The strongest adherent of the scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is absolutely true. He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis.
In defence of the poor scientist-in-real-life, he (or she) may not feel /threatened/ by bizarre theories, but he often feels /exhausted/ from constantly refuting them, and even /annoyed/ when called upon to refute (IHO) really stupid ones. But I think that our NPOV method can still deal with this.
In the cube example, we don't allow anything with no supporters (that falls under Wikipedia's ban on original research), and we don't feel the need to refute things with no arguments (it's enough to state the fact that the position is a fringe one). Then once the arguments for the cubical Earth are presented, we only have to lay out the counter-arguments once, there in the article. If the counter-counter-arguments etc get to be too long, then we simply spin things off into [[Cubical Earth]]. People that don't want to deal with this inane crackpot nonsense can rightly point its adherents to that article.
I don't either belive in NPOV. Never did and never will. Whatever happens Wikipedia will get the POV of the masses, a conglomerat of all authors working on the project. My task is therefore to add my pov on things to increase the sum of all recorded human knowledge that wikipedia is (coming to be). Over time most of the articles converge to something that becomes the POV of the masses - aka NPOV. Some wont, like the articles on drugs, because there seem to be a lot more potheads that write those than read them. Like the cubic earth example, writing "the earth is spherical" wouldnt be correct because 0,001% know it is cubic. Even worse to say that the holocaust has happened because 0,1% know it has. Or saying that God's existance hasn't been proven because 10% know it has.
Björn
Bj�rn Lindqvist wrote in part:
I don't either belive in NPOV. Never did and never will. Whatever happens Wikipedia will get the POV of the masses, a conglomerat of all authors working on the project.
Like the cubic earth example, writing "the earth is spherical" wouldnt be correct because 0,001% know it is cubic. Even worse to say that the holocaust has happened because 0,1% know it has. Or saying that God's existance hasn't been proven because 10% know it has.
Actually, 90% know that God exists. Yet our articles on God don't claim that He does. So much for the POV of the masses!
My task is therefore to add my pov on things to increase the sum of all recorded human knowledge that wikipedia is (coming to be).
If you add your POV by explaining who believes it and why, rather than simply stating that it's true, then you're NPOV.
-- Toby
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:56:05 -0700, Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu gave utterance to the following:
I don't either belive in NPOV. Never did and never will. Whatever happens Wikipedia will get the POV of the masses, a conglomerat of all authors working on the project.
Like the cubic earth example, writing "the earth is spherical" wouldnt be correct because 0,001% know it is cubic. Even worse to say that the holocaust has happened because 0,1% know it has. Or saying that God's existance hasn't been proven because 10% know it has.
You are comparing apples and oranges here... The holocaust is knowable because people actually experienced if first hand. The existence of God is not provable and is based upon belief ('faith'). Anyone who "knows" rather than "believes" that God exists is probably violating the tenets of their professed religion.
Actually, 90% know that God exists. Yet our articles on God don't claim that He does. So much for the POV of the masses!
Perhaps Wikipedia needs to be "a documentation of human knowledge and beliefs" - but with the latter we make a qualified statement that a belief exists, and in most cases there is a counter-belief.
Richard Grevers wrote in part:
You are comparing apples and oranges here... The holocaust is knowable because people actually experienced if first hand. The existence of God is not provable and is based upon belief ('faith'). Anyone who "knows" rather than "believes" that God exists is probably violating the tenets of their professed religion.
I'd wager that there are more people alive today that have directly experienced God first hand than have /ever/ directly experienced the Shoah. I don't pretend to have data to back up that hunch; however, I do know some of the former people personally, and if you like, then I'll ask if it violates their beliefs to claim to /know/ that God exists. I doubt it. Not all faiths are as wishy-washy as (say) liberal Protestantism.
Perhaps Wikipedia needs to be "a documentation of human knowledge and beliefs" - but with the latter we make a qualified statement that a belief exists, and in most cases there is a counter-belief.
Indeed, and that's what NPOV does. Even for the Shoah!
-- Toby
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:41:32AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Richard Grevers wrote in part:
You are comparing apples and oranges here... The holocaust is knowable because people actually experienced if first hand. The existence of God is not provable and is based upon belief ('faith'). Anyone who "knows" rather than "believes" that God exists is probably violating the tenets of their professed religion.
I'd wager that there are more people alive today that have directly experienced God first hand than have /ever/ directly experienced the Shoah. I don't pretend to have data to back up that hunch; however, I do know some of the former people personally, and if you like, then I'll ask if it violates their beliefs to claim to /know/ that God exists. I doubt it. Not all faiths are as wishy-washy as (say) liberal Protestantism.
There is exactly 0 people who have experienced any god, while there are still quite a few that survived Shoah, so I don't know how you got your results.
At 05:12 PM 6/27/03 +0200, Tomasz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:41:32AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Richard Grevers wrote in part:
You are comparing apples and oranges here... The holocaust is knowable because people actually experienced if first hand. The existence of God is not provable and is based upon belief ('faith'). Anyone who "knows" rather than "believes" that God exists is probably violating the tenets of their professed religion.
I'd wager that there are more people alive today that have directly experienced God first hand than have /ever/ directly experienced the Shoah. I don't pretend to have data to back up that hunch; however, I do know some of the former people personally, and if you like, then I'll ask if it violates their beliefs to claim to /know/ that God exists. I doubt it. Not all faiths are as wishy-washy as (say) liberal Protestantism.
There is exactly 0 people who have experienced any god, while there are still quite a few that survived Shoah, so I don't know how you got your results.
I know at least two people who have experienced gods, and more than two who survived the Shoah. In both cases, I'm basing this on direct personal report.
(One of the two mentioned above is now a serious follower of the gods in question; the other had an idle conversation, enjoyed the garden as the god invited him to, and hasn't changed his life in any way.)
| I know at least two people who have experienced gods, and | more than two who survived the Shoah. In both cases, I'm basing | this on direct personal report. | | (One of the two mentioned above is now a serious follower of the | gods in question; the other had an idle conversation, enjoyed the | garden as the god invited him to, and hasn't changed his life in | any way.)
I take issue with the above --for its expression that God as an idea or a concept is dead. This tends to come from a natural rejection of dogmatism and puritanical/evangelical/fundamental views (those that contradict reality and sense) -- and in that sense its an attitude with which I identify with highly.
But its all too typical in AmSociety to deal see God as a leftover relic of a primitive humanity. The primitive "hand of God" notion -- playing with humanity like a bunch of toy soldiers -- is indeed a relic, but a relic of a misinterpretation. The monotheist idea of "all is of one " is equivalent to the eastern traditional ideas where "all is one". The meaing of "God" -- "that which cannot be named" -- regardless of the the time, is quite an idea to wrap a human mind around. Its the idea of something thats too ... to fit into an idea.
At 09:54 AM 6/27/03 -0700, Stevertigo wrote:
| I know at least two people who have experienced gods, and | more than two who survived the Shoah. In both cases, I'm basing | this on direct personal report. | | (One of the two mentioned above is now a serious follower of the | gods in question; the other had an idle conversation, enjoyed the | garden as the god invited him to, and hasn't changed his life in | any way.)
I take issue with the above --for its expression that God as an idea or a concept is dead. This tends to come from a natural rejection of dogmatism and puritanical/evangelical/fundamental views (those that contradict reality and sense) -- and in that sense its an attitude with which I identify with highly.
*HUH?* I report that a friend had an encounter with a god, and is now worshipping that god, and you think that this means I think that god is dead?
But its all too typical in AmSociety to deal see God as a leftover relic of a primitive humanity. The primitive "hand of God" notion -- playing with humanity like a bunch of toy soldiers -- is indeed a relic, but a relic of a misinterpretation. The monotheist idea of "all is of one " is equivalent to the eastern traditional ideas where "all is one". The meaing of "God" -- "that which cannot be named" -- regardless of the the time, is quite an idea to wrap a human mind around. Its the idea of something thats too ... to fit into an idea.
That is *one* idea of God, an idea within the monotheist tradition. That isn't the god either of my friends spoke to. Their experiences are as real as any.
|VR wrote: *HUH?* I report that a friend had an encounter with a god, and is now | worshipping that god, and you think that this means I think that god is | dead?
Umm... I may have gotten carried away there.
| That is *one* idea of God, an idea within the monotheist tradition. That | isn't the god either of my friends spoke to. Their experiences are as | real as any.
Well, theyre wrong, dammit.
-S-
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:54:53AM -0700, Stevertigo wrote:
| I know at least two people who have experienced gods, and | more than two who survived the Shoah. In both cases, I'm basing | this on direct personal report. | | (One of the two mentioned above is now a serious follower of the | gods in question; the other had an idle conversation, enjoyed the | garden as the god invited him to, and hasn't changed his life in | any way.)
I take issue with the above --for its expression that God as an idea or a concept is dead. This tends to come from a natural rejection of dogmatism and puritanical/evangelical/fundamental views (those that contradict reality and sense) -- and in that sense its an attitude with which I identify with highly.
But its all too typical in AmSociety to deal see God as a leftover relic of a primitive humanity. The primitive "hand of God" notion -- playing with humanity like a bunch of toy soldiers -- is indeed a relic, but a relic of a misinterpretation. The monotheist idea of "all is of one " is equivalent to the eastern traditional ideas where "all is one". The meaing of "God" -- "that which cannot be named" -- regardless of the the time, is quite an idea to wrap a human mind around. Its the idea of something thats too ... to fit into an idea.
From the twisting of this rather spiritual concept into the more idolized,
Zeuslike interpretations of God, is where the original dislike for "pagan" religion sprouted from. Of course, these other notions were identical in spirit to the monotheistic one -- but were judged by as "primitive" by other primitives.
The point is, that if judged by the misuse -- the Western monotheist tradition looks like a big pile of crud - such is politics. But if you understand it correctly - the legacy and importance of this particular aspect of everyone's culture, theres a lot worth respecting -- and of having some respect for.
Questions like "is there a god or not" or "was Mary a virgin" etc. were invented just to distract people from the real one - "why should one pay money to the church, and obey church rules". But it seems like it doesn't work any more - at least in Europe people were able to stop caring about the church without changing their beliefs much. Power of churches fell much more than number of believers.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Questions like "is there a god or not" or "was Mary a virgin" etc. were invented just to distract people from the real one - "why should one pay money to the church, and obey church rules". But it seems like it doesn't work any more - at least in Europe people were able to stop caring about the church without changing their beliefs much. Power of churches fell much more than number of believers.
Well, if Europeans manage to believe in God without giving power to the Church, then why is it that you're the one bringing churches' power into this, when the rest of us were simply talking about belief in God? Indeed, as I'm about to demonstrate in another post, it's /your/ position that depends heavily on the technical point of whether or not some God manages to actually exist. NPOV, of course, cannot judge.
-- Toby
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:35:59AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Questions like "is there a god or not" or "was Mary a virgin" etc. were invented just to distract people from the real one - "why should one pay money to the church, and obey church rules". But it seems like it doesn't work any more - at least in Europe people were able to stop caring about the church without changing their beliefs much. Power of churches fell much more than number of believers.
Well, if Europeans manage to believe in God without giving power to the Church, then why is it that you're the one bringing churches' power into this, when the rest of us were simply talking about belief in God? Indeed, as I'm about to demonstrate in another post, it's /your/ position that depends heavily on the technical point of whether or not some God manages to actually exist. NPOV, of course, cannot judge.
It's wrong to say that most Europeans believe in god or that they don't - most don't give a shit either way. They managed to see the real question and answered it "no" - they aren't going to give church any powers. Having done so, whether they think "god exists" or not is as important as believing in fluffy elephants bringing luck or in existence of Neptune - it doesn't affect them, so they may answer like others do, or the way they feel any given day.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote in large part:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
at least in Europe people were able to stop caring about the church without changing their beliefs much.
Well, if Europeans manage to believe in God without giving power to the Church,
It's wrong to say that most Europeans believe in god or that they don't - most don't give a shit either way.
So back when the Church had a lot of power in Europe, do you think that even then most Europeans didn't give that shit? Or do you think that no longer giving a shit isn't much of a change? It seems to me that opinions have probably changed a lot, but I was willing to accept what you said.
They managed to see the real question and answered it "no" - they aren't going to give church any powers.
Good! And please don't think that I prefer what Americans have done. I still don't see what this has to do with what we were talking about, which is applying NPOV to various differing beliefs.
-- Toby
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 05:12 PM 6/27/03 +0200, Tomasz wrote:
There is exactly 0 people who have experienced any god, while there are still quite a few that survived Shoah, so I don't know how you got your results.
I know at least two people who have experienced gods, and more than two who survived the Shoah. In both cases, I'm basing this on direct personal report.
(One of the two mentioned above is now a serious follower of the gods in question; the other had an idle conversation, enjoyed the garden as the god invited him to, and hasn't changed his life in any way.)
Ahh! but how do you distinguish between experiencing a god, and living under the delusion of having been so visited?
Ec
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Richard Grevers wrote in part:
You are comparing apples and oranges here... The holocaust is knowable because people actually experienced if first hand. The existence of God is not provable and is based upon belief ('faith'). Anyone who "knows" rather than "believes" that God exists is probably violating the tenets of their professed religion.
I'd wager that there are more people alive today that have directly experienced God first hand than have /ever/ directly experienced the Shoah. I don't pretend to have data to back up that hunch; however, I do know some of the former people personally, and if you like, then I'll ask if it violates their beliefs to claim to /know/ that God exists. I doubt it. Not all faiths are as wishy-washy as (say) liberal Protestantism.
There is exactly 0 people who have experienced any god, while there are still quite a few that survived Shoah, so I don't know how you got your results.
You're now relying on a technicality to make your point. But NPOV can't judge whether these people's (claimed) direct experience of God is real or all in their heads -- any more than it should judge this of the Shoah. (And then you get /my/ interpretation -- it's real /and/ all in their heads.)
As for how I got my results, I'm figuring that 12E6 people died in the Shoah (using a common estimate, if you don't limit the victims only to Jews), so if the Nazis killed most, then that's 20E6 experiencers of the Shoah ever. Compare that to 6E9 people now alive, of whom 90% believe in God. For my estimate to be true, only 1 in 300 need experience God directly, which seems reasonable to me (even though it's all in their head).
I should also note that I'm using "God" here as a generic term for �the Presence of a Divine Person�. I don't assume that there is only 1 such Divine Person, much less that Christian Triune thingy.
-- Toby
Björn Lindqvist wrote:
I don't either belive in NPOV. Never did and never will.
By 'never will' do you mean: no matter what, no matter if good arguments and explanations are presented for it? I hope not. Because I think that if you reconsider it carefully, you'll find that NPOV is (by design) something that everyone can agree on.
Whatever happens Wikipedia will get the POV of the masses, a conglomerat of all authors working on the project. My task is therefore to add my pov on things to increase the sum of all recorded human knowledge that wikipedia is (coming to be). Over time most of the articles converge to something that becomes the POV of the masses - aka NPOV. Some wont, like the articles on drugs, because there seem to be a lot more potheads that write those than read them.
This is what I like to call the "competitive model" of wikipedia, versus what we really try to encourage, which is the "co-operative model".
In the competitive model, lots of people try to insert their own point of view in articles, and the end result of long competition is something that hopefuly resembles neutrality, but actually is just "POV of the masses". This sometimes works, but sometimes won't, because activists are more inclined to edit that others.
Well, that's why the competitive model is wrong, and is a mindset that we must avoid as being ultimately incompatible with NPOV.
The co-operative model is that we each try to *avoid* putting our own POV into articles, and to write everything neutrally in the first place. We should always avoid the temptation to polemics, and simply stick to a presentation that would be considered fair by all sides.
On this model, what you are doing, i.e. "add my pov on things" is _wrong_, it is something that you should not be doing, because it is a violation of the NPOV principle.
A valid article on drugs could be written by a pothead or by someone who thinks that drug use should be punished with extremely harsh penalties. It is very likely, of course, that the *best* article would be written by those parties working, not in a competitive fashion to try to smuggle in their own viewpoint, but in a co-operative fashion to try to present the facts about the issue fairly.
I think it's very rare -- and possibly non-existent -- to have a case where reasonable people can't work together on something co-operatively, despite major differences of opinion.
The NRA gun rights organization says one thing. The Handgun Control, Inc. people say something else. But thoughtful and sincere people from both sides can certainly agree to fairly _characterize the argument_, summing up the evidence neutrally.
If I may be so bold as to insert my own POV into *this* email, I think that a big part of the problem is that the schools today teach (implicitly or explicitly) moral and cultural relativism, combined with a mild postmodernism that says that all speech is political, that avoiding bias is impossible, so play it deuces wild and see what you can get away with.
But I'm old school on things like that. I think that neutrality is possible. I think that conflicts of interest are illusory and that people who disagree about even very fundamental things can and *should* work together to accurately summarize the issue.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org