in account, Faris (from FFV) is still transvestite. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 16:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::They also kind of had to assign a gender. You couldn't go a whole referring to the main antagonist as "it", "Kuja" or "zhe" (zhe is what some "genderless" people like to be called).

:::I have never actually played more than 10 minutes of FFV before deciding it wasn't worth the effort of not spending time on Dofus (a French-based [[MMORPG]]). +_+ always tired [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"He" works as a pronoun for both genders, doesn't it? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::For conservatives, it does. My friend--"genderless by choice", born a she, and liberal--wishes to be known as "zhe". Also, Society builds on being [[politically correct]]. Companies can't go about saying every unknown gendered person, Quina Quen (FFIX), is a he... that would offend too many potential consumers. Turning off potential consumers means a loss for future profits too. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I always thought that was an attempt at comedy actually. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sex in video games==
I found something useful in an older release of the Official Playstation Magazine about sex in videogames.

*1982 - Custer's Revenge (Atari 2600) - The goal of the game was to have sex with a Native American woman by dodging arrows.
*1990 - River City Ransom (Nintendo Entertainment System) - During a certain part of the game you can enter the sauna and it shows a naked man-butt.
*1996 - Tomb Raider (PS1) - Introduced polygon breasts to the gaming world.
*1998 - Metal Gear Solid (PS1) - "bathroom scene"
*2000 - Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore (PS2) - "perfected" polygon breasts by adding a realistic bouncing effect.
*2001 - Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix (PS1) - featured a lesbian couple for protagonists and several make-out scenes and partial nudity.
*2001 - Rez (PS2 - Japan) - A trance music game with optional USB vibrator accessory.
*2002 - BMX XXX (PS2) - nude characters and unlockable strip tease videos
*2004 - Leisure Suit Larry (PS2) - sex-themed minigames
*2004 - GTA: San Andreas (PS2) - "Hot Coffee"
*2005 - Playboy: The Mansion (PS2) - sexual scenes (kind of obvious)
*2005 - God of War (PS2) - topless female characters
*2005 - Pornographic UMDs (PSP - Japan)
<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

:Uh, buddy boy, that Lara Croft code was an April Fool's joke. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::Right, right. I forgot about that... I never was one for reading the entire article. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 15:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm adding a section about this if nobody minds. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::::God of War also included mini-games involving the lead character having sex with various women. While the acts were not pictured on screen (the in-game views were moved to different parts of the rooms), the player had to press various buttons at the right time and was treated to all the sounds of the sex acts. Additionally, during one of the sex scenes, the camera focused on a fountain statue of a urinating young boy which achieved an erection during the scene and "ejaculated." This filth can be viewed on YouTube if anyone (i.e. any liberal) doubts me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Link With Crime==
I think the statement in the first paragraph—I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag but took it out after some consideration— needs a link to some sort of study linking the two, or it needs to be reworded. I don't believe a singular incident can be evidence for this claim.
--[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 11:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's clear that crimes have been ''associated'' with video games (the Columbine killers made custom levels in Doom that matched their school or some such), so the statement as written is true. The problem comes if you try to make a large scale correlation -- outside of anecdotal evidence, I don't think any evidence has ever been found. What few individual correlations I've heard, there's no evidence that the video game ''caused'' the violence. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Jack Thompson ==

Maybe we should remove the mention of Jack Thompson? He wasn't really a "target" of the media, and with his recent disbarrment, it might make a stronger case without mention of him. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Alternatively, it makes his criticisms seem more like the goofiness that they realy are ;-) You are right about the "target" thing though; most "targeted" media coverage was from gamer sites and comics. If the main stream media had anything about him he wasn't really a "target". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==People who actually...==
Can we get some people who actually play video games to edit this article? It's becoming biased based on what some editors see on TV.

Sure the popular games are the ones seen on TV or the ones that already have loyal fans, but there are still a majority of non-violent games out there.

Don't generalize because you don't understand. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:10, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

===Violence retort===
:And a funny retort to the violence "found" in gamers can be responded with:
::"Violence in gamers is not caused by video games themselves, but rather, the crappy movies that are "based" off of the video games." --VGCats & Beep Boop
[[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:19, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Targeted at teenagers? ==

It is not true that all video games are targeted at teenagers. It is true that video games are popular with teenagers, but they are also popular with people in their twenties. One could maybe make some useful link, but I think the first sentence should just be removed of its reference to teenagers. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 08:39, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Biased article ==

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. The opening sentence itself is sickening.

:So it looks like there is some controversy about this article. Is it possible to unlock it to editing? The vandals are surely gone now.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 18:25, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::I don't know about vandals, but I'd like to see this unlocked... I think that at the moment, the article could use a bit of improvement. The first paragraph says some things that make me frown. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 21:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Java (programming language)

2010-02-17T01:52:15Z

MalP:

User:MalP

2010-02-17T01:47:06Z

MalP: Created page with 'Hello, I'm Mal Peeters. I'm an 18 year old Belgian computer science student, and very interested in the world, nature, physics, etc. A few days after I joined Conservapedia, my a...'