{"id":15891,"date":"2019-09-17T10:56:45","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T17:56:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=15891"},"modified":"2019-09-17T10:56:45","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T17:56:45","slug":"a-tale-of-two-online-encyclopedias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2019\/09\/17\/a-tale-of-two-online-encyclopedias\/","title":{"rendered":"A Tale of Two Online Encyclopedias"},"content":{"rendered":"

    It is a wise rule of thumb one should be skeptical of the veracity of things posted on the web, particularly when the possibility of bias is strong or the source can be edited by who knows whom.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

    Online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, are often cited examples of the need for weariness. Let us examine the introduction for the Wikipedia article<\/a> on \u201cNatural Law”:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

    While those more learned in philosophy and related subjects would likely find much to quibble about, but the introduction, at least, tries to set out a neutral tone.<\/p>\n

How does this compare to another online encyclopedia, specifically Encyclopedia.com<\/a>?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

    In contrast to \u00fee olde Wikipedia, this entry outright starts off by saying that Natural Law is rejected by all but Catholics, being overturned by Positivism and Historicism, the former of which denies value judgments because of science while the later posits that it\u2019s all culturally relative, thus relegating Natural Law to some quaint historical study.<\/p>\n

As noted by the Wikipedia article, ironically enough if one believes Wikipedia intolerably biased towards the Left, Natural Law is connected to a plethora of declarations of rights and of independence, including those of the United States of America, as well as the Common Law itself.<\/p>\n

    A little semi-related mood music:<\/p>\n