On 6/22/03 11:22 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is because our audience is a general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV is because our audience is very focused (the biology student, for example) and we need to bring that student through the material in a logical and efficient way.
No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for the reason the audience is more focused. That has nothing to do.
No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)
Mav, you might try remembering English isn't her native language before you assume she's not showing respect for your opinions.
Logical and efficient is totally compatible with NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very important information, that students will later need to make informed decisions. Removing infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long term.
You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints. That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook. In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.
Are there nonserious mentions of Creationist viewpoints?
Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the history and the different political views on the subject and just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have a single paragraph at the end sating something about access to the procedure and that risks doctors face when they choose to specialize in this area.
I disagree with you Mav.
Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
Now, that's being rude.
Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly kettle of fish. We even already have new poorly conceived acronyms.