On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:21 PM, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
Impressive responses. One point: OR is often used as a an excuse to squash certain debated points, without allowing them to devlop (including citing sources). A silly example might be something like "go find some source for your notion that the world is round, and come back when you do so." Such source can then be debated for a while.
I, and everyone else, frequently insert stuff that is "well known" without citing sources. "Beethoven is widely regarded as one of the greatest of composers..." "f = m * a"...
However, whenever a statement, however obvious, is seriously challenged, I take it seriously.
IF something is TRULY well known, it is usually EASY to find a source. When someone says cite a source, I just find one and cite it.
And the article is the better for it.
Let's take "The world is round." I have just spent ten minutes browsing my bookshelves looking for the clearest citation. A popular book by Menzel entitled Astronomy... nope. "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets?" Nope. "Norton's Star Atlas?" Nope. All of them give the radius of the earth... but fail to say in so many words that the world is round, because, well, everybody knows that.
Aha. I have it.
"The earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (a sphere flattened at the poles.... For many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error."
There you go. _American Practical Navigator: An Epitome of Navigation_, originally by Nathaniel Bowditch, LL. D. 1966--Corrected Print. Published by the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office. U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Pp. 62-63.
And that settles it. Nobody can argue that _that_ book doesn't contain _that_ sentence. Anyone can check it out. It does. Any argument about the authority of the book is beside the point. It's an objective fact that that book contains that sentence.
Once I've cited the source, I can replace the sentence in the article that says "the world is round" with the sentence "The U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office states that for many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error." Problem solved.
It's now up to anyone who disagrees with it to cite _their_ source. It's up to the reader to judge which sources are reliable. If the reader trusts John Cleves Symmes, Jr. more than he or she trusts the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office, that's their prerogative.
-- Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http:// www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
At 06:40 PM 7/23/2005, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
Once I've cited the source, I can replace the sentence in the article that says "the world is round" with the sentence "The U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office states that for many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error." Problem solved.
Of course, now you have replaced a four-word sentence that a child could understand by a 22-word monster that makes tears come to my eyes. Double negative included. And someone who's not from the USA might wonder why the US Navy gets to decide what the shape of the Earth is.
But I agree with your point.
Chl
Once I've cited the source, I can replace the sentence in the article that says "the world is round" with the sentence "The U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office states that for many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error." Problem solved.
Of course, now you have replaced a four-word sentence that a child could understand by a 22-word monster that makes tears come to my eyes. Double negative included. And someone who's not from the USA might wonder why the US Navy gets to decide what the shape of the Earth is.
Normally we would just state "for many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error" and cite the source in the references.
Regards, Haukur
From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" dpbsmith@verizon.net
On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:21 PM, wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
Impressive responses. One point: OR is often used as a an excuse to squash certain debated points, without allowing them to devlop (including citing sources). A silly example might be something like "go find some source for your notion that the world is round, and come back when you do so." Such source can then be debated for a while.
I, and everyone else, frequently insert stuff that is "well known" without citing sources. "Beethoven is widely regarded as one of the greatest of composers..." "f = m * a"...
However, whenever a statement, however obvious, is seriously challenged, I take it seriously.
IF something is TRULY well known, it is usually EASY to find a source. When someone says cite a source, I just find one and cite it . And the article is the better for it.
Exactly so. People who claim that NOR is used to quash certain obvious facts that are so well-known that they don't need to be cited. However, it is generally easy to find citations for obvious facts. Often the search and citation will help refine the information provided so that it is even more accurate. Sometimes it will turn out that this "obvious fact" is merely one POV, and further study will reveal opposing viewpoints, thus contributing to NPOV. And if the obvious fact can't be found at all, then it's usually a classic case of Original Research masquerading as "obvious fact".
"The earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (a sphere flattened at the poles.... For many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error."
And now the article is even better, because "round" can describe a number of shapes, so "sphere" is more accurate.
Once I've cited the source, I can replace the sentence in the article that says "the world is round" with the sentence "The U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office states that for many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error." Problem solved.
A more lengthy search will usually reveal a number of different sources corroborating this fact; at that point one can simply state "the earth is a sphere", with a footnote listing the multiple sources confirming that.
Jay.
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
Let's take "The world is round." I have just spent ten minutes browsing my bookshelves looking for the clearest citation. A popular book by Menzel entitled Astronomy... nope. "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets?" Nope. "Norton's Star Atlas?" Nope. All of them give the radius of the earth... but fail to say in so many words that the world is round, because, well, everybody knows that.
Aha. I have it.
"The earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (a sphere flattened at the poles.... For many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error."
I mostly agree, but I think we should also avoid turning Wikipedia into a parody of citations, unless some way of producing "hidden" citations is developed. It's been discussed on and off that there should be some way to tag parts of the article with a citation for facts, and if that were done they could also be given flags for whether they should appear as footnotes to the casual reader, or perhaps merely be available for people doing fact-checking or desiring a more detailed bibliography.
Without such a mechanism, we could end up with more footnotes than there are sentences in many articles. Just looking at [[en:Paris]] for the moment, this is the first paragraph:
"Paris is the capital city of France, as well as the capital of the Ile-de-France region, whose territory encompasses Paris and its suburbs. The city of Paris proper is also a departement, called Paris departement (French: departement de Paris)."
These are facts that might be worth getting citations for: [1] Paris is the capital city of France. [2] Paris is the capital of the Ile-de-France region. [3] The Ile-de-France region's territory encompasses Paris and its suburbs. [4] The city of Paris proper is also a departement, called Paris departement.
Presumably citations for these can be found in French law, and would be useful to have somewhere---someone might conceivably actually want to know exactly where it is specified officially that Paris is the capital city of France. But I'm not sure we'd want to present readers with a barrage of footnotes for all these facts that they might take as fairly obvious---by the time you got the end of the article we might be on footnote #200.
-Mark
On 7/26/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Without such a mechanism, we could end up with more footnotes than there are sentences in many articles. Just looking at [[en:Paris]] for the moment, this is the first paragraph:
"Paris is the capital city of France, as well as the capital of the Ile-de-France region, whose territory encompasses Paris and its suburbs. The city of Paris proper is also a departement, called Paris departement (French: departement de Paris)."
These are facts that might be worth getting citations for: [1] Paris is the capital city of France. [2] Paris is the capital of the Ile-de-France region. [3] The Ile-de-France region's territory encompasses Paris and its suburbs. [4] The city of Paris proper is also a departement, called Paris departement.
Presumably citations for these can be found in French law, and would be useful to have somewhere---someone might conceivably actually want to know exactly where it is specified officially that Paris is the capital city of France. But I'm not sure we'd want to present readers with a barrage of footnotes for all these facts that they might take as fairly obvious---by the time you got the end of the article we might be on footnote #200.
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
For all concerned: I used the Flat Earth Society as an extreme example -- not as a kind of important precedent. The real issue is, as others have said, that NOR is a for the most part a guideline and not an absolute rule, to apply to anything which hasn't been checked over by a physicist or physician.
SV
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Without such a mechanism, we could end up with
more footnotes than there
are sentences in many articles. Just looking at
[[en:Paris]] for the
moment, this is the first paragraph:
"Paris is the capital city of France, as well as
the capital of the
Ile-de-France region, whose territory encompasses
Paris and its
suburbs. The city of Paris proper is also a
departement, called Paris
departement (French: departement de Paris)."
These are facts that might be worth getting
citations for:
[1] Paris is the capital city of France. [2] Paris is the capital of the Ile-de-France
region.
[3] The Ile-de-France region's territory
encompasses Paris and its suburbs.
[4] The city of Paris proper is also a
departement, called Paris
departement.
Presumably citations for these can be found in
French law, and would be
useful to have somewhere---someone might
conceivably actually want to
know exactly where it is specified officially that
Paris is the capital
city of France. But I'm not sure we'd want to
present readers with a
barrage of footnotes for all these facts that they
might take as fairly
obvious---by the time you got the end of the
article we might be on
footnote #200.
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 7/26/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
For all concerned: I used the Flat Earth Society as an extreme example -- not as a kind of important precedent. The real issue is, as others have said, that NOR is a for the most part a guideline and not an absolute rule, to apply to anything which hasn't been checked over by a physicist or physician.
Whether the earth is flat or spherical is a reasonably easy argument, and cites may be found to back up the common knowledge.
But other "common knowledge" views may be quite erroneous: * Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of England. * In the biblical story Delilah cut Samson's hair, making him weak. * Trams do not run down Flinders Lane in Melbourne.
All of these are incorrect, but there would be any number of Wikipedia editors who would get upset if asked to provide sources for such "common-sense" views. Some editors get quite narky if their views are challenged. Some editors are unwilling to admit of any error.
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
Regards, Haukur
Yes, I agree, but in areas other than science, almost any contention can become the greater issue rather than the insignificant one--a very small group of violent extremists, for example, can disrupt things far beyond their representation. The point is that "original research" isnt really the issue, as much as rational versus irrational writing--of which writing skill is a substantial factor. Contrary to what some may say, its *not* POV to say that a view is considered "irrational" by most people, and putting things in that context helps to rectify the problems of marginal views promoting themselves out of their element (irrationality) even if they are
Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions are generally unclear in terms of whether they are actually sincere (still), or that they might be speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in terms of science, without explaining what their actual point is, which might be something like: 'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a conceptual construct which also requires thinking along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that the religious view that all souls be on the same plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in global terms is just a waste of precious time.
IOW: While its easy to call such people stupid, its hard to say exactly objectively what such group actually represents. Skpeptical "science" (ie. science POV) doesnt offer insight into this basic aspect. The articles talk about FES "models" of the Earth, assuming that models are the actual *point* of the group--the physical descriptions may be quite irrelevant.
SV
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
steve v wrote:
Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions are generally unclear in terms of whether they are actually sincere (still), or that they might be speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in terms of science, without explaining what their actual point is, which might be something like: 'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a conceptual construct which also requires thinking along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that the religious view that all souls be on the same plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in global terms is just a waste of precious time.
IOW: While its easy to call such people stupid, its hard to say exactly objectively what such group actually represents. Skpeptical "science" (ie. science POV) doesnt offer insight into this basic aspect. The articles talk about FES "models" of the Earth, assuming that models are the actual *point* of the group--the physical descriptions may be quite irrelevant.
The difficulty here with the FES POV is that we're not hearing it from FES supporters. We have no evidence of what they still believe. It's very easy to overcome such a group's arguments when the only ones they have are the ones we have imputed to them.
