Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Feminism

2010-05-09T03:37:57Z

Shena:

{{cquote|<big>'''Feminism''' is the radical idea that women are people.</big>|||<big>Cheris Kramarae & Paula Treichler</big><ref>http://www.memorable-quotes.com/cheris+kramarae+++paula+treichler,a1818.html is one of many sources.</ref>}}
{{wp}}
{{cp}}

==History==
Feminism has a long history, dating from the movements for women's rights to vote, through the sexual revolutions of the twenties and sixties, to the workplace equality efforts still underway. While it seems as if "you've come a long way, baby", sadly women are still second-class citizens even in some developed nations.

In the [[United States]] and [[United Kingdom | Great Britain]], feminism began with the <font color="#green" >simple</font> <ref> "The truth is seldom pure and '''NEVER''' simple." Oscar Wilde </ref> demand that women be allowed equal political footing with men. As with all anti-discrimination movements, even when the formal apparatus of discrimination was overturned, ingrained prejudices and biased institutions still prevailed. Even today, women have still not reached the same levels of success in pay and position that men have held for centuries.

Taken in broad (so to speak) terms, the history of feminism is divided into three waves:

'''First Wave''': Women's Suffrage. Getting out the vote (which, of course, required getting the vote in the first place), having a voice. The very basic stuff.

'''Second Wave''': Women's Lib. Following a large number of women working in factories in [[World War II]], the idea that women could actually do jobs as well as men started to take root, exploding in the 1960's in any number of ways. Advances in [[birth control]] brought a coincident sexual revolution which turned a lot of things on their head and generally pissed off people who had a vested interest in the ''status quo''.

'''Third Wave''': This is where we are today. [[Pro-choice | Reproductive rights]] are a big issue, as are international women's concerns. Where the first two waves tended to concentrate on North America and Europe, now things like [[Circumcision | female genital mutilation]], [[Sharia | Sharia law]], anti-female practices in Asia, experiences of women in war, etc. are all part of the mix. Post-modern concepts come into play as well, with women looking at the use of language and media as tools of oppression which must be overthrown. Again, those who have a vested interest aren't terribly supportive of any of this.

==Successes==
Here are a few highlights {{more}} of successes in the movement (please add refs if possible):

===General===
*Property: Equal rights to ownership and inheritance, and women not being ''considered'' property anymore.
*Workplace: Equal pay for equal work is now accepted as proper (if not always put into practice); greater diversification of opportunity.
*Privacy: CT vs. Griswold allowed married couples to use birth control; [[Roe v. Wade]] allowed women to make their own decisions about childbearing.
*Education: Where once technical higher education was available only to men, women now outnumber men in many areas of study.
*Social: Women are now able to socialise (pubs, clubs, bars etc) unaccompanied by men, without being stigmatised as "loose women".
*Gender roles: Women wearing pants, women driving heavy machinery, women flying jet fighters, women (the horror!) supervising men, etc.

===Suffrage===
The battle to gain the right to vote has raged since the early 19th century.<ref>Data ripped from [[Wikipedia:Women's suffrage]]</ref>
*In 1893, [[New Zealand]] became the first major self-governing country in the world to give women the vote.
*In the years before the First World War, Finland (1906), Norway (1913) and Denmark also gave women the vote.
*1917 - [[Canada]] granted the right, except in Quebec, where it was postponed until 1940.
*1917 - Soviet [[Russia]] also allowed women to "vote" for the winner of their "elections".
*1920 - Women achieved the vote in the U.S. with the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
*1926 - [[Turkey]]
*1928 - [[The United Kingdom]] granted full voting rights to women.
*1944 - [[France]] extended the franchise, finally.
*1971 - Switzerland extends franchise on a federal level. Cantonal extension is slower: the last extension, in Appenzell Innerhoden, took place in 1990.
*1984 - Liechtenstein joined the rest of the free world in sisterhood.

===Suffrage in the United States===
*1890 - Wyoming admitted to the union with women's suffrage - the first state!
*1893 - Colorado enfranchised women through a referendum.
*1896 - Utah & Idaho both passed laws enfranchising women.
*1910 - Washington State established women's suffrage.
*1913 - Illinois gave women the vote in most elections.
*August 18, 1920 - The Tennessee legislature became the 38th state to ratify the 19th Amendment. The Amendment was passed by a single vote, thanks to a letter Senator Burns received from his mother minutes before the vote was taken. Mrs. Burns has become one of those extremely important figures in American history that are often forgotten.

===Major political office===
*Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka (at that time, Ceylon) was the modern world's first female ''elected'' head of state and served as Prime Minister from 1960-1965, 1970-1977 and 1994-2000.
*Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India for three consecutive terms from 1966 to 1977 and for a fourth term from 1980 until her assassination in 1984.
*Golda Meir, after serving as the Minister of Labour and Foreign Minister, became Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, until her resignation in 1974.
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] (oh well) served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990, and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 until 1990.
*Vigdís Finnbogadóttir of [[Iceland]] was the world's first elected female president (1980 to 1996), as opposed to an elected Prime Minister.
*Benazir Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state, having twice been Prime Minister of Pakistan, from 1988–1990 and 1993–1996.
*[[Hillary Clinton]] ran a prominent campaign for President of the U.S. in 2008. The U.S. Senate, where she fomerly served before becoming Secretary of State, is still over 80% male, however.
*Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States following the 2006 elections.
*In New Zealand, at one point, the Prime Minister, Governor General, Speaker of the House, and High Court Chief Justice were all female; the Governor General and Speaker have since rotated to males, and Aunty Helen has been voted out of office.
*Mary Robinson was elected the President of the Republic of Ireland (more of a figurehead than a leader) in 1990. She was succeeded in 1997 by Mary McAleese.

{{more}}

===Some lists at another website===
*{{wpa|List of elected or appointed female heads of state|female heads of state}}
*{{wpa|List of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government|female heads of government}}

==Ideology==
While feminism is not one single ideology, there have been various movements with more-or-less well defined outlooks.

==Criticisms==
Here are a few dubious backlashes and losses the movement has suffered:

*[[Rush Limbaugh]] and his nasty namecalling.
*Don Imus and his racist, sexist namecalling.
*[[Sarah Palin]].

===Reactionary movement===
Because feminism demands that society re-evaluate how it views women and what roles women must and can take on, and because the core of feminism is the ultimate self-empowerment and self-realization of women (in no small cost to traditional male power and supremacy <ref>and having to do the damned laundry and dishes, and diaper changing — them's women's work!</ref>), many [[conservative]]s view feminism as an attempt to set up a castrating matriarchy, where Dianic [[Wicca]] reigns supreme and all women are lesbians. [[Rush Limbaugh]] even invented his own pet derogatory term, "feminazis".<ref>At the core, it is totally insulting to compare women who are aggressive about equality with people who wanted to destroy an entire population. Yet, surprisingly, no one called or calls him on this obscene comparison.</ref> This is not limited to male reactionaries; even [[Ann Coulter|some female conservatives]] have stated a wish to abolish female suffrage. Conservatives often use a straw man depection of feminists' support for [[abortion]] rights as an excuse not to take any of their other opinions seriously, turning complex arguments into one-liners like "They don't want to take responsibility for thier (sexual) actions" or "They want their cake and want to eat it too".<ref>And so what if we do, men have the remote and the [[television|TV]] too!</ref> At their most petty level, conservative critics of feminists resort to weak accusations of wearing pants instead of dresses in order to look like men, and "shirking traditional gender activities, like baking".<ref>[[cp:feminism|Conservapedia on feminism]].</ref>

===Some unlinked crazies===
McGill University misandry researchers Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young call modern gender-focused feminism "fascist". They say that gender-feminism uses recycled Marxism, Romanticism and Classism to create a man-hating worldview.

However, it must be remembered that in all political theories, there are competing sub-theories. "Gender feminism" and "Marxist feminism" are not the end-all and be-all of feminism. If anything, "liberal feminism" is the most accepted form of feminism outside of academia. Liberal feminism (also known as classical feminism) instead seeks to create gender equality in institutions by removing discrimination and promoting equality. (Even within academia, Marxist feminism is probably not the most common. Academic feminism usually revolves around the study of female viewpoints within a classical discipline, without using Marxist critiques beyond that used by the discipline already.)

===Another asinine myth spun sideways===
For some reason, there are plenty of women who hate feminism. Some of these are due to feminism's attempts to free women from their traditional roles as servants to their husbands. Examples of these kind of critics include [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Ann Coulter]].

There are also many women who call themselves feminists, who have been highly critical of the ideologies underpinning modern and post-modern feminism (interesting detail required here, otherwise this sentence has no meaning). These include Suzanne Hoff-Sommers, Wendly McElroy, Camille Paglia, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Kate Fillion and others. In addition, criticism that feminists have systematically subverted scholarship for political indoctrination is shown in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women's Studies'' by Patia and Koerge, two women from within the movement. However, even in these academic cases, it is a simple case of women who are upset with a particular sub-theory of feminism, rather than the notion of feminism as a whole.

==Feminism and the 2008 US Vice Presidential race==
For the first time in a long time, an honest feminist ran for Vice President of the United States. No, not [[Sarah Palin|her]]; ironically, perhaps, it was the [[man]] running for the position, Joe Biden. Biden has already spent 20 years fighting for women's rights. He fought to make marital rape as heinous a crime as non-spousal rape; when he found out that his home state treated date rape as a lesser offense, he fought that; and he worked his ass off on the Violence Against Women Act, specifically the section on Civil Rights for women.<ref>[http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=685a4524-9702-49c0-b062-7d9ecd21a854&p=1 A fuller story on Biden's record]</ref>
Biden's victory makes him arguably the most politically-powerful women's rights advocate in American history.

==See also==
*[[Radical feminism‎]]
*[[Essay:Gender and Sysops]]
*[[Essay:Conservapedia and Women]]
*[[Kinder, Küche, Kirche]]
*[[Feminism/Anecdote]]

==Footnotes==
<references/>

[[Category:Society]]
[[Category:Human rights]]
[[Category:Women's rights]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Science

2010-05-09T03:37:43Z

Shena:

'''Science''' is the system of acquiring knowledge through use of the [[scientific method]] — that is, generating hypotheses and theories through observation and testing. Science is intimately linked with technology; technology is developed by the ideas of science and science is reliant on technology to further its ideas. The goals of science are to learn more about the world and use this knowledge to for the betterment of humankind.

==Categorizing science==

Science is divided into broad fields used to categorize the phenomenon being studied, such as [[:category:biology|biology]], [[:category:chemistry|chemistry]], [[:category:geology|geology]] etc. Each of these broader fields is then broken up into finer and finer sub-fields. For example, [[:category:physics|physics]] includes the study of light, heat, force, and energy, etc., and these can be further divided into specialisations arriving at a subject such as the [[electric field]]. In general, as science is broken down into finer categories, the depth and complexity of the subject increases.

For examples of what science is ''not'' see any article in Conservapedia.

==Success==

Science has been the most spectacularly successful method humankind has invented for the investigation of the material world. As has been mentioned previously, technology and technological advancement is reliant on science; science has produced drugs that cure diseases, the cultivation and distribution of an enormous variety of food, communications and transportation methods that allow us to make contact with others across the world with ease, and computers that have vastly increased our ability to collect, store and analyze information. Less obvious things that come from science are things like ballpoint pens, insulated houses, flushing toilets and the materals and dyes used in modern clothing. By its nature science seeks to form cohesive explanatory frameworks for ''any'' information, without clearly drawn limits; this makes it pesky and irritaing to those who would prefer that science would just [[NOMA|''stop'' at some arbitrary point]] so they can comfortably maintain anti-science beliefs and practices.

==The anti-science movement==
Where it crosses these near invisible boundaries science is often reviled — at least in part — by various groups, such as religious [[fundamentalist]]s, who find the ideas in their holy books challenged or [[environmentalism|environmentalists]] who wish to blame science for pollution, starvation and all the ills of the world. Sometimes, politicians become annoyed when scientific results do not correspond with those which would further their particular platforms or beliefs. Results obtained by the scientific method are often inconvenient to political agendas and politicians will ignore them as irrelevant, dismissing them as a mere "theory" or world-view. These attacks on science are usually very picky, with those who attack science and label it as irrelevant are quite content to use cars, fly in planes, use satellite navigation and espouse their views over the internet.

Critics of science are quick to point out that "science is always changing", as if it was inconsistent, able to alter its views at the drop of a hat and render itself irrelevant to the real world. In reality, this ability to change is one of the greatest ''strengths'' of science. All of science can be considered to be "work in progress", a work which corrects its mistakes and which not only changes but actively ''improves'' its theories. Unlike most of its critics, who will devote themselves to their worldview in all situations, when science encounters evidence which conflicts with its ideas, it will improve its ideas to take the new evidence into account. One of the best examples of this is the development of the structure of the atom, cube shaped blocks to a complex structure explained by quantum mechanics based entirely on what was observed as technology — aided by other branches of science — became powerful enough to make better and more accurate observations.

A somewhat more cogent criticism of science holds that, as a part of the larger trends of modernity, it tends to diminish the human experience and the human condition. These critics target science as a force which steadily diminishes every aspect of the natural world and human experience to a set of objective mechanical equations. According to these intellectuals, the scientific worldview casts man as a lone, isolated figure living, according to biologist Jacques Monod, in “fundamental isolation . . . like a gypsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world. A world that is deaf to his music, just as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his suffering or his crimes.” <ref>Jacques Monod, ‘‘Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology’’. 1971, Pg. 172-173</ref> These anti-science critics find this notion of a world purely of particles and (apparently) devoid of souls, the supernatural, and free will unsettling, and they see this world as the necessary intellectual consequence of the objective, materialist scientific worldview. (Whether this is a problem with science or the critics is, perhaps, in the eye of the beholder.)

Other critics claim that science has provided fantastic benefits in the areas of technology, agriculture, and medicine, but that it has not provided any sort of relief in a number of societal areas. During the Enlightenment, science (and, more specifically, the rationalism it embodied) were thought to be the key to the advent of a new golden era of political and social harmony. However, while newer forms of government, such as democracy, did emerge from the Enlightenment, the fields of social and political “science” have seen little to none of the meteoric advancement that characterizes the “hard sciences”, and war, poverty, and exploitation continue to blight the world in spite of the scientific revolution. Some critics contend that science has, in fact, worsened the human condition, because it has advanced the capability of humans to wreak devastation upon themselves and their environment without providing the social and political advancement needed to wield such capabilities responsibly. Pro-science advocates respond by claiming that science ought not to be excoriated for its own successes relative to other fields, that rationalism has wrought some improvements in these areas, and that many of the problems in society and politics stem not from a failure of scientific thought but a lack of scientific thought.

==Research==

Science is sometimes, for the convenience of people who want to see results, divided into ''applied'' science and ''research'' science. The first applies scientific discoveries to the development of new and improved technology, from cars to iPods. The second pursues scientific knowledge for its own sake with no particular practical goal in mind. The nice thing about this pure research is that it often ends up providing the raw material and knowledge for unexpected practical uses.

