If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(XKCD)   14 shocking historical events you need to read to believe   (xkcd.com) divider line 66
    More: Amusing, maths, historical events, Dinosaur Comics  
•       •       •

21571 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Oct 2013 at 8:28 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-28 06:45:09 AM
 
2013-10-28 06:47:36 AM
1905?
 
2013-10-28 06:58:29 AM
I love when they take the 'one weird trick' line to extremes:

'Triple the size of your biceps in two weeks using this one weird trick!'

Um...steroids? No, not enough. Surgical replacement? That IS weird...

Still not clicking though.
 
2013-10-28 07:09:19 AM

whistleridge: I love when they take the 'one weird trick' line to extremes:

'Triple the size of your biceps in two weeks using this one weird trick!'

Um...steroids? No, not enough. Surgical replacement? That IS weird...

Still not clicking though.


It's xkcd. It's worthy
 
2013-10-28 07:10:00 AM

cman: 1905?


Wright brothers?
 
2013-10-28 07:11:59 AM

Peter von Nostrand: cman: 1905?

Wright brothers?


Never mind, not that
 
2013-10-28 07:15:30 AM

whistleridge: I love when they take the 'one weird trick' line to extremes:

'Triple the size of your biceps in two weeks using this one weird trick!'

Um...steroids? No, not enough. Surgical replacement? That IS weird...

Still not clicking though.


Actually, it's even weirder. What you have to do is submit an emergency presidential order to the Office of Weights and Measures to redefine the meter to 1/3 of its current size.
 
2013-10-28 07:32:35 AM

Peter von Nostrand: Peter von Nostrand: cman: 1905?

Wright brothers?

Never mind, not that


Albert Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" papers were published in 1905.

And he was a father.  Hans Albert Einstein was born in 1904, and he had an unknown older sister who had died at about 1 year old-ish, born in 1902 and died sometime around 1903.
 
2013-10-28 07:35:59 AM

doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.


And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.
 
2013-10-28 07:41:23 AM

UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.


But they never talk about that. Or the fact that a certain monk was one more jump off the roof of the abbey away from manned flight, but the abbot didn't want blood on his strikelawn.
 
2013-10-28 08:44:09 AM
Comic fails by not being on two separate pages.
 
2013-10-28 08:54:09 AM
Is that supposed to be funny?
 
2013-10-28 08:56:04 AM
+1 Internet for Subby
 
2013-10-28 08:57:46 AM
List fails without aliens at the first Thanksgiving....
 
2013-10-28 09:13:07 AM

cchinni: +1 Internet for Subby


Yah, better than my headline.

+10 Internets to Randall Munroe, but he already has a gazillion Internets.
 
2013-10-28 09:35:55 AM
It's like someone reduced Buzzfeed and The Chive down into a disgusting consomme.
 
2013-10-28 09:38:11 AM

doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.


Counter-reformations are frequently a touch reactionary, racked with contentiousness.
 
2013-10-28 09:43:29 AM
6 Titanic Survivors Who Should Have Died? Is that an "against all odds" story or a moral judgement?

/Bruce Ismay should have kept his ass on the sinking ship, I can't think of 5 others off the top of my head though
 
2013-10-28 09:59:33 AM

SpdrJay: List fails without aliens at the first Thanksgiving....


"Local leaders are giving our food away to lazy illegal immigrants!"
 
2013-10-28 10:07:31 AM

UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.


Read that in his voice, chachi:
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-10-28 10:08:50 AM

SpdrJay: List fails without aliens at the first Thanksgiving....


The list of 20th Century headlines? Um...
 
2013-10-28 10:20:46 AM
amusing how many of you don't "get" xkcd.
 
2013-10-28 10:37:05 AM

QueenMamaBee: 6 Titanic Survivors Who Should Have Died? Is that an "against all odds" story or a moral judgement?

/Bruce Ismay should have kept his ass on the sinking ship, I can't think of 5 others off the top of my head though


It's a cracked.com article title.

UKCoolCat: UNC_Samurai: And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

Read that in his voice, chachi:
[s3.amazonaws.com image 255x269]


Thanks. I was already laughing at the comment and then the Dennis Miller voice sent me into a coughing fit.
 
2013-10-28 10:50:38 AM
I did enjoy. Most emabarrassing reactions to the stock market crash.  I favorited and forwarded on to everyone on my wall in facebook.
 
2013-10-28 10:52:54 AM
I think what would be more shocking would be the following: "Rational Discussion in Fark Politics Thread!  No name-calling involved!"
 
2013-10-28 11:02:25 AM

gnosis301: Comic fails by not being on two separate pages.


Ha! :-)
 
2013-10-28 11:11:06 AM
Who greenlit those amateur hour headlines?

They must have been cracked links.
 
2013-10-28 11:25:33 AM

doglover: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

But they never talk about that. Or the fact that a certain monk was one more jump off the roof of the abbey away from manned flight, but the abbot didn't want blood on his strikelawn.


No one really talks about how Christopher Columbus' exploitation of the Native Americans collapsed the African gold market, paving the way to slave trading, either. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
2013-10-28 11:36:47 AM

eyeq360: I think what would be more shocking would be the following: "Rational Discussion in Fark Politics Thread!  No name-calling involved!"


You farking idiot.

/phew, averted that
 
2013-10-28 11:55:24 AM

UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.


Worse, when he wrote the  Dialog on Two Chief World Systems he structured it as a debate between three people, Simplicio (pro-Aristotle), Salvati (pro-Copernicus) and a neutral.  He put some of Pope Urban VIII's comments directly into the mouth of Simplicio.

Indirectly calling the Pope "simple" was not a good idea in 1633.
 
2013-10-28 12:25:30 PM

Tobin_Lam: doglover: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

But they never talk about that. Or the fact that a certain monk was one more jump off the roof of the abbey away from manned flight, but the abbot didn't want blood on his strikelawn.

No one really talks about how Christopher Columbus' exploitation of the Native Americans collapsed the African gold market, paving the way to slave trading, either. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Unfortunately, a lot of history teachers don't like to talk about historical events or trends if they can't be put into a multiple-choice test question.
 
2013-10-28 12:34:50 PM
"20'th century headlines, rewritten for Fark"
 
2013-10-28 12:44:14 PM
xkcd is a sucker for modern sensationalism as much as anyone. But only in the distant future will it be so apparent.
 
2013-10-28 12:58:56 PM

anfrind: Unfortunately, a lot of history teachers don't like  are not allowed to talk about historical events or trends if they can't be put into a multiple-choice test question.

 
2013-10-28 01:10:20 PM

gnosis301: Comic fails by not being on two separate pages.


Where's my slideshow! I need a slideshow with an ad every page!
 
2013-10-28 01:16:15 PM
had to re-read it 15 times before I finally figured out what the hell a "Berun" was.
 
2013-10-28 01:57:21 PM

Glockenspiel Hero: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

Worse, when he wrote the  Dialog on Two Chief World Systems he structured it as a debate between three people, Simplicio (pro-Aristotle), Salvati (pro-Copernicus) and a neutral.  He put some of Pope Urban VIII's comments directly into the mouth of Simplicio.

Indirectly calling the Pope "simple" was not a good idea in 1633.


This.

The problem wasn't so much "Gallileo is right (and he wasn't right on everything)" as "Gallileo can't prove he's right (because the tools and experiments didn't exist), is an arrogant little asshole, and then calls the Pope a simpleton, so we're not changing scripture just based on his say-so."  Once the 1800's rolled around and they had proven the issues, then the Catholic Church changed doctrine.
 
2013-10-28 01:57:29 PM

UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.


And the establishment has never defined those who oppose its "consensus" as assholes before or since. That was definitely just a one-off. Climate alarmists calling sceptics "denier" has nothing to do with demonising dissent!, No, Climate deniers are literally the same as Holocaust deniers and Anglia CRU has peer reveiwed papers (alogrithms and data withheld) that prove it! Using models!
 
2013-10-28 02:05:03 PM

UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.


I've heard this claim made before and I don't buy the apologetics of it.

Even if we take the claims at absolute face value, it means that the Church decided to take a stand on a scientific matter, thus asserting that it had the authority to do so, over nothing more significant than a political dispute that ultimately boiled down to Galileo saying mean things about the guy in Rome with the funny hat.

Whether or not Galileo was an asshole or not isn't really relevant. It's the Church's actions in response to Galileo that crossed the line and deservingly cast it as an enemy of science. The fact that it took the church several centuries to acknowledge that they were factually wrong compounds the magnitude of their failure.
 
2013-10-28 02:10:20 PM
It's also fairly apparent that at least some of your are getting your history straight out of "1634: The Galileo Affair". Look, I like The Ring of Fire books, too, but they aren't really history books.

This is the same Eric Flint who used the first book in the series to prop up the claim that Shakespeare's works weren't actually written by Shakespeare (although he did, admittedly, walk that one back when he got deluged by fans pointing out that Shakespeare denial is about as scholarly as Trutherism).
 
2013-10-28 02:15:05 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

I've heard this claim made before and I don't buy the apologetics of it.

Even if we take the claims at absolute face value, it means that the Church decided to take a stand on a scientific matter, thus asserting that it had the authority to do so, over nothing more significant than a political dispute that ultimately boiled down to Galileo saying mean things about the guy in Rome with the funny hat.

Whether or not Galileo was an asshole or not isn't really relevant. It's the Church's actions in response to Galileo that crossed the line and deservingly cast it as an enemy of science. The fact that it took the church several centuries to acknowledge that they were factually wrong compounds the magnitude of their failure.


Part of the problem is that Galileo published without submitting it for peer review. Why? Because his math didn't work and he knew it (like Copernicus, he was using circles as orbits). Throwing the fact that he had insulted one of his best friends and primary supporters into the mix (who happened to have temporal power as well) and that he didn't actually solve the problem he was hired for (again, the circles), he's lucky he only got house arrest in a really posh castle.

In other words, he committed academic suicide on a grand scale. When you think of Galileo, it's better to think of the proponents of Cold Fusion, combined with the personality of a Sean Penn and the plagiarism of Dan Brown. The hagiography of Galileo has much more to do with the politics of the 30 Years war than any actual persecution by the Church.
 
2013-10-28 02:18:57 PM

luidprand: Some 'Splainin' To Do: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

I've heard this claim made before and I don't buy the apologetics of it.

Even if we take the claims at absolute face value, it means that the Church decided to take a stand on a scientific matter, thus asserting that it had the authority to do so, over nothing more significant than a political dispute that ultimately boiled down to Galileo saying mean things about the guy in Rome with the funny hat.

Whether or not Galileo was an asshole or not isn't really relevant. It's the Church's actions in response to Galileo that crossed the line and deservingly cast it as an enemy of science. The fact that it took the church several centuries to acknowledge that they were factually wrong compounds the magnitude of their failure.

Part of the problem is that Galileo published without submitting it for peer review. Why? Because his math didn't work and he knew it (like Copernicus, he was using circles as orbits). Throwing the fact that he had insulted one of his best friends and primary supporters into the mix (who happened to have temporal power as well) and that he didn't actually solve the problem he was hired for (again, the circles), he's lucky he only got house arrest in a really posh castle.

In other words, he committed academic suicide on a grand scale. When you think of Galileo, it's better to think of the proponents of Cold Fusion, combined with the personality of a Sean Penn and the plagiarism of Dan Brown. The hagiography of Galileo has much more to do with the politics of the 30 Years war than any actual persecution by the Church.


Wow. And so the long march of "consensusism" goes on, crushing all in its path.
 
2013-10-28 02:28:43 PM

cman: 1905?


Just google 1905 theory, and the shocking truth will be revealed.
 
2013-10-28 02:35:19 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Wow. And so the long march of "consensusism" goes on, crushing all in its path.


Do you know how science works? Experiments and hypotheses need to be verified by other people in order to create a consensus of validity or to determine if it is a one-off. That's why you write up experiments in passive voice, because it doesn't matter who performs it, all that matters is what happened.

Galileo knew that his work could not be verified as more valid than a geocentric model because it also required epicycles and other tricks to make observable data fit his hypothesis. Since he was called upon to make Copernicus' model work better than the traditional model, he failed (as would everyone until Kepler).

Being anti-science is actually against the principles of the Church and has been for most of its history. Revelation (which science falls into) is one of the three pillars of faith. This becomes especially true after Aquinas, when science was formally considered to be crucial to understanding God.

This, btw, is why the Church (as a whole, though frequently not in part) accepted evolution immediately - it fit perfectly within the doctrine that had been taught for centuries.
 
2013-10-28 02:55:26 PM

doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.


not sure about the vatican but i believe they have one of the largest private scientific research facilities in the world. The orthodox church has never really been anti-science.
 
2013-10-28 02:57:22 PM

soakitincider: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

not sure about the vatican but i believe they have one of the largest private scientific research facilities in the world. The orthodox church has never really been anti-science.


Just one Catholic college (University of Dayton) does more than $100 million in contract scientific and engineering research every year.
 
2013-10-28 03:01:18 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: UNC_Samurai: doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.

And the Church was never anti-science so much as anti-Gelileo, because Galileo was kind of an asshole.  His defense of Siderius Nuncius was so sarcastic Machiavelli probably thought he needed to dial it back a bit.

I've heard this claim made before and I don't buy the apologetics of it.

Even if we take the claims at absolute face value, it means that the Church decided to take a stand on a scientific matter, thus asserting that it had the authority to do so, over nothing more significant than a political dispute that ultimately boiled down to Galileo saying mean things about the guy in Rome with the funny hat.

Whether or not Galileo was an asshole or not isn't really relevant. It's the Church's actions in response to Galileo that crossed the line and deservingly cast it as an enemy of science. The fact that it took the church several centuries to acknowledge that they were factually wrong compounds the magnitude of their failure.


At the time, based on what we knew (Namely, everything Aristotle said is true and not the insane ravings of an old man) and the limitations of the equipment (Among other things, people thought stars had rings like Saturn because the telescopes sucked and that meant that having stars be trillions of miles away was 'impossible' which meant that lack of parallax alone 'proved' Galileo wrong), Galileo was wrong.  Flat-out wrong.

And more importantly, he could not prove his assertions.  Using Keplerian Theory because it works is all well and good.  Saying that Keplerian Theory is obviously and provably correct to the point where they're willing to overturn scripture (And give the Church credit.  They've been pretty good about research and changing doctrine when the research proves the doctrine wrong beyond all doubt) is harder.
 
2013-10-28 03:31:35 PM

doglover: Roger Bacon pretty much proves the Church wasn't anti-science until Galileo's time.


Some 'Splainin' To Do: This is the same Eric Flint who used the first book in the series to prop up the claim that Shakespeare's works weren't actually written by Shakespeare


Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon... why does it always come back to bacon?
 
2013-10-28 03:51:34 PM

J. Frank Parnell: xkcd is a sucker for modern sensationalism as much as anyone. But only in the distant future will it be so apparent.


Sometimes I wonder if Randall Munroe jacks off to Ray Kurzweil books in his spare time.  Comics like the one you posted makes me think that he does.
 
2013-10-28 04:00:12 PM

llortcM_yllort: J. Frank Parnell: xkcd is a sucker for modern sensationalism as much as anyone. But only in the distant future will it be so apparent.

Sometimes I wonder if Randall Munroe jacks off to Ray Kurzweil books in his spare time.  Comics like the one you posted makes me think that he does.


Oh, I don't think so.  He's a space nutter, not a life-extension worshipper.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report