Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== Theory of Relativity ==
Um… has anyone actually ''read'' some of the old versions of [[Theory of Relativity]], particularly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 this version]? Wikipedia citing this is not an example of liberal bias, but a simple indication of the absurdity of this entry, some of the problems with which are listed below:
# The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.
# It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.
# Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the construction of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.
# "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?
# "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?
The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)