Ec
Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions are generally unclear in terms of whether they are actually sincere (still), or that they might be speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in terms of science, without explaining what their actual point is, which might be something like: 'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a conceptual construct which also requires thinking along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that the religious view that all souls be on the same plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in global terms is just a waste of precious time.
That is very interesting and you may be right that they are arguing from a metaphysical perspective. Maybe you would even start to believe so after reading the Flat Earth Society's website? But, IMHO, a great loss is that you cannot state that in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia allows you to use facts drawn from sources, it does not allow you to interpret sources. You can write that the FES states that the earth is flat, but you can not say that they are using a metaphysical perspective.
Same thing with Daniel P.B. Smith's example:
"The earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (a sphere flattened at the poles.... For many navigational purposes the earth is assumed to be a sphere, without intolerable error."
That you can write that the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office say. But you cannot write that the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office says that the earth is round because that would require you to interpret the source. Because of these things, many editors resort to using no sources at all, because a statement without a source is often percieved as less controversial than the same statement drawn from interpreting a source.
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
When we put forth these intuitive truths as examples of the need for citations we put up a straw man that is there to be knocked down. There is a presumption that any statement is true unless and until it is challenged. Of course the more ridiculous and outrageous statements will be challenged very quickly. Statements about the near-spherical shape of the earth may not be challenged at all.
The "scientific point of view" would be fine if it meant rigorous adherence to the principles of scientific method; it is not fine if it means support for the prevailing prejudices of mainstream scientists.
Some people may very well expect an encyclopedia to be written from that mythical "scientific point of view"; others may expect it to be from a "religious point of view" of some sort. We still need to stick to a neutral point of view. Implicit to the neutral point of view is the dynamic of questioning everything.
Ec
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
Then what is it a matter of? I still fail to understand your position. Do you or do you not want a statement about the near-spherical shape of the Earth to be qualified as "just one point of view" on Wikipedia?
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
Then what is it a matter of? I still fail to understand your position. Do you or do you not want a statement about the near-spherical shape of the Earth to be qualified as "just one point of view" on Wikipedia?
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
Then what is it a matter of? I still fail to understand your position. Do you or do you not want a statement about the near-spherical shape of the Earth to be qualified as "just one point of view" on Wikipedia?
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
I think you might run foul of both the Flat Earth Society and the Systematic Bias folks for those statements :)
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E755D6.6070307@gmail.com... [snip]
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
That's because you're working on a relatively tiny scale. If you were to scale up a billiard ball (which is smooth enough to be a clichéd comparator) to the size of the Earth, guess which would end up being smoother?
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
{{sofixit}} :-)
On Jul 27, 2005, at 5:08 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
That's because you're working on a relatively tiny scale. If you were to scale up a billiard ball (which is smooth enough to be a clichéd comparator) to the size of the Earth, guess which would end up being smoother?
A billiard ball the size of the Earth would have mountains 50 miles high.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E755D6.6070307@gmail.com... [snip]
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
{{sofixit}} :-)
Give me a place to stand on...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E78E9D.1090002@gmail.com...
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E755D6.6070307@gmail.com... [snip]
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
{{sofixit}} :-)
Give me a place to stand on...
YM an "edit" button to click on.
WikiWorld, here we come...:-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E78E9D.1090002@gmail.com...
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:42E755D6.6070307@gmail.com... [snip]
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
{{sofixit}} :-)
Give me a place to stand on...
YM an "edit" button to click on.
WikiWorld, here we come...:-)
I was quoting a rather famous man with a lever (or was it a pole, or just a really big stick???! Reminds me of the definition of Poll Tax - if you don't pay, they've got this big pole...)
As I've often thought to myself, "if the world was a wiki, there are people I'd nominate for deletion...."
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
Reminds me of the definition of Poll Tax - if you don't pay, they've got this big pole...)
The novel "Bridge on the Drina" by Ivo Andric has a lovely description of the way that the Turks practised impalement.
As I've often thought to myself, "if the world was a wiki, there are people I'd nominate for deletion...."
Maybe they could find a way to be nominated for a Darwin Award. :-)
Ec
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
That's because you're working on a relatively tiny scale. If you were to scale up a billiard ball (which is smooth enough to be a clichéd comparator) to the size of the Earth, guess which would end up being smoother?
It could be worse. We could be living on the surface of a golf ball. :-)
Ec
On 7/28/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It could be worse. We could be living on the surface of a golf ball. :-)
That'd be the pits.
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It could be worse. We could be living on the surface of a golf ball. :-)
Actually that would be impossible, as the pits on a golf ball would translate to differences of several hundreds of miles, even rather steep cliffs at the edges.
The weather patterns would be extremely localized, and solar energies would make each pit a virtual cauldron. At the very least, the life generated on such such a planet wouldnt resemble life as its developed here --consisting mostly of extremophiles at the hot low and cold high regions. And thats assuming the process of water/atmosphere creation and maintenance were successful and continuous.
Did I miss anything?
SV ...besides the actual point of the thread?
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the
Earth only applies on
a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't
seem to spherical to me
;)
That's because you're working on a relatively tiny
scale. If you were to
scale up a billiard ball (which is smooth enough to
be a clichéd comparator)
to the size of the Earth, guess which would end up
being smoother?
It could be worse. We could be living on the surface of a golf ball. :-)
Ec
Sphericity =/= Smoothness ?
:) SV
This thread went from POV diputes to Flat Earth to yeesh/OMG... in just two days. Sorry I brought it up! Next topic: Reproductive rights and abortion !!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too :))
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I say its not, while Meelar feels that because pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my general point is that just because PC says "its not so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming they arent human, or bypassing the question through lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There is no "human right" to kill another human being.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I don't think so. It's a human, it moves, it must be alive. I think it would be POV to say that it is entitled to universal human rights and stuff though. There's still people that don't think females, blacks, whatever are entitled to universal human rights!
On 7/27/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too :))
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I say its not, while Meelar feels that because pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my general point is that just because PC says "its not so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming they arent human, or bypassing the question through lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There is no "human right" to kill another human being.
SV
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/28/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
Sounds like a question of terminology and interpretation for relevant articles rather than on a WP-wide basis.
Is a foetus human in a medical sense? Of course.
In a legal sense? Up to the lawyers.
steve v wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
This is a pretty complex question to sum up easily, and there's a huge body of writing on it from all sides (not just political advocates either; there's a huge body of literature in applied-ethics philosophy journals). Some opinions agree that it's a "human life" but argue that "human rights" is a misnomer and ought to be "personhood rights", and not granted automatically to humans but only to persons; others dispute that a fetus is "human" in the sense that the term is generally meant, and instead will only grant it is "of the species homo sapiens" or something similar. There is a whole *other* body of literature on what exactly "personhood" is and means, and once you've established that, still another body of literature on what sort of ethics ought to apply to people who have been deemed "persons" in the relevant sense (fifty flavors of utilitarians, Kantians, and all the rest).
Basically there's nothing Wikipedia can say about this subject that has a consensus anywhere, other than some very basic medical facts like "a fetus is genetically of the species homo sapiens". There is, however, a lot of stuff other people say about it that would be nice to summarize.
-Mark
Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to be an article. I disagree with Skyring's claim that NPOV policy and NPOV terminology should be left to each article. As physical science has rational bearing on issues regarding the concept of universe, so does medical science have a bearing on all medical issues. The view that NPOV rel. rationality rel. science, and POV rel. irrationality rel. claim/belief is not a controversial interpretation of NPOV, IMHO.
Hence we can feel free to state a dominant consensus that at some certain point, a fetus is a human life, and hence marginalize both extreme absolutist views which claim either that "human life begins at conception" or that the issue is entirely "in the domain of woman's choice [until its feet are out]."
Sinreg, SV
PS starting progress on: consolidating issues to Template:Abortion
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
This is a pretty complex question to sum up easily, and there's a huge body of writing on it from all sides (not just political advocates either; there's a huge body of literature in applied-ethics philosophy journals). Some opinions agree that it's a "human life" but argue that "human rights" is a misnomer and ought to be "personhood rights", and not granted automatically to humans but only to persons; others dispute that a fetus is "human" in the sense that the term is generally meant, and instead will only grant it is "of the species homo sapiens" or something similar. There is a whole *other* body of literature on what exactly "personhood" is and means, and once you've established that, still another body of literature on what sort of ethics ought to apply to people who have been deemed "persons" in the relevant sense (fifty flavors of utilitarians, Kantians, and all the rest).
Basically there's nothing Wikipedia can say about this subject that has a consensus anywhere, other than some very basic medical facts like "a fetus is genetically of the species homo sapiens". There is, however, a lot of stuff other people say about it that would be nice to summarize.
-Mark
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/28/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to be an article. I disagree with Skyring's claim that NPOV policy and NPOV terminology should be left to each article. As physical science has rational bearing on issues regarding the concept of universe, so does medical science have a bearing on all medical issues.
Well, you'd hope so.
But when instead we are talking about legal issues, I'm not too sure that doctors get the final word.
Or vice versa. Who do you want performing your vasectomy? A surgeon with a scalpel and anaesthetics, or a judge with his gavel?
In considering these topics, I'd say
* the human life within a body is generally considered to belong to two stages : the first being embryo the second being foetus. Just after conception, you do not have a foetus but only a set of undifferenciated cells. For about 8 weeks, you still do not have a foetus and the live being does not look like, nor behave like anything human. It would be interesting to check if all medical entities consider the embryo stage ends at the same time. In France, I believe it is 50 days of development. This might mark a time for some people to believe "before" it is an animal, "after", it is a small human. I had the opportunity to see one of my babies just on the 51th day of development, it looks like a human basically.
* another point to consider is medical experiment on human cells. Depending on countries, experiments can or can not be done on embryo cells, and this to a certain stage. In some people mind, this stage will be the difference between making experiment on an animal and on a human. The first being sometimes considered normal, sometimes a crime; the second being generally considered a crime. Again, it might be interesting to note the time limit for such experimenting, with regards to population reaction to such experiments.
* another point of non return is the stage of developement until which abortion is legal (aside from abnormalities issues). Depending on countries, it may be conception, or 10 weeks or more. Often, this stage of no-return may indicate a consensus on when stopping the life is "okay" and when it is a "crime". In France, it is 10 weeks, so definitly when the living being is a foetus. I had the opportunity to see two of my babies at 10 weeks of development, and to lose one exactly at this stage. I know some women feel the need to give a name to such a baby to better assume the grievance. And when abortions are made, babies are usually not shown to the woman, there is a reason for that. But again, it might be interesting to compare stages of maximum abortion depending on countries. It might be interesting to evaluate the consensus on when it becomes a crime to eliminate it voluntarily.
