Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> It depends on the focus of the particular
course you are writing
>> for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time
>> defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on
>> (namely, evolution).
I wrote:
> Sure, I agree with that.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
But, if you just assume the validity of the subject
matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't
necessarily a bad thing.
Well, you shouldn't "just assume the validity" -- you should set the
context of what this information is. I think this point is really
subtle, but really important.
At one point, a textbook teaching about the Earth and the Sun might
say "The Sun revolves around the Earth". Bad move to say that.
Better to say "Current scientific consensus is that the evidence
outlined in this chapter suggests that the Sun revolves around the
Earth."
That's NPOV in action. It's writing things so that even people who
disagree on the substantive matter can agree that it's a valid
presentation.
So Copernicus could point to the first one and say: "That's just plain
wrong." And we know today that it is wrong.
But he'd have to say of the NPOV version, "Well, this presentation is
fair, but I disagree with the current scientific consensus described
therein."
Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction
explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline
biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that
this is a discription of reality, as most books are.
But it wouldn't be wise to include such an
introduction, for obvious reasons.
I think it would be wise, actually. You have to write it a bit more
carefully than that, of course. And part of it is just _infused_ into
the final product. Throughout the book, you refer to authorities, to
scientific consensus where appropriate, etc. You don't say "Evolution
is true" -- you say "Modern biologists are in virtually unanimous
agreement that the broad outlines of evolutionary theory are
overwhelmingly supported by the evidence."
Usually, this
is just a matter of a few words here
and there.
... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound
like we are describing an imaginary world or that we
are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.
No, it need not sound like either, and -- done properly -- it's an
actually a good way to sound *certain*, because we write only things
about which we *are* certain. "Stephen Jay Gould's theory of
punctuated equilibrium says that..." Well, we may not be sure if all
the details of punctuated equilibrium are true, but we are sure what
Stephen Jay Gould said, and what evidence he adduced for his theory,
and what critics said.
Respect for the reader entails simply laying out all the facts
uncontroversially, and allowing the reader to draw the appropriate
conclusions.
> As an example, consider [[Christian views on
> homosexuality]].
[...]
The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It
doesn't
have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at
[[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but
wikipedia doesn't write articles like this.
Actually, that article does exist. That's why I picked it as an
example:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_homosexuality
My typo ('on' rather than 'of') misled you, I'm sure.
What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a
majority view.
Actually, there's a very strong consensus on a lot of things, and
majority views on some things. But even there, there is a consensus
view on what the majority views are.
Consider "Theory A" and variants "Theory A-1" and "Theory
A-2".
"Theory A" is accepted by virtually all scientists and educated
people. That's a consensus. But when we get down to details, down to
A-1 and A-2, opinions vary. There's a majority opinion, and a
minority opinion. Sometimes these will have roughly the same status.
Well, that's not a problem for NPOV. NPOV just presents it all this
way: "Theory A is scientific consensus. Scientists are divided,
however, on the details of A-1 versus A-2, both of which we will
describe in detail."
No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV.
No, I'm describing NPOV as I understand it. I made it up, so I get to
say what it means. :-)
What I'm saying is that it's a big misconception to think that an NPOV
textbook treatment of biology has to include, as if equally valid, the
views of scientists and creationists. It doesn't. It is not _bias_
to restrict our focus to a particular topic.
A diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the
topic of
interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased because of a lack of
information, and you don't have to keep misusing the jargon.
There's absolutely no reason for a textbook to have to be biased. If
a biology text doesn't cover the Major League pennant race, that's not
bias. And it's not bias for a biology text to not cover the
creationism versus evolution debate. In both cases, that's not what
the book is about.
Of course it's very possible for a biology text to be biased on these
matters. What I'm saying is: it's not necessary. It's not necessary
to introduce bias in order to restrict topic. You just restrict the
topic, you handle points of intersection thoughtfully and fairly, and
there you go.
Remember, NPOV is about getting consensus between potentially warring
factions. If your biology text is written properly, then an honest
creationist will accept it.
Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it
as a
representation of reality, which is always assumed
(and a few words couldn't change in the minds of
most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree
with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are
they still there? [classic creationist argument] This
book should address that."
And a baseball fan might lament the lack of coverage of that issue, as
well, right? My point is, NPOV doesn't require us to write a book
about everything that everyone will love equally. But it does require
us to write carefully about things that even opponents can agree on.
Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not
NPOV.
No, I insist exactly the opposite. This is exactly what NPOV is all
about, and it applies 100% to textbooks.
No one wants a book that has no application in
reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use
in the real world, and that assumes that biology is
true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still
wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology
applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments
against biology for the real world in a seperate
section.
Well, I think you've completely misunderstood what I meant.
Let me jump to a different example. I'm not sure that it's better,
but hopefully it'll open up a different way of looking at this.
As a hobby, I like to read Supreme Court cases, and about abstract
legal reasoning generally. Politically, I'm what most people would
call libertarian, and like lots of libertarians, I believe in the
morality of individual rights.
So for any controversial issue, there's two ways to approach it. I
can approach it from the point of view of individual rights theory.
Or I can approach it from the point of view of legal reasoning, of how
I think the Constitution ought to be read.
These two approaches don't always come up with the same result.
Even so, I can read a brilliant legal argument and say "Yes, I agree
with that. That is what the constitution says, and under the legal
principles at work, that's the right answer in the law." But I can
still think that the constitution ought to be changed in certain ways.
Or, it can go the other way. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade, and I
think that there is an individual right to early term abortion. And
yet, I think that Roe v. Wade is a bad constitional decision, because
it finds principles in the constitution that aren't there, using
reasoning that makes little sense.
You with me so far?
Well, now imagine an article about Roe v. Wade written by someone with
whom I disagree on matters of individual rights. I think that there
is a right, and the other person thinks there is not. But the article
simply isn't about that. The article is about the reasoning used in
Roe v. Wade, and the question of whether or not it's sound
constitutional law.
I could very easily end up agreeing with the article, if it's
well-written and NPOV, because the issues are separate.
--Jimbo