In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:39:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
I mean, I'm not asking "how did we come to care about verifiability." That's obvious. I'm trying to figure out if there was *ever* a consensus to drop the notion of accuracy.>>
---------------------------------------- Ok we can discuss that, but first discuss how "accuracy" is different from "verifiable and credible" ?
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:39:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
I mean, I'm not asking "how did we come to care about verifiability." That's obvious. I'm trying to figure out if there was *ever* a consensus to drop the notion of accuracy.>>
Ok we can discuss that, but first discuss how "accuracy" is different from "verifiable and credible" ?
I am not sure that there is a significant difference here - at least in a social sense. Most sane and reasonable people will consider the two sets to be co-extensive, or at least will believe that, if we restrict ourselves to NPOV statements, nothing that is verifiable and credible will be inaccurate.
Even dropping the "not truth, but" would be preferable - Wikipedia's standard of inclusion is verifiability. It's the anti-truth rhetoric that makes us look kinda stupid.
-Phil