==Quotes on science==

{{cquote|Dad, you should listen to him. He's a man of science and you can barely read.|30|30|Lisa Simpson, ''The Simpsons''}}

{{cquote|The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...|30|30|Isaac Asimov}}

{{cquote|If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of civilization, it would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only -- sometimes slow, sometimes at a gallop, but never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. ("Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside. And he seems really pissed!") Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted waaaay longer than others, but have eventually, inexorably fallen to logic, reason and enlightenment, such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, but fall it did.|30|30|[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/08/14/DI2007081401818.html Gene Weingarten]
}}

{{cquote|You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.|||Randall Munroe, xkcd}}

Carl Sagan

2010-05-09T03:37:31Z

Shena:

'''Carl Sagan''' (1934–1996) was an [[America]]n [[Astronomy|astronomer]] who did much to popularize [[science]], especially [[astronomy]] ("billions and billions!"), during his illustrious career. He co-wrote and presented ''Cosmos: A Personal Voyage'', a [[television]] series that kicked ass. Sagan was a committed [[atheist]], though his true legacy lies in his advancement of [[humanism]]. He found a profound spirituality in experiencing the wonder and majesty of the universe.

He is known for remarking how people were made of "star stuff". And, by the by, he was right:

<blockquote>H → He → Li → Be → B → C (yum!) → N → O → F, and on through various nuclear processes that synthesize the elements up through iron (Fe) -- and it takes a supernova (or a particle accelerator!) to make a heavier nucleus.</blockquote>

Sagan was also very interested in extraterrestrial life, including [[Unidentified flying object|UFO]] sightings (though he was a [[skeptic]] on the matter), he heavily promoted the [[exobiology|search for extraterrestrial intelligence]].

Proof that an overbite and turtlenecks don't have to be drawbacks!

As a prominent atheist who has recently died, Carl Sagan is said by many fundamentalists to have converted to Christianity on his death-bed, the testimony of his widow notwithstanding. This is a cowardly attack because they know Dr. Sagan can't come back to make a refutation.

A recent development is the celebration of "Carl Sagan Day", which is celebrated on his birthday, November 7. The first celebration of the event, in 2009, is to be attended by [[James Randi]] and [[Phil Plait]] as guest speakers.<ref>[http://www.carlsaganday.com/]</ref>

==Biography==
Carl Sagan was a leader in the American space program from its earliest stages. He briefed the Apollo astronauts before the Moon missions and played an instrumental role in the planning and operation of the Viking, Voyager, Mariner, and Galileo space probes.<ref>[http://www.carlsagan.com/]</ref> He was also a prolific author and popularizer of science, creating the 13-part TV series [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_(TV_series) Cosmos] (the most widely watched PBS program in the world), appearing on late-night television numerous times, and writing "Contact," "Pale Blue Dot," "Billions and Billions," and many other books. He married three times, the third time to Ann Druyan, his occasional co-author. He died in 1996 at the age of 62 after a prolonged battle with cancer, survived by Druyan and five children.

==Cannabis use==
Carl Sagan was a huge advocate of the [[marijuana|sticky herb]],<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm]</ref> crediting it with inspiring many of his best works, in addition to improving food, sex, and music. Oddly enough, Conservapedia's cheap [http://www.conservapedia.com/Carl_sagan hit piece] makes no mention of this.

== Apple Computer ==

In the 1990s, Apple Computer named its internal projects after famous astronomers, Copernicus, Sagan, and so on. These code names appeared from time to time in the trade press.

In 1994, when Carl Sagan discovered his name was used by Apple on the model that would become the 7100, he sued, claiming defamation and wrongful use of his name for commercial purposes. The judge, reasonably, dismissed the suit, stating that Apple had honored him in selecting his name, and since these were not the actual product names, nor released to the general public.

In the meantime, Apple renamed the project BHA. Sagan sued Apple again (and lost), this time for libel. It turns out BHA stood for 'butt-head astronomer'.<ref name="BHA">[http://www.crystalinks.com/sagan.html Sagan sues Apple over name] "BHA"</ref>

==Quotes==
* "For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
* "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
* "Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out."
* "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at [[Fun:Bozo the Clown|Bozo the Clown]]."
*"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."
*"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere"

Perhaps his most famous and enduring quote is
*"[[Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]]".

<center>{{#ev:youtube|p86BPM1GV8M}} </center>

*"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves we will one day venture to the stars"