* The next point of non-return is the stage of development, when, when a foetus dies, he is recognised by the law. It receives a name, it may be buried, and it is registered on legal papers. I'd say, again interesting to compare countries. If a country recognise a dead foetus as a dead human at ... say 6 months,... it would be quite illogical not to claim the foetus at this stage is not human in this country...from a legal perspective.
* The near last reference might be the stage at which a foetus can born and be kept alive. Even if he might have been better inside, if he is outside and alive, he is probably human. In best cases, this might be as early as 5 months-6 months, though most will have consequences. But at 5 months-6 months, most women, if asked, would probably agree that their foetus has a personnality. They move or not, they react to your touch or not, they play with you moving around depending on your own reaction, suck their thumbs or not, react to light, noise... differently. It may not be "human", but it definitly has a "specific behavior which makes it unique".
Still and finally, many would consider that being "human" is necessarily being able to live "independently". Which might be at birth... or anytime later... or never for some heavily handicaped people in some people opinion.
This suggest to me this * not everyone agrees there is a foetus personhood and if there is one, not everyone agrees when it happens. Considering the "consensus" on this topic is not a good idea, because NPOV is not about the "general opinion". It is not the mainstream. So an article on foetus personhood seems to me a call for disagreement, since the title seems to imply it exists, whatever what the article contains. This is not so good.
* however, everyone agrees there is a human personhood. The only thing on which possibly some would not agree would be that "some" people are not human. But this is likely to be such a rare occurence, that probably, an article on human personhood would not be questionnable. Do an article on [[human personhood]] and discuss in it the various thoughts across the world, upon when a little one becomes a human with a human personhood. This will probably cause far less objections and you will be able to discuss the topic in length in the article itself.
Anthere
steve v a écrit:
Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to be an article. I disagree with Skyring's claim that NPOV policy and NPOV terminology should be left to each article. As physical science has rational bearing on issues regarding the concept of universe, so does medical science have a bearing on all medical issues. The view that NPOV rel. rationality rel. science, and POV rel. irrationality rel. claim/belief is not a controversial interpretation of NPOV, IMHO.
Hence we can feel free to state a dominant consensus that at some certain point, a fetus is a human life, and hence marginalize both extreme absolutist views which claim either that "human life begins at conception" or that the issue is entirely "in the domain of woman's choice [until its feet are out]."
Sinreg, SV
PS starting progress on: consolidating issues to Template:Abortion
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
This is a pretty complex question to sum up easily, and there's a huge body of writing on it from all sides (not just political advocates either; there's a huge body of literature in applied-ethics philosophy journals). Some opinions agree that it's a "human life" but argue that "human rights" is a misnomer and ought to be "personhood rights", and not granted automatically to humans but only to persons; others dispute that a fetus is "human" in the sense that the term is generally meant, and instead will only grant it is "of the species homo sapiens" or something similar. There is a whole *other* body of literature on what exactly "personhood" is and means, and once you've established that, still another body of literature on what sort of ethics ought to apply to people who have been deemed "persons" in the relevant sense (fifty flavors of utilitarians, Kantians, and all the rest).
Basically there's nothing Wikipedia can say about this subject that has a consensus anywhere, other than some very basic medical facts like "a fetus is genetically of the species homo sapiens". There is, however, a lot of stuff other people say about it that would be nice to summarize.
-Mark
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/28/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In considering these topics, I'd say
- the human life within a body...
Thanks for that. A well-considered, almost lyrical summary. From a woman's point of view on a topic where far too many men don't have a clue.
steve v wrote:
Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to be an article.
Certainly. There have been entire /books/ written on the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than enough material to write an article about it summarizing all the points of view.
-Mark
At 05:22 PM 7/27/2005, steve v wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
This has been debated by philosophers for centuries, so yes, it is POV. This question is much deeper than the current US American pro-life/pro-choice debate. For example, Thomas Aquinas and René Descartes were on opposite ends of this debate (Thomas - no, Descartes - yes), even though they were both devout Catholics.
Chl
Presented as a flat fact, of course, but NPOV policy contemplates that all significant points of view be fairly presented. This point of view is significant and ought to be included in the articles it is relevant to, such as abortion, as should the opposing points of view.
Fred
On Jul 27, 2005, at 4:22 PM, steve v wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
On Jul 27, 2005, at 4:22 PM, steve v wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
At [[Human]], we wrote (though I see it's been changed): "Human life begins at conception ... As the zygote grows through successive stages inside the female's uterus over a period of 38 weeks, it is called an embryo, then a fetus. At birth, the fully grown fetus, now called a baby, is expelled from the female's body, and breathes independently for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus."
I would say it's NPOV to say that a fetus is human life (what other kind of life could it be if it's a human fetus?), but it's POV to attribute personhood to the fetus, which is a legal issue only indirectly tied to the biological one.
Sarah
Alternatives include when it is viable, when it is born.
Fred
On Jul 27, 2005, at 6:59 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I would say it's NPOV to say that a fetus is human life
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alternatives include when it is viable, when it is born.
Degrees, yes--as others have pointed out, its a spectrum. But in the context of consensus, that "spectrum" is also a bell curve, with the two extremes representing the vocal minorities, while most people might agree to some fetal age a pragmatic compromise. I dont own a polling company, so this is not sourced. In this case, however the extremes appear to be split along absolute/binary lines, while in reality most understand the middle ground. Hence the extremes are almost reflexively represented as majorities rather than as minorites,(1) and this inverse logic effects how our articles are written and debated. IMHO It's incorrect for a general bell curve consensus to be represented as simply exclusively a bunch of "minorities"(2) just because there are different degrees. IOW, to claim that an intuited 'general compromise POV' is merely a group of conceptual, unrelated, and distict POVs is not correct, as even a 'conceptual consensus'(3) = rationality == NPOV. With representation for all the conceptual and political degrees of course.
Fn 1 minorities (though certainly there's a political split point) 2 (Perhaps so because there is yet no definitive popular consensus yet on where the line is, other than that represented in Roe.) 3 ...consensus, (as opposed to segmentalism on the particulars)...
SV Apologies for U.S.-centrist language and footnotes.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I would say it's NPOV to say that a fetus is human life (what other kind of life could it be if it's a human fetus?), but it's POV to attribute personhood to the fetus, which is a legal issue only indirectly tied to the biological one.
Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of misnomer for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the humanity of the fetus are also included even though, yes, "personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition, and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally, biological) definition.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
steve v wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of misnomer for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the humanity of the fetus are also included even though, yes, "personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition, and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally, biological) definition.
SV
You say that "personhood" is a social/legal definition, but I don't think that's the best way to describe it in this context. When you talk about things like moral obligation, and what we are morally obligated to and what we aren't, you are using a philosophical definition of "person". And in that sense, it seems clear to me that a fetus is not a person.
It's coincedental that I'm in the middle of a rewrite of [[Categorical imperative]] because I can give you an example of a view of an eminent moral philosopher on this very issue, that is, the view of Immanuel Kant: "Beings whose existence depends, not on our will, but on nature, have none the less, if they are non-rational beings, only a relative value as means and are consequently called /things/. Rational beings, on the other hand, are called /persons/ because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves--that is, as something which ought not be used merely as a means--and consequently imposes to that extent a limit on arbitrary treatment of them."
Kant was talking mainly about animals in the above passage, but the it works just as well for the unborn. His conclusion (the argument is around 90 pages long) more or less boils down to this: The only objective basis for moral obligation comes from respect of the autonomously rational powers of a person. If you aren't rational, you're not a person, and therefore you exist only as a means to some other end. So feelings of moral obligation to /things/ must be tied up with some subjective considerations, like your personal feelings about the matter. It's not different from being sentimental about a family heirloom, or crying when a beatiful work of art is destroyed. It's a sense of loss, but it has no moral content, because it is not a person. So Kant would be another person who agrees that an unborn fetus a part of a woman's body, not a person, and not a thing to which anyone is morally obligated in any way.
Whether you agree with this argument or not isn't my point: What I'm pointing out here is that this is a moral problem, and is therefore more in the realm of philosophy than of law. If you want to support the notion that we are morally obligated to non-persons because they have human DNA, or because they might some day become a person, you're going to have to come up with a rational and binding philosophical argument to that effect that isn't based on anyone's feelings.
And yes, it would be intensely POV to make the jump from (human tissue) -> (person) -> (moral obligation). As I understand it, the consensus among moral philosophers these days is that such a jump would be ridiculous.
- Ryan
Youre absolutely right. But saying its only in the realm of philosophy contradicts the NPOV view. Again, there is no one realm for this discussion --its political, religious, ethicial, social, etc. Thus, the only thing (regardless of the neat heirarchies of classical philosophy) is the basic association between the arbitrary concept of the "fetus" and the accepted concept of "human." With that out of the way, the rest can be relegated to POV1, POV2, etc. Claiming that its not clear, or that there is no possible general agreement is not truly NPOV.
SV Thanks, everyone
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
steve v wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of
misnomer
for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the
humanity
of the fetus are also included even though, yes, "personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition, and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally, biological) definition.
SV
You say that "personhood" is a social/legal definition, but I don't think that's the best way to describe it in this context. When you talk about things like moral obligation, and what we are morally obligated to and what we aren't, you are using a philosophical definition of "person". And in that sense, it seems clear to me that a fetus is not a person.
It's coincedental that I'm in the middle of a rewrite of [[Categorical imperative]] because I can give you an example of a view of an eminent moral philosopher on this very issue, that is, the view of Immanuel Kant: "Beings whose existence depends, not on our will, but on nature, have none the less, if they are non-rational beings, only a relative value as means and are consequently called /things/. Rational beings, on the other hand, are called /persons/ because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves--that is, as something which ought not be used merely as a means--and consequently imposes to that extent a limit on arbitrary treatment of them."
Kant was talking mainly about animals in the above passage, but the it works just as well for the unborn. His conclusion (the argument is around 90 pages long) more or less boils down to this: The only objective basis for moral obligation comes from respect of the autonomously rational powers of a person. If you aren't rational, you're not a person, and therefore you exist only as a means to some other end. So feelings of moral obligation to /things/ must be tied up with some subjective considerations, like your personal feelings about the matter. It's not different from being sentimental about a family heirloom, or crying when a beatiful work of art is destroyed. It's a sense of loss, but it has no moral content, because it is not a person. So Kant would be another person who agrees that an unborn fetus a part of a woman's body, not a person, and not a thing to which anyone is morally obligated in any way.
