Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

August 9, 2010

Conservative “Physics”

Conservapedia is the brainchild of Andy Schlafly (son of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly). It’s supposed to serve as a conservative counterweight to the notoriously liberal Wikipedia. Since, as Stephen Colbert noted, reality has a well-known liberal bias, this leads to … ahem … certain intellectual difficulties for our reality-challenged friends. Hence this article, entitled “Counterexamples to Relativity” – authored by the aforementioned Mr Schlafly himself:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1] Here is a list of 22 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

The footnote [1] (like all the footnotes) is as hilarious as the body of the article

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.

[hat tip: Talking Points Memo]

Posted by distler at August 9, 2010 5:44 PM

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/2255

19 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Well, at least they didn’t refer to it as “Jewish Physics.”

Yet.

Posted by: Evan on August 10, 2010 10:41 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

That’s a stupid remark. Nowadays, antisemitism in the U.S. is firmly rooted in the left wing of the political spectrum. Does that bother you at all? I didn’t think so…

Posted by: Michael on August 11, 2010 7:24 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Antisemites

Nowadays, antisemitism in the U.S. is firmly rooted in the left wing of the political spectrum.

Yeah, righttotally rooted in the left wing of the political spectrum. Lay off the Jonah Goldberg. Reading that stuff will permanently rot your brain.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 11, 2010 4:14 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Well, you are right that there exists anti-semitism also on the far right fringe of the spectrum. (Although your linking the SPL Center proves but one thing: bias.)

That said, the high profile jew haters are overwhelmingly leftists. How do you like Jimmy Carter running around comparing Israel to the apartheid regime? That’s a former US president not some mediocre litte radio show host like Ann Coulter. Add some US senators like Feinstein and Boxer to the mix and you’ll get the picture.

Posted by: Michael on August 12, 2010 11:00 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

How do you like Jimmy Carter running around comparing Israel to the apartheid regime?

Annexing the West Bank (and/or Gaza), but denying citizenship to the residents thereof would be exactly like the apartheid regime (which also, I will remind you, created formally-independent little enclaves, called Bantustans of which the black population of South Africa were purportedly “citizens”).

Israeli governments — though they annexed Jerusalem after the 1967 war — have been very careful not to formally annex the Palestinian territories.

At what point, however, does (the lack of) de jure annexation become irrelevant when, for most purposes, you have what amounts to de facto annexation?

That is a legitimate question. I may disagree with President Carter as to whether the Israeli government has crossed that line, but I am not so reality-challenged as to deny that there is a legitimate argument to be made that it has.

If you want to call President Carter an antisemite, I can only conclude that this means you have no clue as to what real antisemitism is.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 12, 2010 12:36 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Carter isn’t a “real” antisemite, but the conservative radio show hosts you list are? I hope I don’t have to explain how unconvincing this is.

What I would agree on is that the antisemitism in the US is hardly comparable to that of the Islamo-fascist nations (like Iran), if that’s what you meant by “real”. But we were talking about the US, right?!

When Carter published his atrocious book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” in late 2006, Brandeis University invited him to openly confront and discuss his views. He accepted the invitation, turning down Harvard’s Dershowitz at the same time.

Asked about a sentence in his book that seemed to justify terrorism by saying that suicide bombings should end when Israel accepts the goals of the “road map” to peace with Palestinians, Carter said, “That sentence was worded in a completely improper and stupid way. I’ve written my publishers to change that sentence immediately in future editions of the book. I apologize to you personally and to everyone here.”

He is not only an antisemite but a weasel to.

Posted by: Michael on August 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Carter isn’t a “real” antisemite, but the conservative radio show hosts you list are? I hope I don’t have to explain how unconvincing this is.

Actually, you do.

Shall we start with Patrick Buchanan?

Carter said, “That sentence was worded in a completely improper and stupid way. I’ve written my publishers to change that sentence immediately in future editions of the book. I apologize to you personally and to everyone here.”

He, at least, apologized — unlike, say, Nixon’s (a notorious antisemite, in his own right) former speechwriter (Reagan’s Communications Director, and 3-time runner-up for the Republican nomination for the Presidency).

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 12, 2010 5:01 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Well, unless you define your use of the word “real” in this context (and I tried to find one for you, but you didn’t respond to that) I’ll take it you just don’t have a point.

Carter apologized for *one* sentence that was completely indefensible and exposed his true line of thought. (To be sure, he implied that suicide bombings are a political tool and should continue until Israel bows to the pressure.) Actually, I was there in the audience that night. Before the apology I quoted, he flatly denied that sentence was in his book. Murmuring in the audience caused him to reconsider and apologize instead.

It’s interesting how your examples concern speechwriters, aides, runner-ups and talk show hosts but no politicians of any importance. I named a former US president with clear evidence (in the form of a book and verifiable public quotes) and sitting US senators. I am afraid your smoke screen is too transparent still.

Posted by: Michael on August 13, 2010 2:27 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

I’ll leave it to you to come up with a definition, under which Jimmy Carter is an antisemite but, say, Patrick Buchanan is not. You are, evidently, much cleverer, at such matters, than I could even aspire to.

I already explained my position on the broad sweep of Carter’s argument. Rather than respond to that, you chose to focus on a specific sentence, which paints a more sinister picture, but which he explicitly disavowed … which doesn’t leave you with much of an argument.

Actually, I was there in the audience that night.

I wasn’t. But The Forward (for those who don’t know it, founded in 1897, it used to be a daily newspaper, written in Yiddish; now it’s a weekly, written in English) gave a very different account of the evening. In deference to my grandfather (who swore by the פֿאָרווערטס’s coverage of everything), I’ll give slightly more credence to their account.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 13, 2010 8:16 AM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

You weren’t there and probably didn’t read the book. But you are able to find a link online that backs your preconceived point of view (actually, a dozen, and perhaps, with some effort, more on moveon.org?). I’m not impressed.

Posted by: Michael on August 13, 2010 10:04 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

The words “should” and “ought” have two meanings. One is prescriptive and one is predictive. E.g. You should eat less fatty foods. or You should lose a lot of weight if you eat less fatty foods. See difference. Carter meant the word should in that sentence predictively, it was fairly obvious based on the context. Furthermore, Jimmy Carter isn’t really anyones leader on any side of politics, and he’s hardly representative of the left. The fact that you can point out one person who you have to make a fairly exaggerated case for is no proof that the left is anti-semitic, it’s just proof that you’re desperate to launch a baseless ad hominem at the left.

Posted by: Jim on August 17, 2010 11:07 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Criticizing Israel’s political actions has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING AN ANTI-SEMITE. Many of the most vocal opponents of the Israeli regimes actions in the palestinian territory are themselves devout jews. One of the number one critics of Isreal is Noam Chomsky, he lived in a freakin’ kibbutz in Israel for a time!

It’s actually considered anti-semitic in some circles to equate jews with israel.

Posted by: JIm on August 17, 2010 11:00 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Antisemites

Noam Chomsky, he lived in a freakin’ kibbutz in Israel for a time!

Chomsky, the long-time apologist for the Khmer Rouge (among his other sins) doesn’t get much sympathy around here.

It’s actually considered anti-semitic in some circles to equate jews with israel.

Whoops! You almost had me going for a minute there …

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 17, 2010 11:18 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Sorry for being an uninformed East Asian, but why does “anti-semitism” only refer to anti-Jewish people, not anti-Arabic people? Aren’t they both sons of Shem, compared to Japeth? For me it sounds completely illogical to refer to the non-support by sons of Japeth for Israel concerning its struggle against Arabic people as “anti-semitism”.

Posted by: YT on August 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Etymology

The English language is far from logical. The term antisemitism has come to have a specific meaning.

You can argue that it would be more “logical” for the term to mean something else, but you will only cause confusion by trying to use the term in that other sense, in conversation.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on August 12, 2010 1:16 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Well… I suspect Mr. Schlafly is no physicist… (though I could be wrong)and he should stay away from areas he is not competent in.. BUT… it is true that Wikipedia has a mean streak of liberal bias.

Posted by: Slow Down Music Man on August 12, 2010 5:21 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Holy cattle, this Roger Schlafly is a genuine nutcase. Here we have 22 proofs that relativity is wrong: a list of 24 entries follows, including Jesus’ action-at-a-distance and a failure to find gravitons, despite millions of taxpayers’ money. ;-)

If all conservatives’ brains were on par with Roger Schlafly’s brain or if the correlations between politics and science could be reliably measured by the online encyclopedias, it wouldn’t be too hard to show that the reality has a left-wing bias.

Posted by: Lubos Motl on August 13, 2010 3:24 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Oh, I see, the encyclopedia is due to Andy who is a brother of that Roger…

Posted by: Lubos Motl on August 23, 2010 9:46 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Conservative “Physics”

Still, the fact that he tries to prove his opposition’s incompetence by bringing in the fact they probably do not read the Bible in itself enough to call him quite a nutjob…

Posted by: Ecure Mac on August 28, 2010 4:06 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment