On 8/25/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Since I'm already writing long and unmanageable opinions about NPOV, I thought I'd append one more: the more I think through NPOV, the more I realize what a truly radical position it is. It is often derided by people who claim that it is not possible or that it is not desirable, but it really does act as a powerful conceptual tool once you start to take it seriously as a goal. It is not the same thing as objectivity at all -- obviously one does not want to jettison an attempt for objectivity, but objectivity does not imply neutrality (I can be objectively non-neutral in my position on a given topic). In academic scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be, neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical, approach.
I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the grain.
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
Sarah