Whether you agree with this argument or not isn't my point: What I'm pointing out here is that this is a moral problem, and is therefore more in the realm of philosophy than of law. If you want to support the notion that we are morally obligated to non-persons because they have human DNA, or because they might some day become a person, you're going to have to come up with a rational and binding philosophical argument to that effect that isn't based on anyone's feelings.
And yes, it would be intensely POV to make the jump from (human tissue) -> (person) -> (moral obligation). As I understand it, the consensus among moral philosophers these days is that such a jump would be ridiculous.
- Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
Yes it is since the term is loaded, not unlike 'partial-birth abortion' vs 'intact dilation and extraction' or using the term 'unborn baby' instead of fetus/embryo/zygote. The reason; the non-medical terms were designed to confer a value judgment.
'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this context since any cell from a human is by definition human life. 'Independent human life' is another thing altogether but in terms of gestation, would only include a viable fetus.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Question: Is it POV...
Yes it is since the term is loaded, not unlike 'partial-birth abortion' vs 'intact dilation and extraction' or using the term 'unborn baby' instead of fetus/embryo/zygote. The reason; the non-medical terms were designed to confer a value judgment.
Well, I dont think others here will agree with your reading of NPOV. Likewise your statement is confusing, because you dont keep "loaded" in context--in politics, I assume -- however politics isnt the only context of the debate. All of it has bearing. Likewise you imply that the medical-technical terms like "IDE" are somehow neutral, or otherwise non-judgemental. Perhaps this is best reworded that both sides deliberately obfuscate the terms in political attempts to either de-humanize or humanize the fetus. NPOV relevancy: Its important not to confuse cold, technical, clinical, "medical" terms with NPOV terms. Note that bedside manner requires doctors to echo the sentiments of the parent(s): Ie. abortionists might call it "tissue," while OBGYNs might call it a "baby."
'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this context since any cell from a human is by definition human life. 'Independent human life' is another thing altogether but in terms of gestation, would only include a viable fetus.
I dont think this is correct in the most precise or even common use of the terms. While "human life" requires "human (animal) cells", the cells themselves arent particularly human (as Daniel pointed out). Biologically speaking, theres little to distinguish a chimp from any given human who might look like one. So, we're limited within reason to the term "human" as its generally accepted, and not putting undue emphasis on interesting intellectual caveats. "Life" simply refers to stuff that's alive, meaning "if its not alive, nobody will make a stink." "Viability," is an important factor within the general context of finding a compromise between the "orgasm or birth" extremes.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
All of it has bearing. Likewise you imply that the medical-technical terms like "IDE" are somehow neutral, or otherwise non-judgemental.
The medical terms were not created with value judgments on what they are describing in mind, while terms like 'partial-birth abortion' deliberately *were*. That = POV.
Note that bedside manner requires doctors to echo the sentiments of the parent(s): Ie. abortionists might call it "tissue," while OBGYNs might call it a "baby."
Abortionists might. But a doctor would call it a fetus, embryo or zygote depending on its gestational stage.
I dont think this is correct in the most precise or even common use of the terms. While "human life" requires "human (animal) cells", the cells themselves arent particularly human (as Daniel pointed out).
Of course the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (gestation is all about putting all those parts together to form an independent human life). Yet almost every cell in a human body is functioning and has a full complement of unique human genes (mature red blood cells being the most notable exception). That makes them both alive and human.
Biologically speaking, theres little to distinguish a chimp from any given human who might look like one.
False. They belong to different species; that's not a 'little' thing at all. Chimps also have 24 sets of chromosomes, while humans have 23. Further, about 30,000 human genes make about 150,000 human proteins. So pure genetic correspondence between species is a simplistic argument to allude to since it is the complex interactions of those genes with each other and their products that create the real differences.
This list is not about this, so this will be the last message I send or even read in this thread.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Daniel Mayer wrote:
'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this context since any cell from a human is by definition human life. 'Independent human life' is another thing altogether but in terms of gestation, would only include a viable fetus.
I think the term you are searching for is "organism".
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
Now for a *real* NPOV tickler: Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
Of course it is. Whether or not a fetus is "human", or at what point it becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion debate. Stating the anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the antithesis of NPOV.
Jay.
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Of course it is. Whether or not a fetus is "human", or at what point it becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion debate. Stating the anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the antithesis of NPOV.
NOT HUMAN: See, you say that, and Meelar has said that, but others, Anthere, Slimvirgin, etc. disagree. Mav even extended that to human cells, though in general he sought to complicate matters. ANY POSITION =/= NPOV : This is true, but using the FES example again, extreme claims can be marginalised without violating NPOV. Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear to be controversial, even though you and Meelar think that such a reference would be an endorsement of a view.
Again, this isnt merely for sake of discussion, as the point was to seek some input regarding how to deal with the debate on certain articles. I know that my reasoning can be hard to follow for some of you, but if the debate is exclusively, binary then the "sides" are reprented by *absolutist* (i.e. *impractical*) extremes. Thats not NPOV either, as it ignores the fact that most people dont subscribe to the extremes of "all life" or "all choice." Whatever can be mutually agreed upon can be said to be something like consensus, and therefore the basis for more NPOV writing.
But if, as some claim (you, Meelar) that there isnt even an agreement regarding the basic notion that a fetus at 8.9 months is a "human" or "life" or "human life", then there's no basis for consensus, hence NPOV writing. That's not the case, fortunately, as most seem to agree that neither extreme view is correct --that its not simply a binary issue (as many claim it should be represented) but its a bell curve in which the split/peak seems to be some particular gestational age--perhaps related to viability or not.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Of course it is. Whether or not a fetus is "human", or at what point it becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion debate. Stating the anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the antithesis of NPOV.
NOT HUMAN: See, you say that, and Meelar has said that, but others, Anthere, Slimvirgin, etc. disagree. Mav even extended that to human cells, though in general he sought to complicate matters. ANY POSITION =/= NPOV : This is true, but using the FES example again, extreme claims can be marginalised without violating NPOV.
In this debate the most commonly heard voices are all "extreme". *Extreme minority* positions can be marginalized without violating NPOV, but when those extreme voices represent a significant number of people (in this case numbering in the millions), their view must be presented as well.
Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear to be controversial
Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee fetus") is non-controversial. Referring to is a "a human", quite obviously is.
Jay.
Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear to be controversial
Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee fetus") is non-controversial. Referring to is a "a human", quite obviously is.
Jay.
Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun and as an adjective. Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is human"). The first implies personhood, the second does not.
Is this a viable compromise?
Sam
From: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com
Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear to be controversial
Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee fetus") is non-controversial. Referring to is a "a human", quite
obviously
is.
Jay.
Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun and as an adjective. Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is human"). The first implies personhood, the second does not.
Is this a viable compromise?
As opposed to "a foetus in a womb is chimpanzee"? "A foetus in womb is inhuman"? Frankly, I can't see a meaningful usage which wouldn't imply personhood. The example you provide doesn't give any useful information, and, in fact, if found in an article would appear to be promoting exactly that, personhood.
Jay.
Sam Korn wrote:
Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun and as an adjective. Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is human"). The first implies personhood, the second does not.
Is this a viable compromise?
Sam _______________________________________________
Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to imply that the fetus is a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus is human"? Everyone knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that you could be taking the time in an ethics article to explain that chimpanzees do not grow in the wombs of human females. If you consider it so trivial to say "A fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it at all. The only _possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence, therefore, is POV.
- Ryan
Sam Korn wrote:
Surely there has to be some difference between
using human as a noun
and as an adjective. Using "human" as a noun to
refer to a foetus
(i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a
subtle but important
difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a
foetus in a womb is
human"). The first implies personhood, the second
does not. Is this a viable compromise?
Using the word "viable" in this context is dubious ;) The problem with making a stink out of the subtle nuances of the English language should be obvious to anyone who tries their best to write in ways which are clearest and most easily translated. "Implication" of "personhood" seems to be the Crux of the Biscuit here... Though we agree: a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, of cs..) and "human" ~ person... yet fetus =/= person, and even: "fetus" ~/~ "person," ...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the basis for: fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??
...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to imply that the fetus is a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus is human"? Everyone knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that you could be taking the time in an ethics article to explain that chimpanzees do not grow in the wombs of human females. If you consider it so trivial to say "A fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it at all. The only _possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence, therefore, is POV.
So, "why say it, if its going to be controversial?" Even though not saying "human" would be an endorsement of one view, which de-"human"izes the fetus? The point, again, is that even ardent pro-Choicers can agree that a fetus = human, then why say "that would be POV", "implies personhood" and hence "should be avoided."
There is some linguistic overlap between the uses of "human" and "personhood" as social and legal concepts, and therefore simply avoiding them doesnt really clarify anything.
Sincere regards, SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, ofcs..) and "human" ~ person... yet fetus =/= person, and even: "fetus" ~/~ "person," ...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the basis for: fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??
...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.
This is just sophistry :)
Wikipedia should not say "a fetus is a human being", nor should it say "a fetus is not a human being" - it should say stuff like "a fetus is considered a person by X and a bunch of tissue by Y".
It *should*, however, say "Homeopathy is pseudo-science". :D
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson a écrit:
a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, ofcs..) and "human" ~ person... yet fetus =/= person, and even: "fetus" ~/~ "person," ...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the basis for: fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??
...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.
This is just sophistry :)
Wikipedia should not say "a fetus is a human being", nor should it say "a fetus is not a human being" - it should say stuff like "a fetus is considered a person by X and a bunch of tissue by Y".
Which makes an article title such as [[foetus personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
It *should*, however, say "Homeopathy is pseudo-science". :D
Regards, Haukur
For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...
Hakur wrote:
This is just sophistry :)
Anthere ecrit:
Which makes an article title such as [[foetus personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
Thats not what others have said:
Delirium ecrit:
"Certainly. There have been entire /books/ written on the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than enough material to write an article about it summarizing all the points of view.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
steve v a écrit:
Hakur wrote:
This is just sophistry :)
Anthere ecrit:
Which makes an article title such as [[foetus personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
Thats not what others have said:
Delirium ecrit:
"Certainly. There have been entire /books/ written on the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than enough material to write an article about it summarizing all the points of view.
SV
I agree. And this is precisely exactly why I say it is disputed...
