PDA

View Full Version : Total Rubbish masquerading as information.



williamr
06-21-2007, 06:11 AM
Just noticed Muchacho's sticky on the Wikipedia.

Don't trust this. Much of it is wrong and corrections by real experts are often deleted. Muchacho's quote in the sticky, presumably chosen to demonstrate how good it is, doesn't appear to know the difference between relativity and gravity.

This sticky should be removed.

Rob

muchacho
06-21-2007, 06:50 AM
The difinition of Theory is accurate in that article. I do not care about it's errors on Galilean Transformations and Galilean Relativity.

I could just post a quote from any dictionary on what the two meanings of theory are.

Rob in Denver
06-21-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't believe there are posts like this on a Harley Davidson forum.

williamr
06-21-2007, 01:37 PM
It's basically correct on the definition of theory, although a theory doesn't have to be proveable by experiement, althouigh the word 'hypothesis' is more commonly used in this circumstance. The point I'm making is that the excerpt contains significant errors of fact and thus can't be trusted. This is true for the whole Wikipedia.

To say that you don't care about its errors is to say that you're happy to peddle inaccurate information. That is not good for this forum or for your own credibility.

Wikipedia was a good idea ruined by a total lack of editorial control and the fact that any one can edit or delete anyone elses posts. There is no peer review, which renders it academically worthless.

Rob from Denver- I can't comment on Harley owners, although I do know one who re-upholstered his seat in ordinary leather and still can't figure why his balls get wet every time he sits on it in the rain.

Rob

Valimagdon
06-21-2007, 07:32 PM
Wiki is a very successful experiment where I have found tons of accurate and precise information and an amazing range of topics. It may have had it's rough spots, but now with better editing and editing control, its a real gem. There IS peer review, in fact there are forums available for every article allowing Wiki users to debate about changes and the structure of the article. Noone is allowed to just delete an article by themselves anymore,(it requires a slew of people) and any major changes to any article have to be discussed in the article's forum first.
Wiki has never let me down and is an excellent resource.

muchacho
06-21-2007, 07:59 PM
It's basically correct on the definition of theory... The point I'm making is that the excerpt contains significant errors of fact and thus can't be trusted.

I was only going on the definition of Theory. If you are astute, you will notice I only quoted that portion of the article. The "exerpt" that you quote, is that my quote or are you referring to the whole article?


To say that you don't care about its errors is to say that you're happy to peddle inaccurate information. That is not good for this forum or for your own credibility.

I think that for my own credibility, I cannot claim that our information is any better than the information on Wikipedia - if you think carefully about it, it can only be as good as Wikipedia.

So what do you think about citing my definition of Theory from a dictionary instead of Wikipedia? It is for all practical purposes identical.

muchacho
06-21-2007, 08:08 PM
Muchacho's quote in the sticky, presumably chosen to demonstrate how good it is, doesn't appear to know the difference between relativity and gravity.


It [the quote] is basically correct on the definition of theory

The quote is just talking about what theory means. I think only the Wikipedia article goes into an example of relativity and gravity.

Anyhow, I can just post the same definition with reference to a dictionary like Oxford and still illustrate identically the point of the sticky.

The point of the sticky is to make people aware that because we have so many members from countries speaking languages other than english that when we talk about "Theory" in that sticky, we are not talking about theory in the meaning of "conjecture", which can be confused by translation into other languages. When we talk of theory in that sticky, we are talking about it in the sense of "hypothesis", that can be proved and used to predict future behavior.

Finally, the real argument here is:

"Should we fix the reference to the definition or do we delete the sticky all together?"

MisterSprinkles
06-22-2007, 12:31 AM
I read this thread and I see a horse named Muchacho being beaten on by a bunch of very nit-picky bystanders...:o

If you don't understand the 2 meanings of 'theory' then you should be wearing your DOT approved helmet at all times, riding or not, as your head definitely can not stand to take any kind of bump whatsoever.

There's theory like as in hypothesis, like, I theorise that if I add X amount of acid to this water it will drop the pH to Y

then there's theory like the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution. These are not hypothesis but rather working systems of our universe which are generally accepted as true by science. Two different things completely.

The british call the trunk of your car a boot, I wouldn't try walking in it though.

williamr
06-22-2007, 03:41 AM
The argument isn't about the definition of theory. It isn't about whether there's any accurate information on Wkipedia - there obviously is. It's about Whether Wikipedia can be trusted. It can't.

The same is true of this forum. A lot of rubbish is posted by people with little knoweledge, and as even those of who can claim to be knowledgable often disagree nothing on here can be regarded as wholly trustworthy.

Academia doesn't trust Wikipedia. Until it does, neither should anyone else.

Rob

muchacho
06-22-2007, 05:21 AM
Just noticed Muchacho's sticky on the Wikipedia.

Don't trust this. Much of it is wrong and corrections by real experts are often deleted. Muchacho's quote in the sticky, presumably chosen to demonstrate how good it is, doesn't appear to know the difference between relativity and gravity.

This sticky should be removed.