<center>{{#ev:youtube|zSgiXGELjbc}} </center>

==Bibliography==
* ''Planets'' (LIFE Science Library), Sagan, Carl, Jonathon Norton Leonard and editors of Life, Time, Inc., 1966
* ''Intelligent Life in the Universe'', I.S. Shklovskii coauthor, Random House, 1966, 509 pgs
* ''UFO's: A Scientific Debate'', Thornton Page coauthor, Cornell University Press, 1972, 310 pgs
* ''Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence''. MIT Press, 1973, 428 pgs
* ''Mars and the Mind of Man'', Sagan, Carl, et al., Harper & Row, 1973, 143 pgs
* ''Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective'', Jerome Agel coauthor, Anchor Press, 1973, ISBN 0-521-78303-8, 301 pgs
* ''Other Worlds''. Bantam Books, 1975
* ''Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record'', Sagan, Carl, et al., Random House, ISBN 0-394-41047-5, 1978
* ''The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence''. Ballantine Books, 1978, ISBN 0-345-34629-7, 288 pgs
* ''Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science''. Ballantine Books, 1979, ISBN 0-345-33689-5, 416 pgs
* ''Cosmos''. Random house, 1980. Random House New Edition, May 7, 2002 ISBN 0-375-50832-5, 384 pgs
* ''The Nuclear Winter: The World After Nuclear War'', Sagan, Carl et al., Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985
* ''Comet'', Ann Druyan coauthor, Ballantine Books, 1985, ISBN 0-345-41222-2, 496 pgs
* ''Contact''. Simon and Schuster, 1985; Reissued August 1997 by Doubleday Books, ISBN 1-56865-424-3, 352 pgs
* ''The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God'', Ann Druyan editor, 1985 Gifford lectures, Penguin Press, 2006, ISBN 1-59420-107-2, 304 pgs
* ''A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race'', Richard Turco coauthor, Random House, 1990, ISBN 0-394-58307-8, 499 pgs
* ''Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are'', Ann Druyan Coauthor, Ballantine Books, October 1993, ISBN 0-345-38472-5, 528 pgs
* ''Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space''. Random House, November 1994, ISBN 0-679-43841-6, 429 pgs
* ''The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark''. Ballantine Books, March 1996, ISBN 0-345-40946-9, 480 pgs (note: the book was first published and copyrighted in 1995 with an errata slip inserted)
* ''Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium'', Ann Druyan coauthor, Ballantine Books, June 1997, ISBN 0-345-37918-7, 320 pgs
* ''The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God'', Carl Sagan (writer) & Ann Druyan (editor), Penguin Press HC, November 2006, ISBN 1594201072, 304 pgs

Environmentalist

2010-05-09T03:37:11Z

Shena:

{{Cquote|The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.|30|30|Carl Sagan}}
'''Environmentalism''' is the philosophy that the [[Earth]] is like a ship far out in the middle of the ocean, and if there's a fire we should make an effort to put it out on the grounds that ''we have no where else to go!'' Environmentalists are often called ''Greens''. They are fundamentally opposed by the ''Grays'' who believe the Earth is like a front yard in the middle of New Hampshire where we can just let the grass grow up to hide/shade the sleeping dogs and leave a bunch of parted out cars laying around leaking oil and tranny fluid, and any effort spent trying to raise the planet's "curb appeal" is [[socialism]] and reminds them of when their mothers told them to clean up their rooms. Besides, Jesus is coming any minute now to clean it all up for us anyway.

==Real environmentalism versus environmental woo==
Environmentalism is a necessary response to a negative impact of human activities on nature, but it has often been a realm in which much [[pseudoscience]] and [[woo]] has flourished unchecked. [[Science]]-based environmentalism, based on study of [[biology]] and [[ecology]] and the formulation of appropriate and effective public policy to curb and mitigate human impacts on same, can be contrasted with such woo as:

* [[Gaian Theory]], in which the planet itself is seen as a self-correcting living organism.
* A related notion, popularized in the 1970s by writers like Barry Commoner, is that ecosystems if left alone will seek a natural stasis, but while no serious scientist believes this today (ecosystems are always changing and evolving, sometimes catastrophically), the idea persists among some environmentalists.
* [[Hard green]] extremists who see humanity or industrial civilization itself as the problem, and want to radically depopulate the planet and go back to an imagined idyllic "state of nature"
* [[Greenwashing]], advertising tactics aimed at convincing consumers that if you buy this magical biodegradable plastic or specially formulated gasoline you are helping to "save the planet"; [[Clean coal]] is another example of greenwashing
* [[Doomsday scenario]]s, taking legitimate concern over things like [[overpopulation]] and [[peak oil]] to an unrealistic extreme, and making prophecies which are either premature or unnecessarily alarmist
* [[New Age]] ideas like [[earth changes]], or that returning to "earth"-based religions like [[neopagan]]ism is necessary to save the planet
* Other woo sold to consumers claiming they can conserve energy with it, such as [[automotive woo]] making unfounded claims to improve fuel efficiency
* "Earth woo" in general is popular, using symbolism to convey a sense of environmental consciousness. If something has the words "earth", "green", or "planet", or an image of the planet as viewed from space, it is assumed to be environmentally friendly or part of "green" culture. Uses range from corporate greenwashing to popular books like the ''Whole Earth Catalog''.

Unfortunately, much of the woo has flourished within popular culture even as serious, science-based environmentalism has also flourished. Sorting out the difference can sometimes be a snipe hunt.

==Disputed issues==
* Whether or not [[organic food]] is beneficial to the environment or just woo is debated. The answer depends on whether one considers reducing the amount of pesticides entering the food chain more important when the trade-off is increasing the amount of land required to grow the same food (up to 40% more), encroaching on open space and wild areas.
* [[Vegetarian]] and [[vegan]] diets are touted by some as more environmentally friendly. This is a fairly complex issue and the amount of methane that cows fart out each year is brought up quite often with it.
* The "paper or plastic" question and the "incandescent or fluorescent light" question could likewise be defended either way, depending on which environmental issue has the higher priority (saving trees versus saving the ocean; curbing global warming versus keeping mercury out of the food chain).
* Whether to embrace or condemn [[nuclear energy]] continues to be a hotly disputed topic, even the actual experts can't really agree on it.

==Denialism==
[[Denialism]] is a different sort of environmental woo, pretending environmental issues don't exist in the hope they will go away.

