Connecticut Senate passes bill removing Wright Brothers from history books - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924238]what is the criteria for powered flight? personally i think the wright brothers shouldn't necessarily get all the credit. maybe whitehead did do it first. it should be stated that a lot of people were trying similar things at the time and that the wrights were simply the first well documented example.[/QUOTE] You don't get the benefit of the doubt through lack of documentation. Maybe the Wrights weren't the first, but they were recorded first and so they get the credit.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924238]what is the criteria for powered flight? personally i think the wright brothers shouldn't necessarily get all the credit. maybe whitehead did do it first. it should be stated that a lot of people were trying similar things at the time and that the wrights were simply the first well documented example.[/QUOTE] We're talking first documentation of airplanes, not airships. There's a difference. And you need to read the thread. There's no legit proof that Whitehead was the first to fly besides spoken word. By that logic, I could say that the Aztecs were the first to fly, but we know that's not the case.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40923939]I thought a Frenchman first made powered in the 1850s? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Giffard1852.jpg[/img] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffard_dirigible[/url][/QUOTE] This is specifically about the first powered, heavier than air flight. AKA planes, not airships.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40924315]You don't get the benefit of the doubt through lack of documentation. Maybe the Wrights weren't the first, but they were recorded first and so they get the credit.[/QUOTE] why do they need all the credit? that's sort of a simplistic way of looking at history. history is partially about trends, and ceding that whitehead might have done it before the wrights illustrates a greater point about the trend that flight was taking. [QUOTE=Water-Marine;40924328]We're talking first documentation of airplanes, not airships. There's a difference. And you need to read the thread. There's no legit proof that Whitehead was the first to fly besides spoken word. By that logic, I could say that the Aztecs were the first to fly, but we know that's not the case.[/QUOTE] a lot of news stories have no legit proof besides spoken word. =\ [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] i don't agree with connecticut removing the wrights, but i think a greater story should be told regarding powered flight and people's attempts to do it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924423]why do they need all the credit? that's sort of a simplistic way of looking at history. history is partially about trends, and ceding that whitehead might have done it before the wrights illustrates a greater point about the trend that flight was taking.[/QUOTE] Whitehead didn't even take notes on his own supposed flight. Saying that he was the first to develop powered flight is putting more than a bit of blind faith into him.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924423] a lot of news stories have no legit proof besides spoken word. =\ [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] i don't agree with connecticut removing the wrights, but i think a greater story should be told regarding powered flight and people's attempts to do it.[/QUOTE] But legit proof can be shown if needed. Your argument is drastically irrational. And people already do talk about others' work of powered flight, but the Wright Brothers' work serves as an introduction to it. If people want to look more into it, they can.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40924440]Whitehead didn't even take notes on his own supposed flight. Saying that he was the first to develop powered flight is putting more than a bit of blind faith into him.[/QUOTE] why does everyone need such exacts in their history? people who require such rigidity in history are sorta silly imo. it's fine to acknowledge ambiguity, and acknowledge that even though we have a well documented "first", other people had been working on their own ideas and might have even had an earlier flight.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924476]why does everyone need such exacts in their history? [/QUOTE] You know what? You're right. I believe Abraham Lincoln was made of fudge and everyone else should too. I don't need proof, my word alone is correct.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;40924497]You know what? You're right. I believe Abraham Lincoln was made of fudge and everyone else should too. I don't need proof, my word alone is correct.[/QUOTE] you are incredibly adept at missing points.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924568]you are incredibly adept at missing points.[/QUOTE] Guess that makes two of us.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924476]why does everyone need such exacts in their history? people who require such rigidity in history are sorta silly imo. it's fine to acknowledge ambiguity, and acknowledge that even though we have a well documented "first", other people had been working on their own ideas and might have even had an earlier flight.[/QUOTE] "Might" in history is as stupid as "what if".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40924586]"Might" in history is as stupid as "what if".[/QUOTE] depends on your view of what the study of history is and should entail. personally i think history is more about cultural trends than it is about set events. there needs to be a context of cultural or collective attitude when talking about even well documented events. "might" helps to illustrate those attitudes by showing that the idea was something a lot of people were already trying to do. [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] it isn't a matter of "giving credit", it's a matter of showing how we influenced flight and how flight influenced us.

If you really want to get picky with aircraft history: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoplane_(1874)"]The first monoplane(which achieved short flight) was Du Temple's, and it was made in 1874.[/URL]. The problem with all these aircraft though is that they never achieved substantial flight until... You guessed it... The Wright Brothers. The problem with almost every design before the Wrights wasn't so much that the airframes were not aero-dynamically sane, but rather they didn't have the pure power required in such a small form that it could be adapted onto a lightframe and be used to fly. Hence why almost everyone universally agrees, the Wright Brothers were the first to fly.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40924586]"Might" in history is as stupid as "what if".[/QUOTE] In that case you must consider all ancient history quite idiotic. It's a whole lot of speculation.

I thought most, if not all, textbooks came from Texas. So what good is this law going to do unless Connecticut intends to start publishing their own history books?

[QUOTE=ThePuska;40924757]In that case you must consider all ancient history quite idiotic. It's a whole lot of speculation.[/QUOTE] A guy who might have built an airplane compared to the whole ancient history record. Kind of a bad comparison, eh?

[QUOTE=ThePuska;40924757]In that case you must consider all ancient history quite idiotic. It's a whole lot of speculation.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between archaeological study, translating of ancient manuscripts, and observational deduction and "well, maybe" guesswork.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40924476]why does everyone need such exacts in their history?[/QUOTE] To prevent misinformation I'd say. History is a recording of everything past, keeping anything out eventuality leads to misinformation. Unless you meant why do such exacts need to be [b]taught[/b], then that just depends, someone taking a course in history will obviously need to be taught more about history than someone not in the course. If they just wanted to not say who did it then fine I guess, kids can figure it out on their own if they want but what's going on here is not that, they're teaching something with next to no evidence when there's more evidence going for the Wright Brothers. It's all fine and dandy to say that this guy, along with others, helped reach powered flight, but to say he was the first is very likely wrong when there's more evidence aiming the other way.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;40925449]To prevent misinformation I'd say. History is a recording of everything past, keeping anything out eventuality leads to misinformation. Unless you meant why do such exacts need to be [b]taught[/b], then that just depends, someone taking a course in history will obviously need to be taught more about history than someone not in the course. If they just wanted to not say who did it then fine I guess, kids can figure it out on their own if they want but what's going on here is not that, they're teaching something with next to no evidence when there's more evidence going for the Wright Brothers. It's all fine and dandy to say that this guy, along with others, helped reach powered flight, but to say he was the first is very likely wrong when there's more evidence aiming the other way.[/QUOTE] i might have worded what i was saying earlier in a bad way. i'm not supporting connecticut's idea, i'm saying that a broader idea of powered flight should be taught. i mean you can say the wright brothers were the first to have a well-documented powered flight or w/e, also teach about people like whitehead who were also part of the "flight culture". [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] because i think the idea of culture is more important to teach than the "firsts" or well-documented events in many cases. history is a collective story, not any individual's story.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925600]i might have worded what i was saying earlier in a bad way. i'm not supporting connecticut's idea, i'm saying that a broader idea of powered flight should be taught. i mean you can say the wright brothers were the first to have a well-documented powered flight or w/e, also teach about people like whitehead who were also part of the "flight culture".[/QUOTE] Wright brothers were first to succeed, so they get the glory.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40925632]Wright brothers were first to succeed, so they get the glory.[/QUOTE] technically according to joeskylynx someone else "succeeded" in 1874

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925600]i might have worded what i was saying earlier in a bad way. i'm not supporting connecticut's idea, i'm saying that a broader idea of powered flight should be taught. i mean you can say the wright brothers were the first to have a well-documented powered flight or w/e, also teach about people like whitehead who were also part of the "flight culture". [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] because i think the idea of culture is more important to teach than the "firsts" or well-documented events in many cases. history is a collective story, not any individual's story.[/QUOTE] This is a general history textbook, not an aviation history class. If it were specifically about the history of flight, then by all means mention the others. But for general history, no one really needs to know about the rest save the Wright brothers. You can call history a collective story, but every story has central, individual characters to it. The Wright brothers are two of them. Deal with the fact that some individuals are more prominent in history than the rest of humanity. [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40925711]technically according to joeskylynx someone else "succeeded" in 1874[/QUOTE] Stop nitpicking: [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40924685] The problem with all these aircraft though is that they never achieved substantial flight until... You guessed it... The Wright Brothers. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40925725]This is a general history textbook, not an aviation history class. If it were specifically about the history of flight, then by all means mention the others. But for general history, no one really needs to know about the rest save the Wright brothers. You can call history a collective story, but every story has central, individual characters to it. The Wright brothers are two of them. Deal with the fact that some individuals are more prominent in history than the rest of humanity.[/QUOTE] actually it's MORE important for the purpose of general history. why teach many individual events or teach about individuals much at all in general history? it gives a skewed and limited scope of our history.

I'm about to mail them a polaroid of my dick

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40925725] Stop nitpicking:[/QUOTE] "first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight" please note that is a damn specific achievement. they weren't the first to fly, they weren't the first to have powered flight, they weren't the first to build an airplane... [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925711]technically according to joeskylynx someone else "succeeded" in 1874[/QUOTE] Look it up: [QUOTE]Several trials were made with the aircraft, and it is generally recognized that it achieved lift-off - described by Dollfus as "short hop or leap" and in Flight International as "staggered briefly into the air" - (from a combination of its own power and running down an inclined ramp),[1][2] glided for a short time and returned safely to the ground, making it the first successful powered flight in history though not the first self-powered one.[/QUOTE] It drove off a ramp and glided for a little bit. It did lift off of the ground, but that was using a ramp, and its "flight" was just a prolonged fall.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925755]actually it's MORE important for the purpose of general history. why teach many individual events or teach about individuals much at all in general history? it gives a skewed and limited scope of our history.[/QUOTE] Cultural study is for sociology. History is about events and events are made usually made by individuals. You're getting your subjects of study mixed. [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] At least we can all agree that the story of the guy from Connecticut is compete crap :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40925812]Cultural study is for sociology. History is about events and events are made usually made by individuals. You're getting your subjects of study mixed. [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] At least we can all agree that the story of the guy from Connecticut is compete crap :v:[/QUOTE] so that means that the renaissance, industrial revolution, dark ages, great migration period, agricultural revolution, are all not part of history and part of sociology then? [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] can you tribute any individual with any of these events?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925831]so that means that the renaissance, industrial revolution, dark ages, great migration period, agricultural revolution, are all not part of history and part of sociology then?[/QUOTE] The events are history, not the cultures.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40925831]so that means that the renaissance, industrial revolution, dark ages, great migration period, agricultural revolution, are all not part of history and part of sociology then? [editline]6th June 2013[/editline] can you tribute any individual with any of these events?[/QUOTE] I give up.