Rob


The argument isn't about the definition of theory. It isn't about whether there's any accurate information on Wkipedia - there obviously is. It's about Whether Wikipedia can be trusted. It can't.



It's basically correct on the definition of theory, although a theory doesn't have to be proveable by experiement, althouigh the word 'hypothesis' is more commonly used in this circumstance. The point I'm making is that the excerpt contains significant errors of fact and thus can't be trusted.

Here is what the posted quote from WIkipedia says:


"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the theory of relativity."

If you want to find an error in the quote it is the following: Most people have been tought that Newton's theory of universal gravitation explains why an apple behaves the way it does when it is dropped. Is this true?

Along comes Einstein and he improves upon Newton's Theory of of universal gravitation. To explain how gravity can behave in this way, Einstein began by demonstrating that it is not necessary to think of gravity as a force. According to Newton's theory, an apple falls to the floor because of the force of gravity pulls the apple down. Einstein pointed out that the apple would appear to behave in exactly the same way in space, far from the Earth's gravity, if the floor were to accelerate upwards. In other words, the floor comes up to meet the apple.

One of the first things Einstein did with his new theory was to calculate the orbits of the planets. Einstein realized that if his theory was correct, it should be able to predict accurately the well-known motions of the planets about the Sun. According to general relativity, space far from the Sun is almost flat and objects thus travel along nearly straight-line paths. Near the Sun, planets and comets travel along curved paths because space itself is curved. Einstein found that where gravity is weak, the general theory of relativity gives exactly the same results as the classical theory of Newton. But in stronger gravity, such as is found very near the Sun's surface, the general theory of relativity predicts that there will be noticeable effects upon space and time, and the Newtonian theory of gravity is no longer accurate.

To conclude, the quote from Wikipedia states that "the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the theory of relativity". Since many people associate this with Newton, they believe that Newton developed a theory that explains the behaviour of apples. However, Newton developed a theory of Gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) is much better than Newton's.

So do you still think that the Wikipedia quote is that bad? If you want to talk about "trusting" the information on Wikipedia why did you bring this up as a way to remove a sticky?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: The information on wikipedia has been updated to read as follows:


In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and General relativity.

williamr
06-22-2007, 05:59 AM
Unfortunately there are holes in relativity (if you'll forgive the pun) at least as big as any in Newtonian physics,
(while gravity probably has an effect on space and time it's still gravity that causes objects to be attracted to each other. This is classical Newtonian physics and not affected by Einstein's additions in the sense that gravity causes the attraction between the apple and the ground. The argument about the Earth rising to meet the apple is a sophistry and gravity would still be the attractant, although perveresly operating on the greater mass, unless the Earth was moved by the application of an externalforce, in which case the argument becomes irrelevant. Remember that both the apple and the Earth have same the starting point, direction and velocity so in any physics the application of a force is required)
but that argument is outside the scope of this. The Wikipedia article is misleading, and poses as being authoritative. It gives the impression that it was written by someone without a clear understanding of the issues.

My argument for removing the sticky is simply that the sticky is pushing as a trusted source of information a source that isn't trusted, and I feel that this is inappropriate for a sticky, as well as inappropriate for this forum.

Rob

muchacho
06-22-2007, 06:10 AM
Well, I don't want make you believe the earth is round or anything but I just want to point out for you


The argument about the Earth rising to meet the apple is a sophistry and gravity would still be the attractant.


Again, it looks like you still remember what you learned in school, congratulations.

Einstein says:
1. Suppose you are far away from earth's gravity (or any source of gravity for that matter)

2. Suppose you are in an elevator.

3. Suppose there is an apple in the elevator.

------------------
If the elevator and an observer accelerates (and the apple does not), it would "appear" to the observer that the apple falls to the ground.

Sophistry? No. That would really happen.

But that is beyond the scope you mentioned.

--------------------------------------------------

As I said earlier, we can only trust the information in our forum as much as the information on Wikipedia but not more.

So, would you like to suggest a better source for the quote? eg. Oxford Dictionary?

extrashot
06-22-2007, 11:32 AM
As I said earlier, we can only trust the information in our forum as much as the information on Wikipedia but not more.


Never trust a junkie...

williamr
06-22-2007, 01:28 PM
:spankie: ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Agreed

Rob

THE MAX
06-22-2007, 02:25 PM
Could this topic been moved to the chit-chat because it has nothing to do with injection-scooters

goldgt
06-24-2007, 09:02 AM
Could this topic been moved to the chit-chat because it has nothing to do with injection-scooters

I second that Max. There has to be a Steven Hawkins forum out there somewhere.:kidding:

.::sTocKSr5O::.
06-24-2007, 03:43 PM
This thread could be considered "Total Rubbish masquerading as information", so I guess it is on topic :rolleyes:

DELETE the whole thing - don't even bother moving it as it would only take up space on the AF1 hard drive :happy:

DonWerner
06-24-2007, 09:43 PM
DELETE the whole thing - don't even bother moving it as it would only take up space on the AF1 hard drive :happy:

I agree - this has got to be one of the weirder threads I've ever read on this forum...