-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Celebratory Spanish Dinner | Shocked From The Beyond Next »
No Original Research
» See all 41 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Peanut Gallery
bladiumsupreme on Why Would You Lie to Me, … Apilem on Demi-Gods Make Mistakes T… Ikweer on Hopefully He’s Not Just… Mr. Brock Peters on Demi-Gods Make Mistakes T… Dan on Like an Asian
More MEMEBASE
Memebase - All Your Memes Are In Our Base
Almost Politically Correct Redneck
This Is Photobomb - Surprise! Ruined Photos
Sneakin Behind Yo Girls
Very Demotivational - Work Harder, Not Smarter.
BASKETBALL
GraphJam - Music & Culture for People Who Love Charts
When Did the Batteries Die?
Señor Gif - Funny Animated GIFs
Hey Punk, Over Here
Picture Is Unrelated - Funny WTF Pictures
If You Insist
Derp - All the Derp Durr Hurr that's fit to Derp
Not teh Urrrrmpit
Art of Trolling - Trolls on Chatroulette and Yahoo! Answers
One Does Not Simply Ignore a LOTR Reference
Go Cry Emo Kid - Go Cry Emo Kids
Darn Youngsters and Their Confusing Questions
Superheroes - Superheroes
And Be Gentle
Rage Comics - Express Your Rage
The Joys of Working in Retail
Pokémemes - I choose you!
Away With You, Foul Serpent!
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
First of the losers.
Funny Comixed
No, that would be fou f**kface.
fou’re Face is Fucked just look at fou picture
I’ll admit, the retard at least sticks around to get bashed, I’ll respect him for that
Don’t mistake me for you.
You, sir, are a wordsmith.
Argh, what an idiot. I hate those who write this kind of comments.
Heh, this one was a good one. Wikipedia is really bad with that.
Agreed. Wikipedia could by definition never be more than a propaganda machine of a few. Because of the single fact that there is one set of people which are “more equal than the others” (and because they are not you).
People disagree. Unless you logically connect those views to the most basic paradigms (like quantum physics and relativity theory), nobody can prove shìt to be true. Hence every truly educated person knows that in practice there is no such thing as an absolute truth! That is perhaps the only one global truth possible to prove.
So get over it and accept it, cause it won’t go away.
But on Wikipedia, they use “citations” as a trick, to lie to you and act as if it were an “actual fact”. Giving something more value, because someone “respected” says it ,is a well-known logical fallacy called “(argumentum) ad populum” ((appeal) to the people). (On which Wikipedia has a big article too.) Except that in reality, it’s even worse to say “This dude told me that…X” as to say “I say that… X”. But that exact “original research” is soomehow “forbidden” on Wikipedia. I guess because Wikinazi admins could neither grasp nor blindly delete something made from hard and proper logic, and hence not freely twist it their way.
Wikipedia and Conservapedia actually have pretty much the same behavior. Just a different spin. But they both sell it as “teh one global trut0rz!!!1!1one”.
The funniest thing I noticed, is that I often trust Encyclopedia Dramatica more than any of the above. At least with ED, I they don’t try to conceal that it’s nothing more than their very own p.o.v. that they write down. They just speak it out without barriers. Like a drunk person.
It’s just way more honest. And the better you know someone’s position, the better you can tune your distortion correction filter. The more useful something becomes.
Yea yea yadda yadda yadda keep whining cause you tried to push pov and they kicked your sorry ass.
+1
Fou should get out of your moms basement.
1) It is “you” not “fou”. “fou” is french for mad.
2) You got telepathy or hacked my pc or how do you claim to know where i’m living?
1) My god, you are a dumb shit
2) It’s obvious
1) same to you ****head.
2) no it is not it is a lie but if it wre true i wouldn’t be ashamed to admit it, moron.
Man, i read the whole discussion and, believe, you are the fucktard here, not others
Lol…
I agree with you right above me ^ ^
Lol dumbass xD
Hey bignose, chill out before you start nosebleeding.
But what are your thoughts on Yaoi?
My sentiments exactly. I was reading the article for the Radium Girls, and it talks about how that case basically established the right for employees to sue their employers for lax safety standards. Later in the article there was a line that said this improved workplace safety and it had a a [citation needed] after it, and I thought “Isn’t that basically common knowledge? F this, I’m pulling out the big guns — I’m going to make a Comixed.” And so here we are.
tl;dr
Fail.