Creation science

2010-05-09T03:37:07Z

Shena:

'''Creation "science"''' is an attempt to pretend that it is possible to give a scientific description for the Genesis [[Creation Week|creation myth]], in the mistaken idea that [[faith]] in these concepts is somehow not enough for a believer. The major problem faced by those who promote the idea of creation "science" is that creation, relying as it does on supernaturalism, is completely non-scientific. [[Science]], while having many definitions and nuances, is fundamentally the application of the [[scientific method]] to arrive at a [[theory]] that explains what we observe. "Creation science" in this context is an [[oxymoron]].

== Falsifiability==

One of the pillars of the [[Scientific method|scientific method]] and hence of [[scientific theory|scientific theories]], is that they be [[falsifiability|falsifiable]], i.e. there has to be some potential observation that would show the theory to be wrong.

Creation science falls at this hurdle, as there is no known way to falsify a creation event. For example, on the evolution side of the argument, a cat giving birth to a dog is an event that would [[Disproving Evolution|falsify evolution]] and render our current understanding of it almost worthless. (Funnily enough, this is the very type of event that a number of [[creationist]]s claim would get them to believe in [[evolution]], which is just a further sign of how little they understand the subject of evolution and falsifiability).

There exists, however, no corresponding idea for creation science - unless they impose [[Essay:Complexity limits an Omnipotent Deity|limits]] on their chosen creator, which they are naturally rather loath to do. For a creator can choose to create whatever they will, in whatever manner they will, so any possible scenario could be "explained" by a creation event. In being able to answer every question, creation science in effect answers none of them. Floating axe heads, burning bushes, talking snakes, etc. are all capable of being explained by a supernatural creator, so what is left to falsify the idea? Nothing, and so the science has to be removed from the '''creation science''' title.

So in the falsifiability arena, the question that the supporters of creation science need to answer — and have comprehensively failed to answer — is what possible event would falsify their position?

==Baraminology==

According to [[Young Earth Creationism]] the earth and all animals were created during [[Creation Week]]. The animals were created in non-evolving kinds the study of which is called [[Baraminology]]. In an effort to further their cause, [[YEC]]s have built a [[Creation Museum]].

==Geology, and other things that aren't in the Bible==

As the [[global flood]] of [[Guide to Genesis|Genesis]] is also believed to be true, a separate element of creation "science" deals with [[flood geology]].

Creation science acknowledges some decidedly non-Biblical aspects of prehistory which have been proven during the modern period by [[geology|geological]], [[archaeology|archaeological]] and [[paleontology|paleontological]] evidence, such as ice ages and the existence of [[dinosaur]]s. In creationist chronologies, these are fitted incongruously around the events described in Genesis.

==Creation Scientist==
To a young earth creationist, a creation "scientist" is any degree-holding person who—no matter in what field, discipline or even whether they do any research, experimentation or propose any hypotheses—believes the [[Genesis]] account to be the literal truth. Many of the world's foremost pioneers in scientific fields such as [[Sir Isaac Newton]] and [[Johannes Kepler]] are considered creation scientists because they did not believe in [[evolution]] or the Big Bang Theory and held to the ruling paradigm of the time—which was creation. This ignores the fact that these scientists had none of the knowledge we have today regarding modern science leading one to wonder if they would have been creationists if they were alive today. [[Philip J. Rayment|One such creationist]], when presented with this argument, wondered whether [[Charles Darwin]] would have been an evolutionist if presented with modern "creation science."{{fact}}

==Alternatives==

As it has proved impossible for them to get creationism taught in public schools in the US, the [[Discovery Institute]] came up with another pseudoscience — [[Intelligent Design]].

Scientist

2010-05-09T03:37:03Z

Shena:

A '''scientist''' is someone who practices [[science]].

== Scope of term ==

Depending on the context, the term "scientist" might refer to anyone using the [[scientific method]] or anyone with a qualification in a field of science.
In most cases, both will be true, but in other cases only one or the other may be true.

== Origin of term ==

The invention of the word ''scientist'' is often credited to [[William Whewell]] (1794-1866), who was himself a scientist as well as a moral [[philosopher]] and [[Anglican]] priest. In 1858, he wrote:

:As we cannot use ''physician'' for a cultivator of physics, I have referred to him as a ''Physicist.''
:We need very much[sic] a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a ''Scientist.'' Thus we might say that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.<ref>Whewell, William (1858), ''Novum Organon Renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences,'' J. W. Parker and Son, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22881657&id=xYMKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA14-PA338&lpg=RA14-PA338&dq=%22william+whewell%22+scientist p. 338]</ref>

Prior to this, scientists were usually called "natural philosophers" or "natural historians." (The oldest scientific journal in the world, established in 1665, is entitled ''Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.'' Among its early numbers are letters from Leeuwenhoek describing his discovery of [[microorganism]]s).

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Young Earth Creationism

2010-05-09T03:36:47Z

Shena:

'''Young Earth creationism''' (abbreviated to '''YEC''') is the belief that our planet and universe were [[creationism|created]], from nothing, in six days<noinclude> (usually defined as six consecutive days consisting of twenty-four hours each)</noinclude>, approximately 6,000 years ago, by the God of the Abrahamic religions ([[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]]). Adherents of young Earth creationism are known as "young Earth creationists", or simply YECs.

This belief derives from a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] interpretation of a conflation of the two [[Creation Week|creation stories]] in the [[The Bible|Biblical]] book of [[Genesis]].<ref>[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477 Genesis ''King James Bible version'']</ref>
This means young Earth creationists believe the six days described in Genesis were standard 24-hour days and consequently they reject [[Evidence against a recent creation|all scientific evidence]] demonstrating the earth is older than this and the various attempts to reconcile genesis with science, such as Day-Age theory.

A [[fundamentalism|firm]] belief in the biblical [[Global flood|worldwide flood]] and the story of [[Noah's Ark|Noah]] is also a cornerstone of young Earth creationism. The flood is used by proponents of YEC to explain almost all observations that scientists have interpreted as pointing to a significantly older Earth.

Creationists who believe in an older earth are called [[Old Earth Creationism|old earth creationists]]. This is marginally less in conflict with science.

==Date of creation according to young earth creationists==

Although the book of [[Genesis]] does not mention any specific creation date, the 4004 BCE date of creation upheld by young Earth creationists was calculated by the Anglican Archbishop [[James Ussher]]<ref>[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html James Ussher's Date of the Creation ''Ohio Sate University'']</ref> in 1658 and John Lightfoot in 1644<ref>[http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm Bishop Ussher Dates the World: 4004 BC ''Lock Haven University'']</ref>. He meticulously traced the biblical lineages (including [[Noah's Ark|Noah]]'s supposed 900 years) back to this year, and compared Middle Eastern, biblical and Mediterranean sources to come up with the surprisingly exact date of October 23, 4004 [[BCE]] at 9 in the morning.

This figure would put the age of the Earth several orders of magnitude less than the scientifically agreed figure. To put this in perspective, those with the YEC worldview believe the world was created after the domestication of the dog (and possibly the [[goat]]), after the first stones were laid at [[Stonehenge]] and after people settled in [[Scotland]], although Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scotland&diff=397011&oldid=397010 Scotland article] has another statement about the inhabitation of the Northern part of the British Isles. [[Evidence against a recent creation]] is quite simply overwhelming.

==Conflict with science==

The concept of the Earth being instantaneously formed only 6000 years ago obviously flies in the face of many fields of modern science. A full list can be found on[[Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism|here]] but most notably these sciences are [[biology]] (The [[theory of evolution]] and [[Conservapedia:dinosaur|paleontology]]), [[astronomy]] ([[starlight problem]]), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics), [[archaeology]] (historic development of ancient civilizations) and physics ([[Radiometric dating]]). Not surprisingly, YEC also contradicts the [[creation myths]] of other religions and is in conflict with more evolved forms of Christianity.

These scientific fields are backed by centuries of research by the [[scientific method]], are [[falsifiable]] and have accumulated vast quantities of supportive evidence.

Young Earth creationists often reject scientific theories and discoveries that go against their ideas - but rather than presenting evidence for a young Earth, they resort to attacking modern science. Since their ideas are based on [[faith]] rather than [[evidence]], they are not [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]].

Popular methods of discrediting modern science include:

* '''[[Quote mining]]:'''
::Which is the practice of removing quotes from their context to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the [[argument from authority]].
* '''Politicization:'''
::Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because most scientists are [[liberal]]s or moderates. This is, of course, untrue.
* '''Exaggerating the limits of a scientific [[theory]]:'''
::Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory" — albeit one utterly unsupported by any [[evidence]]. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a [[scientific theory]] actually is.
* '''Pointing out science has been wrong before:'''
::This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, staying the exact same distance from reality at all times.
* '''Exploiting the existence of [[Uniformitarianism|non-uniformitarian]] views:'''
::This can be wide reaching, from the [[speed of light]] changing over time to support the apparent age of the [[universe]] to bizarre [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] and suggestions that help support a [[global flood]] event.
* '''Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:'''
::As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories. The inaccuracies or dramatisations of these theories which slip into popular culture (such as [[natural selection]] being termed "survival of the fittest") are easily exploitable. As is saying that intelligent design is right because it sort of happens in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
* '''Invoking divine intervention:'''
::This technique solves many problems, like the [[starlight problem]] and explaining why [[incest]] was not an issue for [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]'s offspring as well as for those aboard [[Noah's Ark]]. From a [[materialism|materialistic]] view, these are unsatisfying answers. Often this is abbreviated to "[[goddidit]]".
*'''Referring to obsolete sources:'''
::Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, Creationists will often cite [[Charles Darwin]]'s original Origin of Species and point out issues which were badly understood at the time. As all of science is a "work in progress" the specific details of the the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time and continue to be improved.
* '''[[Creation science|Creationist "scientists"]] writing outside of their field:'''
::For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology. In science, this is of course perfectly acceptable but it does not by default give them authority over someone who has proved themselves as a specialist in an area. This is possibly most apparent in the published list of scientists who disagree with evolution, where only a small handful are qualified biologists.
* '''Referring to "[[Global flood|the flood]]" for everything:'''
::Similar to divine intervention, the Flood is often cited to explain the presence of [[fossil]]s, sedimentary layers, [[The Grand Canyon]] and to explain why [[radiometric dating]] would be flawed. However, this [[Begging the question|presumes]] a flood occurred and that it would adequately explain these features of the earth, which it wouldn't do well even if it was feasible to have occurred. See [[Petrified forest]].

Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a [[pseudoscience]], putting it on par with [[astrology]].

==Young earth creationism around the world==
Young earth creationism is directly correlated with a rejection of the theory of evolution, a 2006 poll<ref>U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution ''Live Science, 10 August 2006 '' [http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html]</ref> among adults in developed nations showed that at only 40% of adult Americans accept evolution, only [[Turkey]] has a lower acceptance rate (25%), while acceptance in [[Japan]] and [[Europe]] is typically higher than 60%.

Factors such as the level of devotion to a religion, as well as politics, and most importantly the education system of a nation, determine the percentage of young Earth creationists in a nation. This explains the high percentages of YECs in [[Muslim]] countries and the [[United States]] as both regions have a significant fundamentalist population.

Although it has little or no political traction, creationism exists in the UK. An article in The Guardian in September 2008 put the number of people believing in YEC ideas at 10% of the population.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism 10% of UK population creationists]</ref>

==The "To Test our Faith" school==
One branch of YEC has God deliberately creating paradoxes such as [[dinosaur]]s, strata in the Grand Canyon, etc. in order "to test our (the True Christian Believers) [[faith]]". Then, God sends them to hell! They maintain that a mischievous God, who could/can do anything, simply created an Earth that ''appeared'' to be billions of years old, with million-year old bones and the like already in place.<ref>''Autobiography of a Carp, Chapter 12: I learn about Creation'', unpublished manuscript, n/d, Dixon NM, USA'''</ref> However, the idea is completely untestable and is in fact very old; a similar hypothesis was proposed by the Calvinist and naturalist Philip Henry Gosse in his 1857 book ''Omphalos'', and it also resembles [[Last Thursdayism]], or the idea that we're living in a computer simulation. If this is the case that the Creator is testing people's faith, it is clear that it is a willfully ''deceitful'' Creator - and the concept of such a god being a benevolent one can be thrown out.

This concept conjures up the image of God burying dinosaur skeletons while saying, "That'll fool the bastards!"

==Opinions==
{{cquote|Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myths, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.|30|30|[[Richard Dawkins]]}}

{{cquote|If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.|30|30|Judith Hayes}}

{{cquote|Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.|30|30|Ashley Montague}}

Theory of relativity

2010-05-09T03:35:02Z

Shena:

he '''theory of relativity''', or simply '''relativity''', encompasses two theories of [[Albert Einstein]]: [[special relativity]] and [[general relativity]]. However, the word "relativity" is sometimes used in reference to [[Galilean invariance]].

The term "theory of relativity" was coined by [[Max Planck]] in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the [[principle of relativity]].

== Special relativity ==
{{main|Special relativity}}
[[File:Albert Einstein 1979 USSR Stamp.jpg|thumb|250px|USSR stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein]]
Special relativity is a theory of the structure of [[spacetime]]. It was introduced in [[Albert Einstein]]'s 1905 paper "[[Annus Mirabilis Papers#Special relativity|On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies]]" (for the contributions of many other physicists see [[History of special relativity]]). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in [[classical mechanics]]:
# The laws of [[physics]] are the same for all observers in [[inertial frame of reference|uniform motion]] relative to one another ([[principle of relativity]]),
# The [[speed of light]] in a [[vacuum]] is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the [[light]].

The resultant theory agrees with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:
* [[Relativity of simultaneity]]: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
* [[Time dilation]]: Moving [[clock]]s are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
* [[Length contraction]]: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
* [[Mass-energy equivalence]]: <math>E=mc^2</math>, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the [[Galilean transformation]]s of classical mechanics by the [[Lorentz transformation]]s. (See [[Maxwell's equations]] of [[electromagnetism]] and [[introduction to special relativity]]).

== General relativity ==
{{main|General relativity}}
General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the years 1907–1915.
The development of general relativity began with the [[equivalence principle]], under which the states of [[acceleration|accelerated motion]] and being at rest in a [[gravity|gravitational field]] (for example when standing on the surface of the Earth) are physically identical. The upshot of this is that [[free fall]] is [[inertia|inertial motion]]; an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no [[force]] being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of [[gravity]] as is the case in [[classical mechanics]]. This is incompatible with classical mechanics and [[special relativity]] because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is [[curvature|curved]]. In 1915, he devised the [[Einstein field equations]] which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.

Some of the consequences of general relativity are:
* Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called [[gravitational time dilation]].
* Orbits [[precession|precess]] in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] and in [[binary pulsar]]s).
* Rays of [[light]] [[General relativity#Light deflection and gravitational time delay|bend in the presence of a gravitational field]].
* [[Frame-dragging]], in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.
* [[Metric expansion of space|The Universe is expanding]], and the far parts of it are moving away from us [[Faster-than-light#Universal expansion|faster than the speed of light]].

Technically, general relativity is a [[metric (mathematics)|metric]] theory of [[gravitation]] whose defining feature is its use of the [[Einstein field equations]]. The solutions of the field equations are [[metric tensor (general relativity)|metric tensors]] which define the [[topology]] of the spacetime and how objects move inertially.

Anyone who disputes such a well-tested theory on religious bounds is a blithering moron.