On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, tarquin wrote:
I think you have a philosophic way of looking at this that other wikipedians may not share. I would be inclined to say "Mars is a planet" has *always* been a fact -- though at one time it was not *known*.
Oh, I agree with you! In the [[NPOV]] article, "fact" and "opinion" are actually given glosses that (I think) more closely match the distinction that is made in ordinary language than any distinction made by philosophers. I mean, I'm not sure about this, but I think most philosophers would agree with you that it has always been a fact that Mars is a planet. The distinction between facts and *opinions* isn't one that philosophers per se are ordinarily inclined to make; it's more of an ordinary language distinction.
The distinction is useful nonetheless, if for no other reason than that it allows us to sum up and conceptualize, in a simple way, a relatively complex policy. We could say, "Articles are to consist of claims that virtually everyone believes (or would believe, if apprised of the relevant texts, experiences, experiments, etc.); where there are different views about a given proposition, those views are to attributed to their owners." But that's quite a mouthful. It can sometimes, at least, help to say, "Articles should state facts, including facts about what some opinions on a controversial subject are; but they shouldn't state, i.e., assert as true, the opinions themselves." Or even simply, "State facts, not opinions (modulo the discussion given in [[NPOV]])."
If next year we discover that Mars is made of green cheese, then that too will have always been a fact -- and things that we currently hold as facts about Mars will be shown to be wrong.
Yes, I agree, again. I am the world's biggest opponent of relativism, actually.
(though that's the mathematician side of me -- things are still true even when you're not looking at them ;-) -- I do see Larry's point, just trying to highlight possible communication problems.
And, I appreciate that and thanks for it.
I think NPOV is sometimes abused, when articles on controversial topics degenerate into a list of every single possible opinion, with things like "Christian views on X" spiralling off.
Well, certainly the NPOV policy shouldn't be construed so as to recommend simply *listing* various views on a subject.
OK, enough for now, really!
Larry