I’ll begin with this: Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. Original research goes in the peer-reviewed literature.
You seem to be accusing Wikipedia of an appeal to authority, which is only a problem when the authority is not qualified to speak on the subject. Proper citation is perfectly acceptable.
You then go on to call quantum mechanics and relativity basic paradigms, which is odd since they are, themselves, scientific theories. That you mention them side-by-side as the first step in any proof is confusing, since the two are inconsistent, and moreso since scientific theories are unprovable.
Your claim that there is, in practice, no absolute truth is correct, at least as far as science is concerned. Science does not prove anything. No scientific theory is ever proven, no matter how many observations support it. It cannot be proven that the Earth orbits the sun, nor atomic nuclei carry a positive charge, nor that humans evolved from ancestral apes. No educated person would deny any of these claims given the evidence currently available, but they would be wrong to claim they had been proven.
Giving something more value because someone respected said it is not an argumentum ad populum: it’s a potential appeal to authority. Appealing to a knowledgeable authority is allowable, particularly when that knowledgeable authority is writing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal and has evidence to back them up.
It is quite funny that you trust Encyclopedia Dramatica more than Wikipedia. Of course, you’re always guaranteed to get the best information when there are no measures in place to attempt to ensure the accuracy of that information.
Wikipedia may be flawed, but not for the reasons you think. You need to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
TL;DR
If it’s too long for you to read, why the hell did you bother to comment?
*raises eyebrow*
its a fanboy wikia with alot about pronstar and fitional charas.
Lol, Copernicus did it.
Just the other day some girl said octopuses don’t live in the jungle. I was like, duh? But neither of us could find such a citation.
I have, as of yet, been unable to find a citation that proves Wikipedia exists.
You sir, just made my day.
What? What do you expect me to say when you spout “It’s the law of the jungle” in reference to Paul being eaten by soccer players?
Oh, I agree with you now. I know you are speaking the truth. I’m just saying that I did not find anywhere that cited specifically that octopuses did not live in the jungle. But it is a given that they live in the sea and the sea is not in the jungle.
This is brilliant.
This is Galileo? Lol… Nicolas Copernicus find that Earth orbit Sun, not Galileo!
You’re right. Galileo should have said that he empirically proved that the Earth orbits the Sun, which is what he did.
Akshully, if you accept Einsteinian relativity, it is no more accurate to say that the Earth orbits the Sun than the converse. Even if the heliocentric model is simpler and explainable by modern physics, esp. gravitational, theory, that alone does not disprove the medieval description of a geocentric universe with bodies orbiting Earth in epicycles — if a plausible theory explaining epicycles were published, heliocentrism would have some ‘splainin’ to do.
However, if you made a geocentric model you would have a hard time drawing the orbits of the other planets around Earth. The orbits of the outer planets would change direction every time the Earth passed them in its orbit.
It would be no more accurate to say that the Earth orbits the Sun than the converse if the Earth had anywhere near the mass of the Sun.
What general relativity tells us is that orbits (which do happen) are caused by the curvature of spacetime by the presence of matter and energy, rather than a force as Newton had claimed.
If a plausible theory explaining epicycles were published, heliocentrism would merely have to show that it doesn’t happen in our solar system on the scale that is required to fit the orbit of the planets into the geocentric model. Heliocentrism does not rest solely on its explanation of retrograde motion. It can be further shown by the fact that we’ve sent craft into space to map our solar system, and in every case the planets have been exactly where we’d expect in a heliocentric model, and in every case the pictures we’ve received back agree with the heliocentric model.
Um…anyway, great comic.
Way above average.
I wish I could add citation needed tags to other websites, and maybe also “logical fallacy” tags. There are so many times when I read something that site owner clearly pulled out of their ass, and I’d like to point out those errors to people with no critical thinking skills.
1.- Copernicus created the heliocentric theory
2.- Galileus was well connected with the clergy and was given a chance to prove his theories, he instead chose to ridicule the clergy including his benefactors instead of actually trying to prove his theory.
3.- If you are going to steal other’s people’s work and then be unable to scientifically defend them, you deserve nothing, Galileus was mainly publicized because he was a big name and because he had to face the clergy.
4.- So citation needed.