Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C'Tisians

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Evil Dave--you're just being nit-picky and ridiculous, and not in a humorous way. Although if you were trying to be funny it would be, especially since it is zipping past me.

Newton's physics and math are not wrong--they are incomplete; as are _all_ scientific theories and sets of theories. They completely and accurately described all of his observations. He didn't address subatomic particles, near-light speed particles, etc. Incomplete, not incorrect.

Darwin's theories _were_ wrong, but they were only subtly wrong--his basic idea of species changing over time is only contested in religious terms, not scientific.

Etc. etc.

In any case, the wikipedia vs. established encyclopedia argument--nothing new here. We've both stated our cases, and as I noted: yours is well informed, and I respect your interpretation. I just do not share it. I have stated my own position a couple of times, so I will not repeat it.

I don't like you. I don't like your attitude. I don't like the way you try to win arguments instead of using argument to either persuade or uncover truth. However, you have a valid point that wikipedia articles should not be read naively. You yourself read them the way I advise people to read them--you check the citations, take everything with a grain of salt, and make your own conclusions.

I don't like you, but you are smart, and I respect you.

See you around.

[Valandil]

Having read much of the EB, as well as using wikipedia regularily, i wish to note, in no particular order, a few issues the spring up here.

The whole history of classical argument and debate has borne out one fact: debate is not about truth, it is about the winning of arguments. However, if a claim is valid (it is 'true'), argument will bear this out. In this sense, Dave's metheod of argument is somewhat valid, even if it wouldn't work too well in court.

It is likely that everything we humans ever think or achieve will be wrong, excpet the caliph's wisdom: This too shall pass. That does not however mean that we should dismiss all knowledge, nor ignore Locke in favour of Socrates. Empiricism is valid, insomuch as we get closer to some truth, though we never attain it. Accordingly, to dismiss knowledge that is as yet unproven or disproven seems to me counterproductive. I wouldn't want to have valid science disregarded for such a reason. On the other hand, when making a judgement on the unknown, social and chonological factors must be considered: bias, inaccuracy of instuments, etc. This does not govern the decision, but it must be weighed.

The historical examples you cite, to defend your position or attack another's, just a tiny speck of science. How can someone quote four historic scientific failures and say "this backs up my point", without considering the forty thousand successes, or the forty thousand more failures that we produce now? The reverse applies as well. This is epistomologically void.

By the way, Evil Dave, popular magazines are more likely to have web sites than scholarly journals.

For fun, I referance Alan Sokal, Social Text, "Transgressing the Boundaries..."
Scholarly journal, PhD, no accuracy.
I also referance Encyclopedia Britannica, Scotland: "The country has no parliament..."
And for good measure, wikipedia: "Sheena, queen of the jungle, is a monarch living in borneo...".

If the history of mankind is wrought in errors, perhaps most surprising is that we know anything.

"Gladely wolde he lerne, and gladely teche..."
"Cogito ergo sum"
"Je ne sais rien que je ne sais pas"

[Evil Dave]

Thank you, O Great Master, that was very deep. But I still have one question: have you ever dreamt you were a butterfly?

[Valandil]

On behalf of all butterflies in the world, I'm hereby filing for defamation and emotional damages.

I still have one question as well, grasshopper. When the tiger eats the lotus blossom, does the maker cry?

//end vaguely ironic and pathetically unhumorous humour//

[HoneyBadger]

Congratulations, Uh-nu-buh, on your collaboration with Frank Miller. He's becoming something of the guiding light of our time, atleast as far as movies-and Dom3 mods-go.

As far as "archaeology and speculation from 70 years ago" being regarded as junk-I don't regard it as junk. Like Uh-nu-bu said, it may be incomplete, or as I say, old views may become interpreted by new information, but the most reasonable theory is right until proven wrong by way of reason. Age doesn't make a fact wrong, any more than distance makes the moon into green cheese. My grandparents lived past 70 and I don't regard them as junk.

I don't regard Uh-nu-buh as junk, or a dick, even though he's atleast a few hours old, and might be as old as 70.

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Evil Dave et al: Merry Christmas!

It's been fun, and I feel like I have learned something. I should make a South Parkian "I learned something tonight about life" statement, but I think I will leave well enough alone!

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Valandil said:
.
.
.
I also referance Encyclopedia Britannica, Scotland: "The country has no parliament..."
And for good measure, wikipedia: "Sheena, queen of the jungle, is a monarch living in borneo...".
.
.
.

I wanted to say something like "I already knew that about Sheena, but I had no idea that Scotland had no parliament" but I was afraid someone would (at this point) take me seriously.

[HoneyBadger]

By the way, the 300 looks like it's going to be a GREAT movie! Coincidentally, my wife had the idea to base a movie on the 300 Spartans about the time Alexander came out. Great minds think alike.

What have we all learned today? I learned that events in the past should remain in the past until they get uppity at which time you should beat them down and piss on them, because they're old, and old is stupid and irrelevant and communist/the work of terrorists.

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Yeah!

Double Yeah!