Jimbo wrote:
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.
<off-topic>Hm. Given the Church's view on this subject at that time it would have been a bad move for your own well-being to disagree... </off-topic>
Better to say "Current scientific consensus off-topic>is that the evidence outlined in this chapter suggests that the Sun revolves around the Earth."
Assuming there wasn't a Church that would burn you at the steak then, in retrospect at least, I would have to agree. However, the corollary of that is not true because we know, as a fact, that the Earth does revolve around the Sun because a couple deep space craft took several pictures of our whole solar system (not to mention all the hoards of other empirical evidence there is). So there is no significant controversy on this topic (even the Catholic Church eventaully accepted this fact).
When there is no real controversy on a topic (in a global sense) then facts can be presented as facts.
Respect for the reader entails simply laying out all the facts uncontroversially, and allowing the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.
But we don't have room in every article to present every idea on a subject - we have to pick and choose. If done right then the major arguments are presented in some detail, with more detailed text on daughter articles and the minor/crackpot ones get maybe a sentence or two or just a "see also" link.
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.
<Devil's advocate>Ever hear of a "bias of selection?"</Devil's advocate>
Perhaps the problem is that [[NPOV]] needs to be re-factored? It sure has been misinterpreted enough.... It was also made for an encyclopedia and so was framed with the needs of an encyclopedia in mind (sic comprehensiveness instead of a focus on neutrally presenting the current views of a topic based on how professionals in that discipline view it - I think that wording is needed in the textbook version of "NPOV").
Remember, NPOV is about getting consensus between potentially warring factions. If your biology text is written properly, then an honest creationist will accept it.
Good thing you put the qualifier "honest" in there. Otherwise I would have listed a few states where creationism is either presented as a valid competing theory to evolution or as superior to evolution in those state's public school biology textbooks. It makes me sick to think about that (also very glad that I didn't grow up in those backward states -- no offense intended Jimbo :-).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I'm leaving for a Yosemite field study in about 4 hours and won't be back to respond to posts until late Sunday/early Monday UTC.
Also, I would prefer us to use the terminology of "module" instead of article when talking about textbook pages (both are one wiki page but "article" isn't a good word for our use here - neither is "page" realy).
Daniel Mayer wrote:
When there is no real controversy on a topic (in a global sense) then facts can be presented as facts.
That's right. And a lot of science at the level of details does fall into the category. For example, reasonable creationists don't claim that scientists are just *lying* about finding fossils, about genetic variation, and so on. All the basic evidence is uncontroversial, at least generally speaking, although of course there are challenges to specific details here and there.
But we don't have room in every article to present every idea on a subject - we have to pick and choose. If done right then the major arguments are presented in some detail, with more detailed text on daughter articles and the minor/crackpot ones get maybe a sentence or two or just a "see also" link.
Yes, that's right. If someone asks "But why didn't you have 3 chapters on reconciling Genesis with the geological evidence?" the answer is "Because this book isn't about that."
<Devil's advocate>Ever hear of a "bias of selection?"</Devil's advocate>
Well, that's a very good question, but I *think* I have a very good answer.
The bias of selection consists in selectively omitting arguments or evidence in order to give a misleading picture. Not all selectivity is bias, sometimes it's just restricting the domain to a manageable subset of all that is known.
Good thing you put the qualifier "honest" in there. Otherwise I would have listed a few states where creationism is either presented as a valid competing theory to evolution or as superior to evolution in those state's public school biology textbooks. It makes me sick to think about that (also very glad that I didn't grow up in those backward states -- no offense intended Jimbo :-).
Well, I always attended private schools, even though my parents were not and are not rich. So, you know, I'm very sympathetic to what you are saying.
But I haven't actually read any of those textbooks, so I wonder how they really handle it.
Also, I would prefer us to use the terminology of "module" instead of article when talking about textbook pages (both are one wiki page but "article" isn't a good word for our use here - neither is "page" realy).
That sounds sensible to me. What about the word 'chapter'? But anyhow, I think that 'module' or 'chapter' certainly makes more sense.
One thing about textbooks is that they need to be self-contained and *ordered* in a way that an encyclopedia is not. This depends, in part, on the subject matter, but take math as an example -- the concepts of trigonometry need to be presented more or less in a particular order, or the student will be lost.
--Jimbo
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:01:42AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
When there is no real controversy on a topic (in a global sense) then facts can be presented as facts.
That's right. And a lot of science at the level of details does fall into the category. For example, reasonable creationists don't claim that scientists are just *lying* about finding fossils, about genetic variation, and so on. All the basic evidence is uncontroversial, at least generally speaking, although of course there are challenges to specific details here and there.
"reasonable creationist" sounds oxymoron to me. Could we please stop being US-centric ? There aren't any creationists anywhere else in the world, and those in US seems more like some kind of cult than something that has anything to do with science.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
"reasonable creationist" sounds oxymoron to me.
Try Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_evolutionofacreationist.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830813241/
I think he's wrong about lots of things, certainly wrong about evolution in general, but I've read his book (years ago, now), and I was impressed that he's very much not a cultist.
Could we please stop being US-centric ? There aren't any creationists anywhere else in the world, and those in US seems more like some kind of cult than something that has anything to do with science.
I don't see anything particularly US-centric about this discussion.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Could we please stop being US-centric ? There
aren't any
creationists anywhere else in the world, and those
in US seems more
like some kind of cult than something that has
anything to do with
science.
I don't see anything particularly US-centric about this discussion.
--Jimbo
Well, the US is a religious, backwards country. Whenever new (or old, like this) science is developed, there is a big contraversey (unless it is something that helps big buisness like GM foods. Then it is swept under the rug). Some schools in the US want to only teach creationism, but I'm sure that happens in other countries. There must be other unscientific countries like us. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:58:37PM -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Could we please stop being US-centric ? There
aren't any
creationists anywhere else in the world, and those
in US seems more
like some kind of cult than something that has
anything to do with
science.
I don't see anything particularly US-centric about this discussion.
--Jimbo
Well, the US is a religious, backwards country. Whenever new (or old, like this) science is developed, there is a big contraversey (unless it is something that helps big buisness like GM foods. Then it is swept under the rug). Some schools in the US want to only teach creationism, but I'm sure that happens in other countries. There must be other unscientific countries like us.
Maybe in deepest Africa, but I doubt even there.
Creationism is something that no sane biology textbook should waste paper or diskspace for. If one really wants to describe alternative views one has more-or-less-scientific stuff like panspermia and lamarckism (which for some reason is described in almost every Polish high-school biology textbook in notes about history of biology, and of course there is no single word about mythology).
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
"reasonable creationist" sounds oxymoron to me. Could we please stop being US-centric ? There aren't any creationists anywhere else in the world, and those in US seems more like some kind of cult than something that has anything to do with science.
There aren't any creationists in Latin America and the Middle East? I'd have to disagree with you there, Tomasz. Certainly almost all of the creationists in the /West/ are in the US; there are very few in Europe and the British Commonwealth. But to claim that there are no others in the /world/ strikes me as rather, well, Eurocentric.
-- Toby
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:43:36PM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
"reasonable creationist" sounds oxymoron to me. Could we please stop being US-centric ? There aren't any creationists anywhere else in the world, and those in US seems more like some kind of cult than something that has anything to do with science.
There aren't any creationists in Latin America and the Middle East? I'd have to disagree with you there, Tomasz. Certainly almost all of the creationists in the /West/ are in the US; there are very few in Europe and the British Commonwealth. But to claim that there are no others in the /world/ strikes me as rather, well, Eurocentric.
Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone other than radical US protestant sects supporting creationism. Certainly Catholic Church doesn't, so I don't see why would there be any creationism in Latin America.
(Some googling revealed that there is some US-imported creationism in Middle East)
I very strongly disagree with LittleDan's claim that the U.S. is "backwards". But we shouldn't spend too much time on this, as we're getting pretty far afield from discussing textbooks.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone other than radical US protestant sects supporting creationism.
I read in Wikipedia that a poll conducted by the UN revealed that "18% of Europeans polled believed that man was created divinely by God (although this does not necessarily exclude evolution of the rest of nature)." On a talk page, someone claimed that the same survey found that 33% of people in Poland believe the same thing. (I've been unable to find the survey online, so I can't confirm.)
It's worth noting, too, that while the Catholic Church stance on evolution is complicated, it's a form of "intelligent design".
A serious evaluation of why theories liket his have more impact in the U.S. needs to consider the impact of the First Amendment and on the way the school curricula are controlled by local school boards in the U.S. In other nations, scientific elites have more power, as opposed to the power of ordinary unscientific people here.
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ecc-account.html
for more on Creationism in Europe.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
I very strongly disagree with LittleDan's claim that the U.S. is "backwards". But we shouldn't spend too much time on this, as we're getting pretty far afield from discussing textbooks.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone other than
radical US
protestant sects supporting creationism.
I read in Wikipedia that a poll conducted by the UN revealed that "18% of Europeans polled believed that man was created divinely by God (although this does not necessarily exclude evolution of the rest of nature)." On a talk page, someone claimed that the same survey found that 33% of people in Poland believe the same thing. (I've been unable to find the survey online, so I can't confirm.)
wahooo, in which page is that ??? well, polish, italian and irish people could fit in that numbers perhaps. I am not even sure of that.
I have no poll at hand (because we just don't even think to talk about the matter :-)), but I doubt France is more than a couple %. Even in the definitly catholic school my kids go to, children are taught evolution in biology classes (with perhaps the hint a higher spirit might have helped) :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net
Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone other than radical US protestant sects supporting creationism. Certainly Catholic Church doesn't, so I don't see why would there be any creationism in Latin America.
(Some googling revealed that there is some US-imported creationism in Middle East)
Creationism and refutal of modern science in the US are no longer 'radical'. Now, they have become mainstream. And it isn't just christians. Although there aren't many, literal jewish bible readers (only the ultra-orthodox do that) believe in creationism, and some (mathematical definition) moslems believe in creationism from interperatation of the /koran/, not the bible (as shown at http://members.aol.com/masadi/evol.htm). Besides, even if creationism were an extremely unpopular belief outside the US, it still has significant influence in the United States and historical importance, and that shouldn't be ignored.
-LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
When there is no real controversy on a topic (in a
global sense)
then facts can be presented as facts.
That's right. And a lot of science at the level of details does fall into the category. For example, reasonable creationists don't claim that scientists are just *lying* about finding fossils, about genetic variation, and so on. All the basic evidence is uncontroversial, at least generally speaking, although of course there are challenges to specific details here and there. --Jimbo
Even so, we'd need to report on the 'unreasonable' creationists, which imho make up the vast majority.
And facts can be contravercial too. UFO sightings are called 'facts', but they are, of course, disputed. They are considered evidence for sentient life on other planets, but the mainstream considers it false evidence and therefore defenately a false conclusion. It would be taking a POV to say, conclusively, that the evidence is true while it is actually disputed. It makes much more sense to just admit it's DPOV, and leave out all of the extraneous arguments. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Even so, we'd need to report on the 'unreasonable' creationists, which imho make up the vast majority.
Well, in an encyclopedia we would. In a biology text, probably very little mention of the controversy needs to be made at all. I could see it going either way. Do you have a chapter on scientific responses to common challenges to evolutionary biology? Maybe. But I don't think it's require in order to have NPOV.
And facts can be contravercial too. UFO sightings are called 'facts', but they are, of course, disputed. They are considered evidence for sentient life on other planets, but the mainstream considers it false evidence and therefore defenately a false conclusion. It would be taking a POV to say, conclusively, that the evidence is true while it is actually disputed. It makes much more sense to just admit it's DPOV, and leave out all of the extraneous arguments.
Well, it makes more sense to me, if this is a controversy of importance in some specific field, to present the controversy neutrally. The danger I see in 'DPOV' is precisely that it sounds like a temptation to include too-strong statements of the Truth According To Science, rather than sticking to that which is uncontroversially known.
--Jimbo
LittleDan wrote in part:
And facts can be contravercial too. UFO sightings are called 'facts', but they are, of course, disputed. They are considered evidence for sentient life on other planets, but the mainstream considers it false evidence and therefore defenately a false conclusion.
It's generally uncontroversial that X saw lights in the sky; occasionally, people suspect that X was drunk or lying, but even then it's uncontroversial what X /claimed/ to have seen. What's controversial is that the lights came from a flying object and if so, whether that object has been correctly identified as (say) a weather balloon.
And then sometimes, it may be uncontroversial that X saw a flying object and that nobody has managed to identify the object -- a literal UFO. Still, the conclusion that the object must be an interstellar spacecraft is bound to remain controversial.
Whether all this is relevant to a textbook on astronomy (which typically deals with stars and interstellar gases) is another matter entirely.
-- Toby
Jimmy Wales wrote in small part:
One thing about textbooks is that they need to be self-contained and *ordered* in a way that an encyclopedia is not. This depends, in part, on the subject matter, but take math as an example -- the concepts of trigonometry need to be presented more or less in a particular order, or the student will be lost.
Take a look at an advanced (upper level undergrad or higher) math text. If it was recently published, then there's a pretty good chance that you'll find, among the introductory material, a description of possible course outlines (omitting some material). With some luck, you'll even find a chart of dependence, explaining which chapters are needed for which other chapters. We can link to similar information from the front page of our textbook, thus allowing teachers (or students studying alone) to choose an order to go through our various modules. We shouldn't impose any more order than is logically necessary -- which isn't to deny that /some/ order is logically necessary.
Even in elementary school mathematics, where fractions build on division builds on multiplication etc, there are two tracks being followed (in US schools): a development of arithmetic (and later algebra), and a largely independent development of plane geometry. (Sometimes geometry will borrow from arithmetic or algebra, but not the reverse until you get into trigonometry).
The trickier course is when there are multiple possible orders. In calculus, differentiation and integration are logically independent, but the fundamental theorem of calculus requires both of them. Since you need the FTC to do /practical calculations/ with integration, most courses (again, in US schools) today do differentiation first, allowing the FTC to be presented early in the integration material. But Caltech (at least 10 years ago), taking a more theoretical approach, does things in the reverse (more old-fahsioned) order, defining integrals directly after the preliminary work with limits, but saving examination of calculation techniques for later. The advanced undergraduate analysis course usually puts differentiation before (Riemann) integration, (since the new material to cover beyond calculus is easy, while the Riemann integral in all its rigorous glory is a nasty beast), while the graduate analysis course puts (Lebesgue) integration first (since almost all of the new material on differentiation depends on the background of Lebesgue measure theory). So the order of a subject will, in many cases, depend on your purpose. One textbook might set that purpose by choosing its level (the advanced undergrad course, or instead the grad course), while another might prefer to leave that up to the teacher, as in a calculus textbook with separate modules on the main idea (either order) and calculation techniques (differentiation first).
One can even get into POV battles about appropriate orders, and we should strive to remain neutral about those. For example, there's a new movement in universities these days to teach the Henstock integral instead of the Riemann integral in the advanced undergraduate course, since the theory is similar but Henstock's is (like Lebesgue's) more its powerful. Of course, people argue about /which/ to teach, but we can simply allow both and let the reader choose (and let the writers' interests decide when each is written); that's not what I'm worried about.
The complicated bit is what this says about the /graduate/ course, which if we follow the usual pattern is a completely different book. The new movement uses Henstock to define the Lebesgue /integral/, then applies that to set theory to define Lebesgue /measure/; the traditional course defines Lebesgue /measure/ using infinite series, then applies that to functions to define the Lebesgue /integral/. So when studying Lebesgue's theories for the first time, does the integral depend on the measure or the other way around? Well, it could be either, depending on /which/ prerequisites you already know from your undergraduate course. As long as only one development appears in the textbook, then we can rightly say that one module depends on the other. But once both developments appear (as must be allowed for NPOV), then this will change, and we have to watch for that.
The simplest course might be separate modules, one for either of the different developments of definitions, and another for the further devlopment of the concept. But this makes our modules much smaller than a traditional chapter! I think that this (small modules) will generally be a good thing. Aside from the flexibility that it offers for NPOV on various pedagogical disagreements, it also makes it easy to save the more advanced material for when it will be needed (or to omit it entirely), rather than telling people that (say) the end of Chapter 6 will not be studied until we need it for Chapter 10. (Of course, right now we have the technical difficulty that some people can't edit pages that are longer than 30 kB, but we should still look towards a technical solution for that.) Many books divide chapters into sections that approximate this.
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org