I have a few questions about NPOV:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)? Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar) Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view? Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I have a few questions about NPOV:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
Yes! Even a noted skeptic like Michael Shermer is very careful about using the word. Pseudoscience literaly means false science. In reality many of the subject areas popularly encompased by the term have never been proven true to the satisfaction of the traditional scientific community. To say that not proven equates to proven false is to apply the fallacy of the excluded middle that is often phrased "If you're not with us you're against us." A great deal of this material is on the fringes of science, and most will likely never become accepted truth, but it is presumptuous to know or say exactly what part is false. Quite often there is a tiny kernal of truth that has been distorted out of all recognition by supporters and detractors alike. The term "pseudoscience" is as much a pejorative as "kike" or "faggot" which have been discussed in a concurrent thread
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
Yes! Even more because of the word "never" than because of the word "communism". It's beside the point that the statement is dead wrong. "Never" and "Always" are two absolute concepts that challenge an opponent to produce a single counterexample That's all it takes to disprove them..
Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view?
A qualified yes. You can't be expected to produce opposing facts that you don't know anything about. It's also intellectually dishonest when you wilfully ignore facts contrary to your belief. But the attached blame is very limited. If I know Wikipedians, theres's always someone ready, willing and able to entusiastically present the opposing POV. The problem comes when you don't give the other person's contribution it's due consideration.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
Yes. Words can be powerful if you use them well. In a military operation between two countries you can say the A annexed B or that A liberated B with very different effects. It is very common for people to choose words that will accentuate a point of view.
Eclecticology
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
It's better to accurately summarize or characterize something as "widely considered by mainstream scientists to be pseudoscience". References are helpful.
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
It's better to soften the claim to an extent that even a pro-Communist could agree with it. It's very vague to say "never works", for example. It would be better to simply point out that communist societies have had some notable failures such as X, Y, and Z.
Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view?
Yes, but often this will happen out of simple ignorance on the part of a well-intentioned contributor. Deliberately omitting facts in an effort to mislead, yes, that's bad mojo.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
Well, it's important that we be sensitive to possible insults, but at the same time, we have to stake out the broad, sensible middle ground and not be toooooo paranoid about "political correctness".
--Jimbo