And it is not because Delirium says that there are entire books written on the issue of fetal personhood that it will make it less disputed; and it is not because Delirium agrees with you that he is correct either.
No one is "correct" here. No one can be correct. There are only perceptions and it is perfectly alright that perceptions are different. You asked us our opinions. We gave them. Now, the right thing to do is to accept that all opinions are acceptable; not to take the opinion of one person as a tool to hint others opinions might be erroneous. Imho.
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
No one is "correct" here. No one can be correct.
There's something obvious that is missed (les elephant dans la chambre...) by asserting that there's "no wrong view." We routinely talk about "cranks" and "fighting them off," but in this particular case, "all opinions are acceptable?" Not to say that a certain political view is a crank view, but the view that the fetus isnt human *is* a crank view --or mere political terminology. What's the difference from an NPOV?
--- Ant
[don't] take the opinion of one person as a tool to
hint others opinions might be erroneous. Imho.
That was not my point. The point was to find where people agreed and disagreed, and give feedback to each how they might be helpful or contradicting in the goal of writing about these matters in NPOV.
But, vous etes correct, this thread has gone on long enough.' Back to the wiki. I'll look at that article you linked to and some related ones.
SV Mailists are useful for frustration only
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/31/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Not to say that a certain political view is a crank view, but the view that the fetus isnt human *is* a crank view --or mere political terminology. What's the difference from an NPOV?
FWIW, the clippings off my toe nails are also, by definition, human. Human doesn't equal life. Whether or not a featus is a life - that was the question, right?
/Habj
Take your pick:
Human fetus. Fetal being. Fetal person. Human tissue. Late third-trimester human tissue. Early first-trimester embryonic person.
SV
--- Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/31/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Not to say that a certain political view is a crank view, but the view that
the
fetus isnt human *is* a crank view --or mere
political
terminology. What's the difference from an NPOV?
FWIW, the clippings off my toe nails are also, by definition, human. Human doesn't equal life. Whether or not a featus is a life - that was the question, right?
/Habj _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
steve v a écrit:
Hakur wrote:
This is just sophistry :)
Anthere ecrit:
Which makes an article title such as [[foetus personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
Thats not what others have said:
Delirium ecrit:
"Certainly. There have been entire /books/ written on the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than enough material to write an article about it summarizing all the points of view.
SV
On a related note, the article on morality and legality of abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_legality_of_abortion is just of very low quality. If anyone feels courageous enough to try to improve this hot potato, he will be most welcome :-)
ant
For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...
You can certainly give birth with 100% placebo based pain-relief or no pain-relief of all. Most women throughout time have done so. Even as effective pain- relief became available some religious people were against its use on the grounds that God, in his mercy, had intended woman to give birth with pain as punishment for Eve's transgression. That seems pretty clear from Genesis 3.16:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Whether you decide to give birth God's way or reap some of the fruits of modern medical science I wish you the best of luck with your birth and child.
Homeopathy is based on an 18th century theory which later discoveries have shown does not hold up. Yet, its adherents often defend it by using a scientific vocabulary. Thus it is pseudo-science.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...
You can certainly give birth with 100% placebo based pain-relief or no pain-relief of all. Most women throughout time have done so. Even as effective pain- relief became available some religious people were against its use on the grounds that God, in his mercy, had intended woman to give birth with pain as punishment for Eve's transgression. That seems pretty clear from Genesis 3.16:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Wow! The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a woman. There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them. That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.
Homeopathy is based on an 18th century theory which later discoveries have shown does not hold up. Yet, its adherents often defend it by using a scientific vocabulary. Thus it is pseudo-science.
We all know about your obsession against homeopathy. Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing. It is far too easy to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely rationalistic model of medical practice.
Ec
Wow! The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a woman. There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them. That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.
I don't understand what you're saying, much less how it relates to what I was saying.
We all know about your obsession against homeopathy. Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing. It is far too easy to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely rationalistic model of medical practice.
Your wording is interesting. You say that even if homeopathic medicines *turn out to be* inert placebos etc. Accordingly you seem to acknowledge a possible state of existence where homeopathy has been categorically proven not to work. From my point of view this has already happened. What would it take for you to be convinced that we have entered this state? What test would be conclusive enough for you?
As far as the placebo effect is concerned it is well known to modern medical science, though it is inherently somewhat difficult to study. It is by no means dismissed by the rationalistic model of medical practice. Here's the summary of a recent article:
"The placebo effect is well known, but there are many misconceptions. One of these misconceptions is that one-third of patients respond to placebos. This misunderstanding is probably due to methodologically poor research conducted in the 1950s. Another error is that the effect in the placebo arm of a clinical trial is often confused with the placebo effect. The belief in the placebo effect is enormous, but the quantity and quality of data to substantiate this belief are very limited. Investigating the placebo effect is methodologically difficult, not easy to get financed and considered unrewarding." (http://tinyurl.com/7abcq)
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Wow! The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a woman. There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them. That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.
I don't understand what you're saying, much less how it relates to what I was saying.
IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for Eve's transgression"
We all know about your obsession against homeopathy. Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing. It is far too easy to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely rationalistic model of medical practice.
Your wording is interesting. You say that even if homeopathic medicines *turn out to be* inert placebos etc. Accordingly you seem to acknowledge a possible state of existence where homeopathy has been categorically proven not to work. From my point of view this has already happened. What would it take for you to be convinced that we have entered this state? What test would be conclusive enough for you?
Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is different the inflexible POV that it has already happened. Your, "What would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests inflexibility. There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.
As far as the placebo effect is concerned it is well known to modern medical science, though it is inherently somewhat difficult to study. It is by no means dismissed by the rationalistic model of medical practice. Here's the summary of a recent article:
"The placebo effect is well known, but there are many misconceptions. One of these misconceptions is that one-third of patients respond to placebos. This misunderstanding is probably due to methodologically poor research conducted in the 1950s. Another error is that the effect in the placebo arm of a clinical trial is often confused with the placebo effect. The belief in the placebo effect is enormous, but the quantity and quality of data to substantiate this belief are very limited. Investigating the placebo effect is methodologically difficult, not easy to get financed and considered unrewarding." (http://tinyurl.com/7abcq)
Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word "placebo" does not appear there at all.
I certainly can neither deny nor confirm that there is a one-third response to placebos; my best guess would be that the rate would vary with the medical condition involved. Without a belief in the placebo effect referring to it in clinical trials would be meaningless. We would do just as well comparing the medicine being tested with doing nothing at all, or with a medicine that has an established track record.
I certainly don't doubt that investigating the placebo effect would be difficult and expensive. "Unrewarding" suggests that whatever tests are undertaken would not result in big financial rewards to the pharmaceutical industry; they are not in the business of funding pure science. If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference standard.
How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?
Ec
IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for Eve's transgression"
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I was quoting the Genesis, which is one of the books of the Bible. I am not personally of the opinion that all women should suffer in childbirth because of Eve's transgression.
Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is different the inflexible POV that it has already happened. Your, "What would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests inflexibility. There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.
I think we probably have somewhat different ways to think about things since I frequently fail to understand your paragraphs. You originally said:
"Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing."
And I asked you what events would bring about this "turn-out-to-be" state. What debunking would be sufficient? What test failure would do? Conversely, I can easily outline circumstances in which I would accept homeopathy as valid. I consider it beyond the realm of the probable - but it could theoretically happen. Allow me to quote from Richard Feynman, he puts it better than I ever could.
- - - Example. I'm in Las Vegas, suppose. And I meet a mind reader, or, let's say, a man who claims not to be a mind reader, but more technically speaking to have the ability of telekinesis, which means that he can influece the way things behave by pure thought. This fellow comes to me, and he says, "I will demonstrate this to you. We will stand at the roulette wheel and I will tell you ahead of time whether it is going to be black or red on every shot."
I believe, say, before I begin, it doesn't make any difference what number you choose for this. I happen to be prejudiced against mind readers from experience in nature, in physics. I don't see, if I believe that man is made out of atoms and if I know all of the - most of the - ways atoms interact with each other, any direct way in which the machinations in the mind can affect the ball. So from other experience and general knowledge, I have a strong prejudice against mind readers. Million to one.
Now we begin. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Do I believe in mind readers? No. It could happen. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Sweat. I'm about to learn something. This continues, let us suppose, for ten times. Now it's possible by chance that that happened ten times, but the odds are a thousand to one against it. Therefore, I now have to conclude that the odds that a mind reader is really doing it are a thousand to one that he's not a mind reader still, but it was a million to one before. But if I get ten more, you see, he'll convince me. Not quite. One must always allow for alternative theories. There is another theory that I should have mentioned before. As we went up to the roulette table, I must have thought in my mind of the possibility that there is collusion between the so-called mind reader and the people at the table. That's possible.
...
Now suppose that we go to another club, and it works, and another one and it works. I buy dice and it works. I take him home and I build a roulette wheel; it works. What do I conclude? I conclude he is a mind reader. - - -
- From "This Unscientific Age", a lecture given in 1963. Here quoted from "The Meaning of It All", published by Penguin Books in 1999, pp. 68-70.
Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word "placebo" does not appear there at all.
Sorry, I had two PubMed links open - that one was something I was using for my M.S. thesis. My bad :) A Google search will reveal the page I intended to send you to.
If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference standard.
I think this article probably argues for more research into the placebo effect. If you search PubMed for the words "placebo effect" you will, however, find a reasonable amount of recent articles.
How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?
Not having actually read the article I cannot say for sure. My guess is that they want to distinguish the *change* that occurs in the placebo arm of an experiment from the *effect* of the placebo they are given. That is to say a part of the placebo group may get better without it having anything to do with the placebo - they might have gotten better even without it.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for Eve's transgression"
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I was quoting the Genesis, which is one of the books of the Bible. I am not personally of the opinion that all women should suffer in childbirth because of Eve's transgression.
Quoting the Bible in a context about science has its pitfalls. :-)
Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is different the inflexible POV that it has already happened. Your, "What would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests inflexibility. There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.
I think we probably have somewhat different ways to think about things since I frequently fail to understand your paragraphs. You originally said:
"Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing."
And I asked you what events would bring about this "turn-out-to-be" state. What debunking would be sufficient? What test failure would do?
When you begin from the premise that something must be "debunked" you make an assumption that that is the inevitable goal of the discussion. I have never claimed to have ever used homeopathy, and I really don't know what I would do if the occasion ever arose. Under those circumstances it doesn't matter to me whether the tests would fail. If you show me conclusively that a particular homeopathic medicine is ineffective it's still not rational to extrapolate that result to all the other such medicines. Neither am I ready to make the kind of study that would satisfactorily bring me to a specific stand on either the validity or invalidity of homeopathy. I can imagine myself arguing in the same way as I am now if your views were completely the opposite to what they actually are.
It's not homeopathy that interests me; it's the rigorous application of the scientific method no matter where it leads me. The fact that a "science", to use the term broadly, has not been proven does not mean that it has been proven false. The burden of proof remains with the person who claims that it is valid. The person who isists that something is false manages to shif that burden to himself when it is not necessary to do so.
Conversely, I can easily outline circumstances in which I would accept homeopathy as valid. I consider it beyond the realm of the probable - but it could theoretically happen.
That statement is self contradictory. To be meaningful it would require invoking the concept of negative probability. Perhaps you are not using the term "probability" in a mathematical sense.
Allow me to quote from Richard Feynman, he puts it better than I ever could.
Example. I'm in Las Vegas, suppose. And I meet a mind reader, or, let's say, a man who claims not to be a mind reader, but more technically speaking to have the ability of telekinesis, which means that he can influece the way things behave by pure thought. This fellow comes to me, and he says, "I will demonstrate this to you. We will stand at the roulette wheel and I will tell you ahead of time whether it is going to be black or red on every shot."
I believe, say, before I begin, it doesn't make any difference what number you choose for this. I happen to be prejudiced against mind readers from experience in nature, in physics. I don't see, if I believe that man is made out of atoms and if I know all of the - most of the - ways atoms interact with each other, any direct way in which the machinations in the mind can affect the ball. So from other experience and general knowledge, I have a strong prejudice against mind readers. Million to one.
Now we begin. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Do I believe in mind readers? No. It could happen. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Sweat. I'm about to learn something. This continues, let us suppose, for ten times. Now it's possible by chance that that happened ten times, but the odds are a thousand to one against it. Therefore, I now have to conclude that the odds that a mind reader is really doing it are a thousand to one that he's not a mind reader still, but it was a million to one before. But if I get ten more, you see, he'll convince me. Not quite. One must always allow for alternative theories. There is another theory that I should have mentioned before. As we went up to the roulette table, I must have thought in my mind of the possibility that there is collusion between the so-called mind reader and the people at the table. That's possible.
...
Now suppose that we go to another club, and it works, and another one and it works. I buy dice and it works. I take him home and I build a roulette wheel; it works. What do I conclude? I conclude he is a mind reader.
- From "This Unscientific Age", a lecture given in 1963. Here quoted from
"The Meaning of It All", published by Penguin Books in 1999, pp. 68-70.
Apart from his harmless confusion between the different psychic phenomena, I have no problem with this story. He has made a probabilistic determination that the person is a "mind reader"; he has not proven it (The actual phenomenon involved would likely be precognition, or less likely psychokinesis. There is no "mind reading" unless the knowledge is gained from what someone else already knew through normal means. This error is harmless in these circumstances.)
Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word "placebo" does not appear there at all.
Sorry, I had two PubMed links open - that one was something I was using for my M.S. thesis. My bad :) A Google search will reveal the page I intended to send you to.
Thanks, I may look for it.
If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference standard.
I think this article probably argues for more research into the placebo effect. If you search PubMed for the words "placebo effect" you will, however, find a reasonable amount of recent articles.
If that's their argument I support it.
How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?
Not having actually read the article I cannot say for sure. My guess is that they want to distinguish the *change* that occurs in the placebo arm of an experiment from the *effect* of the placebo they are given. That is to say a part of the placebo group may get better without it having anything to do with the placebo - they might have gotten better even without it.
The do-nothing group is yet another reference group, but IIRC placebo groups often tend to do better if only because those receiving the placebo believe that they are getting real medicine. This gets us into questions about the healing power of one's own mind.
Ec
steve v wrote:
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to imply that the fetus is a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus is human"? Everyone knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that you could be taking the time in an ethics article to explain that chimpanzees do not grow in the wombs of human females. If you consider it so trivial to say "A fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it at all. The only _possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence, therefore, is POV.
So, "why say it, if its going to be controversial?" Even though not saying "human" would be an endorsement of one view, which de-"human"izes the fetus? The point, again, is that even ardent pro-Choicers can agree that a fetus = human, then why say "that would be POV", "implies personhood" and hence "should be avoided."
There is some linguistic overlap between the uses of "human" and "personhood" as social and legal concepts, and therefore simply avoiding them doesnt really clarify anything.
Sincere regards, SV
Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither does using them. In fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If you say "a fetus is a human" in the article, people will read that according to their own pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A fetus is a human being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is human tissue". The sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.
The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this point. Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and "human" have linguistic overlap are people who don't know how this sort of thing is talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms are clearly defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial and also meaningful.
- Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think we are only obligated to "persons".
There's a bit of this at [[person]]. It could probably be improved/expanded, of course, but that's probably the right place to put this sort of discussion.
-Mark
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither does using them. In fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If you say "a fetus is a human" in the article, people will read that according to their own pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A fetus is a human being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is human tissue". The sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.
IMHO your example is a bit simplistic, and does not assume good faith (or intellect) OTPO the reader. First of all, noone has been suggesting using language like "a fetus *is* a human being," but rather that ''a human fetus has some kind of connection with the concepts of "human being" and "human person," and that this connection has some consensus along general moral grounds--regardless of abortion politics.'' We can say that ''a human fetus is "human," (ie. "of humanity") and becomes a "human being" at some arbitrary unclear point - a point which is debated in religion, culture, society and law.'' There is no debate that the fetus and even the embryo is human--the debate is whether it is not yet human enough and still animal enough to deem deliberately harmful acts toward it as outside of murder laws, and within the realm of choice. This is distinguishing rational consensus from both absolutes, as the absolutes merely are what they are, and can be counted only as absolutes.
The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this point. Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and "human" have linguistic overlap are people who don't know how this sort of thing is talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms are clearly defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial and also meaningful.
If you recall, I started this thread in the context of "human rights", seeking some input regarding the basic issue of "human rights" concepts as they may or may not extend to the fetus, under any number of conditions. Now, you might say "human rights" is a exclusively biological concept, or that there is no "human right" to have personal freedom, or to not get bombed, or made to open wide while uncle Karim is forced to beat off in that general direction. Fortunately, however, "human rights" concepts *are* in fact generally agreeable (to most "humans" anyway), and form a basis for balanced neutral views toward cultural issues, which bear closely with NPOV. Golden Rule.
Some people got it, while others argue with me about the notion that even connecting human with fetus violates NPOV--which is ridiculous and equally sophistic as any hypothetical conjecture I might come up with. Its a cop-out *from* asserting an NPOV order, based on principles which may be commonly referred to as NPOV or "human rights" concepts. If its acceptable that a child at 1 minute old can be a "person," then its also acceptable to express claims that a fetus 1 minute before birth "isnt," and hence we're back to a *material (not philosophistry) discussion regarding a maximum agreeable gestational age for an abortion.
Common consensus (including even many who view themselves as "pro-Life") is while no abortions would be ideal, that early abortions are much less evil than late term abortions, and late term abortions grow closer and closer to the legal and moral concept of murder, as development progresses. Not, as some here have tried to assert, that birth is the only point associated with legal personhood. California, for example has a law which counts a fetus as a life in the event of a murder of a pregnant woman. A guy was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and "unborn child." Such laws dont violate choice rights, (and indeed can be considered "woman's rights") but they *do assert a type of case where a fetus does in fact have personhood. This is not an issue of mere sophistry.
Because there are degrees, the whole issue must be represented in degrees --which is in contradiction to both claims that a fetus "isnt" a person, and likewise that a fetus "is" one. Your 'definition' of "human" as "chromosomes" has little if any bearing on legal, social, and moral "human rights" considerations --nor I suspect would it pass mustard with a biologist. Certainly its a debated issue, but consensus points to a compromise--not an avoidance of any position. The general terms should reflect that, and not either absolutes. Maybe we can agree on that.
Rage on. SV Sorry for the length.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
"Life" in this context can be easily (or purposefully) to be interpretted as something other than "biological life". To say that a fetus is "a human life" is not the same thing for most people as saying, "a fetus is made of living human cells." The latter is NPOV, the former represents a specific POV ("a fetus is a person") and needs to be *attributed* as such. If you mean it only in the strict biological definition of life (one which does not conform necessarily to legal, ethical, or intuitive definitions of "a human life"), it needs to be carefully worded to reflect that, because "a human life" is generally interpretted to mean something else.
FF
On 7/27/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too :))
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I say its not, while Meelar feels that because pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my general point is that just because PC says "its not so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming they arent human, or bypassing the question through lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There is no "human right" to kill another human being.
SV
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alphax wrote:
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of them so that they shut up. ;)
Chl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris Lüer wrote:
Alphax wrote:
It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of them so that they shut up. ;)
I'm glad you like my approach :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Chris [iso-8859-1] L�er wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is distorted by the tides?
Mostly by the equatorial bulge, which is rotational. The tidal stuff is secondary.
This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of them so that they shut up. ;)
A fair comment, as long as you delete "scientific" and replace it with "political"...
-W.
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders
"William M Connolley" wmc@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.55.0507271627390.14710@bsucena... On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Chris [iso-8859-1] Lüer wrote: [snip]
This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of them so that they shut up. ;)
A fair comment, as long as you delete "scientific" and replace it with "political"...
YM "human" :-)
HTH HAND
William M Connolley wrote:
This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of them so that they shut up. ;)
A fair comment, as long as you delete "scientific" and replace it with "political"...
Eh, it's not uncommon in scientific circles either. The sort of paper that buries its reader in gratuitous and only-tangentially-relevant equations and data tables as a substitute for actually making a good argument is sadly altogether too common. Most do get caught by peer review (at least in good publications and conferences), but there are still a fair number that slip through...
But regardless, *we* don't want to do that. A few of the articles that get too citation-happy do seem to do this sometimes... when every single sentence ends with an external link (half of them broken, since the web is mostly ephemeral), and the writing style is "a bunch of gratuitous facts are asserted with no coherent explanation", something is wrong...
-Mark
Delirium
The sort of paper that buries its reader in gratuitous and only-tangentially-relevant equations and data tables as a substitute for actually making a good argument is sadly altogether too common. Most do get caught by peer review (at least in good publications and conferences), but there are still a fair number that slip through...
Bad papers get published - no surprise there. It would be a surprise if they rose high up the citation statistics. The comparison with political rhetoric breaks down right there, doesn't it? Simplistic political stuff generally gets far more attention than carefully-crafted leaders and columns in the quality press.
But regardless, *we* don't want to do that. A few of the articles that get too citation-happy do seem to do this sometimes... when every single sentence ends with an external link (half of them broken, since the web is mostly ephemeral), and the writing style is "a bunch of gratuitous facts are asserted with no coherent explanation", something is wrong...
Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments, rather than improve the encyclopedia?
Charles
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [050728 06:51]:
Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments, rather than improve the encyclopedia?
Any crank can attach twenty spurious references with no effort at all. But that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic in itself.
- d.
On 7/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [050728 06:51]:
Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments, rather than improve the encyclopedia?
Any crank can attach twenty spurious references with no effort at all. But that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic in itself.
Odd you should mention this, David. One particular user attached ten spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him up. But he pretends they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_fa...
Ah, Peter - that was a poke at Jdtrl! How sly.
SV
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com)
[050728 06:51]:
Could be the people who use 'quote your sources'
as a way to win arguments,
rather than improve the encyclopedia?
Any crank can attach twenty spurious references
with no effort at all. But
that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic
in itself.
Odd you should mention this, David. One particular user attached ten spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him up. But he pretends they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_fa...
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
On 7/28/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Any crank can attach twenty spurious references
with no effort at all. But
that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic
in itself.
Odd you should mention this, David. One particular user attached ten spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him up. But he pretends they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_fa...
Ah, Peter - that was a poke at Jdtrl! How sly.
He bends over, who am I to resist a poke?
But no, it's a poke at spurious arguments from any source. We all know the logical fallacies and the debating flaws, the argument ad homonym and so on. If an editor claims to be an expert and then offers up dodgy references in supposed support, I'm inclined to think the expertise lies more in the field of self-promotion than shining the light of knowledge upon Wikipedia.
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
Or am I reading you wrong? :)
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
Or am I reading you wrong? :)
Well, that does it for me. I'm going to stick {{unreferenced}}, {{NPOV}}, {{disputed}} and {{whatwereyousmokingwhenyouwrotethis}} on as many articles as possible :)
Or start nominating some FAs for VFD as being uncyclopedic. Starting with [[Xenu]]...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and every statement is probabilistic. The near sphericity of the earth is a POV with a very high probability of truth. If all Wikipedians (and we are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a consensus Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if no-one is disputing the shape?
So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
Or am I reading you wrong? :)
That seems like an accurate representation. Of course that one person may have difficulty finding a place to stand with Archimedes' lever.
Ec
On 7/28/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
Or am I reading you wrong? :)
That seems like an accurate representation. Of course that one person may have difficulty finding a place to stand with Archimedes' lever.
She could stand on the turtle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
When we put forth these intuitive truths as examples of the need for citations we put up a straw man that is there to be knocked down. There is a presumption that any statement is true unless and until it is challenged. Of course the more ridiculous and outrageous statements will be challenged very quickly. Statements about the near-spherical shape of the earth may not be challenged at all.
The "scientific point of view" would be fine if it meant rigorous adherence to the principles of scientific method; it is not fine if it means support for the prevailing prejudices of mainstream scientists.
Some people may very well expect an encyclopedia to be written from that mythical "scientific point of view"; others may expect it to be from a "religious point of view" of some sort. We still need to stick to a neutral point of view. Implicit to the neutral point of view is the dynamic of questioning everything.
Ec
My big problem with this is that very frequently, especially in fields like science and philosophy, commonly held beliefs might be very different from the "correct" beliefs, or the consensus among learned experts. But because of the format of Wikipedia, some extremely wrong beliefs are inserted into articles because they are commonly held, even if they wildly contradict the research that professionals in the field are doing -- and I mean this is just as bad as saying the Earth is flat. The only difference is that the roundness of the Earth is common knowledge, but there are some things in science that are just as obvious to professionals but completely unknown to the general public.
The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view, Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
In these cases, I don't think that any amount of voiciferous objecting and arguing should be considered relevant. I think that even if the consensus of Wikipedians editing the article disagrees with it, that consensus should lose, unless they can find some evidence that the article is wrong. This obsession with consensus has a real possibility of going terribly wrong. I think the emphasis should be on having Wikipedia advance _correct_ beliefs, not popular ones.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn. I certainly don't believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical ones.
When we put forth these intuitive truths as examples of the need for citations we put up a straw man that is there to be knocked down. There is a presumption that any statement is true unless and until it is challenged. Of course the more ridiculous and outrageous statements will be challenged very quickly. Statements about the near-spherical shape of the earth may not be challenged at all.
The "scientific point of view" would be fine if it meant rigorous adherence to the principles of scientific method; it is not fine if it means support for the prevailing prejudices of mainstream scientists.
Some people may very well expect an encyclopedia to be written from that mythical "scientific point of view"; others may expect it to be from a "religious point of view" of some sort. We still need to stick to a neutral point of view. Implicit to the neutral point of view is the dynamic of questioning everything.
My big problem with this is that very frequently, especially in fields like science and philosophy, commonly held beliefs might be very different from the "correct" beliefs, or the consensus among learned experts. But because of the format of Wikipedia, some extremely wrong beliefs are inserted into articles because they are commonly held, even if they wildly contradict the research that professionals in the field are doing -- and I mean this is just as bad as saying the Earth is flat. The only difference is that the roundness of the Earth is common knowledge, but there are some things in science that are just as obvious to professionals but completely unknown to the general public.
"Commonly held beliefs", "'correct' beliefs", and expert consensus are three different frames of mind, and all three can still be wrong. Often, but certainly not always, the professionals have it right; that's reason enough to leave open the avenues for criticizing science. "Correct" beliefs are often promulgated by people with a political end in mind, and they have no qualms about bending facts if it will help their cause The general public, and thus our editors are often in the difficult position of having a limted basis for making a decision. The need to cite sources should apply equally to the scientists and to those who express commonly held beliefs; the scientists have an advantage here because that practice has been a part of their experience.
Science is very poorly reported to the general public. An understanding of what's going on is incompatible with the 15-second sound bite. Look at the evolution of a long established publication like "Popular Science". In its early days, shortly after the US Civil War it had a lot of articles designed to get everybody to think about science; since then it has managed to evolve into something far more gadgety. Much of science has retreated into the ivory tower. This is great for the protection of scientific sinecures, but is terrible for the promotion of scientific understanding by the general public.
One of the greatest things that Wikipedia could accomplish would be to produce a generation of critical thinkers with both the tools and the confidance to question any kind of established truth wherever they can find it.
The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view, Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
It's a challenge. The statistics say what they say - nothing more, nothing less. The statistics thenselves are unconcerned about how anyone misinterprets them. People don't usually understand what statistics are all about, and are quick to draw conclusions that are not warranted. This subject matter is a good example where we can look for creative ways to build consensus. Simply telling the public that they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic betters will get us nowhere except into a never ending flame war. Somewhere along the way the scientists dropped the ball. Lewis Terman was respected as a scientist in his day when he worked to develop the Stanford-Binet intelligence tests. He wrote in his 1916 book, "The Measurement of Intelligence" (pp. 91-2) --
"It is interesting to note that [the two subjects] represent the level of intelligence which is very, very common among Spanish-Indians and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the familyn stocks from which they come. The fact that one meets this type with such extraordinary frequency among Indians, Mexicans, and negroes suggests quite forcibly that the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will have to be taken up anew and by experimental methods. The writer predicts that when this is done there will be discovered enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be wiped out by any scheme of mental culture.
Children of this group should be segregated in special classes and be given instruction which is concrete and practical. They cannot master abstractions, but they can often be made efficient workers, able to look out for themselves. There is no possibility at present of convincing society that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from a eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific breeding."
Terman was from the academic community. How is a general public that has been instilled with the principle of respecting scientists to deal with such comments? For other academics to say, "He's not really a scientist," doesn't help us with a public that may only see that as bickering between scientists. If either side in that debate is believed, respect for academics will have been undermined. If Terman's view are to be criticised on the basis that they reflect thinking from 89 years ago the public deserves an explanation of how we got from there to here.
In these cases, I don't think that any amount of voiciferous objecting and arguing should be considered relevant. I think that even if the consensus of Wikipedians editing the article disagrees with it, that consensus should lose, unless they can find some evidence that the article is wrong. This obsession with consensus has a real possibility of going terribly wrong. I think the emphasis should be on having Wikipedia advance _correct_ beliefs, not popular ones.
"Correct" too easily becomes "politically correct". It's too easy to become emotionally attached to one's "correct" beliefs. There is great normalizing power to effective consensus building. Scientists would do better by judiciously planting seeds in Wikipedia's great fractal Mendelbrot.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
My big problem with this is that very frequently, especially in fields like science and philosophy, commonly held beliefs might be very different from the "correct" beliefs, or the consensus among learned experts. But because of the format of Wikipedia, some extremely wrong beliefs are inserted into articles because they are commonly held, even if they wildly contradict the research that professionals in the field are doing -- and I mean this is just as bad as saying the Earth is flat. The only difference is that the roundness of the Earth is common knowledge, but there are some things in science that are just as obvious to professionals but completely unknown to the general public.
"Commonly held beliefs", "'correct' beliefs", and expert consensus are three different frames of mind, and all three can still be wrong. Often, but certainly not always, the professionals have it right; that's reason enough to leave open the avenues for criticizing science. "Correct" beliefs are often promulgated by people with a political end in mind, and they have no qualms about bending facts if it will help their cause The general public, and thus our editors are often in the difficult position of having a limted basis for making a decision. The need to cite sources should apply equally to the scientists and to those who express commonly held beliefs; the scientists have an advantage here because that practice has been a part of their experience. Science is very poorly reported to the general public. An understanding of what's going on is incompatible with the 15-second sound bite. Look at the evolution of a long established publication like "Popular Science". In its early days, shortly after the US Civil War it had a lot of articles designed to get everybody to think about science; since then it has managed to evolve into something far more gadgety. Much of science has retreated into the ivory tower. This is great for the protection of scientific sinecures, but is terrible for the promotion of scientific understanding by the general public. One of the greatest things that Wikipedia could accomplish would be to produce a generation of critical thinkers with both the tools and the confidance to question any kind of established truth wherever they can find it.
The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view, Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
It's a challenge. The statistics say what they say - nothing more, nothing less. The statistics thenselves are unconcerned about how anyone misinterprets them. People don't usually understand what statistics are all about, and are quick to draw conclusions that are not warranted. This subject matter is a good example where we can look for creative ways to build consensus. Simply telling the public that they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic betters will get us nowhere except into a never ending flame war. Somewhere along the way the scientists dropped the ball.
Generally speaking (and I am speaking from my personal experience here) whenever what I am calling a "learned expert" -- be it a graduate student in a subject or a PhD or a professional with years of time on the job -- makes contributions, they are well argued and highly referenced. As you say, these people have a lot of experience making these kinds of arguments and I think their method of discovering truth is the best one we have. So no, I don't want to tell the public that "they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic betters". I don't think it should even have to be said.
I think people on Wikipedia should be more humble and conscious of the limitations of their knowledge and expertise, and willing to admit that if another person knows more about it than they do, that his or her opinions are more likely to be closest to the truth. If an expert says something you think you can disprove with adequate research and referencing, then go ahead and bring that up. But I've seen some astonishing arrogance in Wikipedians who think their common knowledge should weigh just as heavily as the opinions of eminent and established thinkers in an advanced field.
That doesn't promote the spread of academic-level scientific knowledge that you want -- it obscures it, by breeding a culture that only perpetuates the commonly held beliefs over the rigorous testing of scientific method.
[snip]
In these cases, I don't think that any amount of voiciferous objecting and arguing should be considered relevant. I think that even if the consensus of Wikipedians editing the article disagrees with it, that consensus should lose, unless they can find some evidence that the article is wrong. This obsession with consensus has a real possibility of going terribly wrong. I think the emphasis should be on having Wikipedia advance _correct_ beliefs, not popular ones.
"Correct" too easily becomes "politically correct". It's too easy to become emotionally attached to one's "correct" beliefs. There is great normalizing power to effective consensus building. Scientists would do better by judiciously planting seeds in Wikipedia's great fractal Mendelbrot.
I don't think that Wikipedia should take a position that truth is subjective. I know that's not precisely what you're saying, but I do think this is a dangerous slippery slope.
Some beliefs are wrong despite being widely held. Yes, if you dig deep enough into the philosophy of correspondence theory and epistemology you'll discover that we only know things with a limited degree of certainty. But as you know, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should include caveats that the moon might actually be made of Norweigan beaver cheese. Science has a way of shifting the burden of proof, and that also happens in academic subjects where the discoveries of a few people are not yet common knowledge despite the availability of the facts to anyone who wants to look at them.
Human civilization works as well as it does because our skills are diversified and we can each specialize to great degrees in individual tasks. But Wikipedia has abandoned that format, and I think that in exchange for freedom of information exchange, we're paying a price we don't have to pay, in the form of scaring away the people who have specialized the most in a single field. I don't want Wikipedia to be an academic journal with all its red tape, politics, and anal-retentive peer review. I just want Wikipedians to be encouraged to understand their limitations, and stick to the things they know.
- Ryan
On 7/28/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Generally speaking (and I am speaking from my personal experience here) whenever what I am calling a "learned expert" -- be it a graduate student in a subject or a PhD or a professional with years of time on the job -- makes contributions, they are well argued and highly referenced. As you say, these people have a lot of experience making these kinds of arguments and I think their method of discovering truth is the best one we have. So no, I don't want to tell the public that "they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic betters". I don't think it should even have to be said.
I've found that "learned experts" on WP sometimes use themselves as references to push their own POVs, and if you then ask them for sources, they provide impressive-looking material that doesn't actually address the issue.
NOR applies just as much to self-proclaimed experts as anyone else.
Skyring wrote:
On 7/28/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Generally speaking (and I am speaking from my personal experience here) whenever what I am calling a "learned expert" -- be it a graduate student in a subject or a PhD or a professional with years of time on the job -- makes contributions, they are well argued and highly referenced. As you say, these people have a lot of experience making these kinds of arguments and I think their method of discovering truth is the best one we have. So no, I don't want to tell the public that "they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic betters". I don't think it should even have to be said.
I've found that "learned experts" on WP sometimes use themselves as references to push their own POVs, and if you then ask them for sources, they provide impressive-looking material that doesn't actually address the issue.
NOR applies just as much to self-proclaimed experts as anyone else.
Of course it does, and of course they do. I don't feel like you're really responding to the argument I'm making here.
- Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view, Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
In such cases, where there are mostly-irreconcilable differences of opinion held by various groups, it makes sense to simply describe the opinion of each group, properly attributed. In this case, there could be a section on academic viewpoints, and one on how the issue plays out in the political sphere. Of course, political groups who attack the academic consensus should have their POV reported as well and properly attributed.
Sometimes there might be more than two sections as well---the areas on psychiatry/psychology/mental-illness could use a revamping to better attribute and cover the range of: 1) medical consensus [e.g. what the _DSM_ says]; 2) scientific consensus of current research [often not the same as #1]; 3) philosophical consensus opinion [e.g. on the definition of "mental illness"]; and 4) public/political opinion. So long as all opinions are properly attributed to who holds them, rather than presented as "the right opinion", I don't see why these can't all co-exist.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
the areas on psychiatry/psychology/mental-illness could use a revamping to better attribute and cover the range of: 1) medical consensus [e.g. what the _DSM_ says]; 2) scientific consensus of current research [often not the same as #1]; 3) philosophical consensus opinion [e.g. on the definition of "mental illness"]; and 4) public/political opinion. So long as all opinions are properly attributed to who holds them, rather than presented as "the right opinion", I don't see why these can't all co-exist.
Very nice.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Delirium wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view, Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
In such cases, where there are mostly-irreconcilable differences of opinion held by various groups, it makes sense to simply describe the opinion of each group, properly attributed. In this case, there could be a section on academic viewpoints, and one on how the issue plays out in the political sphere. Of course, political groups who attack the academic consensus should have their POV reported as well and properly attributed.
Sometimes there might be more than two sections as well---the areas on psychiatry/psychology/mental-illness could use a revamping to better attribute and cover the range of: 1) medical consensus [e.g. what the _DSM_ says]; 2) scientific consensus of current research [often not the same as #1]; 3) philosophical consensus opinion [e.g. on the definition of "mental illness"]; and 4) public/political opinion. So long as all opinions are properly attributed to who holds them, rather than presented as "the right opinion", I don't see why these can't all co-exist.
Well put, Mark.
Often I explain NPOV to non-Wikipedians sometimes resolving to an agreement between different parties to disagree: e.g., some people think George Bush is a good president of the US, some think he is a bad one. As Mark points out here, often NPOV is best served when there are multiple POVs on a subject by explaining the argument & how these various groups came to their conclusions.
All groups involved should embrace this approach in their own best interest, & exert themselves to make sure the POVs of groups opposed to them are accurately explained for one good reason. Although I usually prefer to use the language John Milton expressed it Areopagitica, Sun Tzu might have expressed it in a way that will convince more Wikipedians, that you must know your enemy to defeat him.
Geoff
Skyring wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
I can't agree with you that flat earthers constitute a sufficiently respectable or large position that we need to treat the roundness of the earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a citation.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Skyring wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
I can't agree with you that flat earthers constitute a sufficiently respectable or large position that we need to treat the roundness of the earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a citation.
Part of the problem is that the people raising the flat earth argument are not themselves falt earthers. Hypothesizing arguments that aren't being made, and generating well-reasoned and documented counter-arguments are the essence of straw man reasoning. Without being disrespectful to them we should wait until we hear from genuine flat-earthers before documenting the alternate view.
While we are waiting for them may I hypothesize that the edges of our flat earth are decorated by a fringe of trolls waiting for the unwary. :-)
Ec
The trolls are on the BOTTOM of the edge of the world. They come out and attack people when they get to close.
On 8/2/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Skyring wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
I can't agree with you that flat earthers constitute a sufficiently respectable or large position that we need to treat the roundness of the earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a citation.
Part of the problem is that the people raising the flat earth argument are not themselves falt earthers. Hypothesizing arguments that aren't being made, and generating well-reasoned and documented counter-arguments are the essence of straw man reasoning. Without being disrespectful to them we should wait until we hear from genuine flat-earthers before documenting the alternate view.
While we are waiting for them may I hypothesize that the edges of our flat earth are decorated by a fringe of trolls waiting for the unwary. :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/3/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
I can't agree with you that flat earthers constitute a sufficiently respectable or large position that we need to treat the roundness of the earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a citation.
Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax people, and they are equally round the bend wacko. There's a lot of material on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions. Take a look at Papal Tiara, for example - a featured article, apparently, yet it goes into some detail in countering the VFD claim - namely that there is an inscription on the Pope's crown which adds up to 666. This is just bizarre - there's no writing on the tiara and even if you could tot it up and get 666, then so bloody what?
It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort of rubbish is appearing on your own site.
If you want to appear consistent, that is.
On 02/08/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax people, and they are equally round the bend wacko.
A while ago, I did some minor edits to various pages - [[Capricorn One]] is the one that I recall - to get rid of passing Apollo-hoax references. There are, I'm fairly sure, none on the "serious" spaceflight pages other than a passing cite of the page. I've always wondered if this could be construed as messing around with NPOV... it likely isn't, but if I wanted to should about it enough it probably would be taken as such.
The history of the Apollo hoax article, when I have enough time, should be an interesting thing to look at...
There's a lot of material on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions.
In a way, I see this as quite useful. There's a couple of articles wheich consist of pretty much nothing *but* debunking false notions - [[Brass Monkey]], IIRC, or half of [[The Whole Nine Yards]]. Better to have them than not have them; information is better than implicit misinformation.
It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort of rubbish is appearing on your own site.
It's a typical case of American blind justice!
(sorry...)
I had read that the 666 was on *The Queen's Tiara.
:\ SV
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
The difference is that some people actively
argue that the earth is
not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris
is not the capital of
France so far have kept their activities secret.
If a fact is contentious, then it should be
backed up with a cite.
I can't agree with you that flat earthers
constitute a sufficiently
respectable or large position that we need to
treat the roundness of the
earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a
citation.
Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax people, and they are equally round the bend wacko. There's a lot of material on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions. Take a look at Papal Tiara, for example - a featured article, apparently, yet it goes into some detail in countering the VFD claim
- namely that
there is an inscription on the Pope's crown which adds up to 666. This is just bizarre - there's no writing on the tiara and even if you could tot it up and get 666, then so bloody what?
It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort of rubbish is appearing on your own site.
If you want to appear consistent, that is.
Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs