For some reason, Andrew Schlafly doesn’t like Einstein, or his Theory of Relativity much – probably because he’s too stupid to understand it. So it always makes for interesting reading when somebody tries to insert some sense into any related articles. We also know that Andy loathes anybody with some sort of expertise, because they show just what an ignoramus he actually is. The Lenski Affair was a classic example of this. Another was a fantastic argument with his own brother on the Theory of Relativity. It’s at the bottom of the talk page, which in itself is worth a good laugh.
So imagine his reaction when somebody – in this case, a well-spoken and clearly knowledgeable lady by the name of Kate Sorensen, comes along and starts to inject some reason into the article on Black Holes. Faced with the possibility that somebody knows more than him and is about to (once again) hand him his ass on a platter, Andy reverts to his favourite method of argument – changing the subject.
For example, on her talk page, he says “More generally, this is not Wikipedia where liberal distortions of science dominate. We tell the truth here. The black hole entry is no exception.” Moving to the talk page of the article in question, we get to see a shining example of Andy in full cry. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems a bit ironic that somebody who’s standard mating call is “Open your mind!” steadfastly refuses to accept even the theoretical possibility that black holes might exist. He backs into his favourite corner, holding his hands over his ears and yelling “la la la la I can’t hear you!” whilst stating that because the General Theory of Relativity, and thus black holes, can’t be falsified, they aren’t science and thus don’t exist.
Then once again, changes the subject, saying, “Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to “go away” that easily.” Andy seems to be incapable of stringing more than 5 words together without at least one of them being “liberal”. He also uses another favourite standby, that she’s not being “concise” – his usual lame insult about a high word to substance ratio. Her comeback was a classic: “”You [aschlafly] make it so difficult to be succinct when there’s so much you don’t know.”
Kate, somehow managing to keep her temper, even tries to reason with the idiot, as he rails on about falsifiability. Quite sensibly, and clearly having an open mind to discuss all side of the question, she writes, “Aschlafly, if you want to expand the living daylights out of the “Controversy” section, I’ll be right there by your side, cheering you on and helping in any way I can. As long as your contributions aren’t misleading or incorrect. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but my gut tells me that EvanW and MarkGall would make the same promise. So why are we still bickering? Can’t we improve the article instead?” Now if Andy was in any way interested in promoting accuracy in his articles, rather than his own distorted world view, surely he would leap at that opportunity? Right?
Wrong. His replies include the following:
“It’s falsifiability that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding. People can teach Popper all they like, but it’s clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability. String theory wouldn’t exist in physics departments if they were.” The last sentence is especially worrying. Yes, string theory is odd, with its dozens of required dimensions… but it’s just that – a theory. If new theories weren’t proposed and discussed then we would never move on and we wouldn’t have things like the Large Hadron Collider. Then again, Andy is probably pretty miffed that we’ve progressed beyond Newton’s theories… or the fact that a flat earth is the center of the universe.
Once again proving that no sentence is complete for him, unless it includes the word liberal, he tries to make a conspiracy of the whole thing, asking, “Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them?” and then comes up with a classic piece of Andy’s debating skills:
“If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.”
Ok, what? Suddenly believing in black holes will make people stop reading the Bible. Really? Is their faith so fragile? For somebody who claims to run a “logical” encyclopaedia, and that the Bible is the most “logical” book ever written, that is an epic failing of logic, not matter how you look at it. Not to mention a question that’s impossible to answer. He’s almost implying that if Black Holes render religion obsolete, then the evidence should be covered up… or to use another favourite word of his… “censored”.
By now Kate has clearly realised that she’s dealing with a first-class moron here, and despite Andy’s plea to “Please, please open your mind, for your sake” decides to put him in his place with a few succinct comments of her own.
“Aschlafly, you seem to be more interested in arguing (now apparently about politics and religion of all things) than you are in improving the article. This is fine. If you want to contribute to the article in any way at all, I’ll be here to help however I can. I would ask you to please think carefully before adding a misleading assertion like “Einstein rejected black holes” (which doesn’t tell the whole truth) or “black hole theory is unfalsifiable,” because doing so would just hurt the article, misinform anyone who reads it and waste the time of any editor who feels like trying to fix it.
Let me say this one last time: I’m not arguing with you. This off-topic nonsense on talk pages has been a waste of everyone’s time, and I’m choosing not to participate in it any more. Please continue if you like, but understand that that’s my final word on the subject. I hope we can see eye to eye on this, and treat each other respectfully from here on out.”
All that remains now if for Andy to declare that liberals run away from logical arguments and for that insufferable c*nt Terry Koeckritz to rise from his sick-bed and block her. Like Richard Lenski before her, Kate Sorenson (whoever she may be) deserves a special mention for her actions. In both cases, without provocation, they have allowed Andrew Schlafly, through his own utterances, to prove to the world what a moronic, closed-minded, petulant individual he is.
The only sad thing is that nobody who matters will really read about it.