[Textbook-l] Textbooks (response to Jimbo's WikiEN-l post)

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > It depends on the focus of the particular course
> you
> > are writing for. An intro class in biology
> shouldn't
> > spend too much time defending the underlying
> premise
> > that modern biology is founded on (namely,
> evolution).
> 
> Sure, I agree with that.

But, if you just assume the validity of the subject
matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't
necessarily a bad thing.

> It's perhaps subtle, but the point of NPOV in this
> context is just
> that a creationist could read the entire book on
> biology and agree
> that it's a fair presentation *of biology*, even if
> they don't agree
> that current biologica science is a valid
> description *of reality*.

Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction
explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline
biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that
this is a discription of reality, as most books are.
But it wouldn't be wise to include such an
introduction, for obvious reasons.

> Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here
> and there.

... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound
like we are describing an imaginary world or that we
are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.

> > Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
> > focus; that was my point.
> 
> Well, it does, though, doesn't it?  If an article is
> about X, then it
> is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people
> like to argue
> about".  Often we have to fix this by adding some
> qualifier to the
> title.

Perhaps other people's views could go in an apendix to
create a NPOV.
 
> As an example, consider [[Christian views on
> homosexuality]].  If that
> article is done properly (and I didn't read it just
> now, so I don't
> have an opinion), then both fundamentalist
> Christians and their
> opponents should be able to read the article and say
> "O.k., that's a
> fair presentation of the topic."

The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It doesn't
have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at
[[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but
wikipedia doesn't write articles like this. And both
of those articles contain the rebuttals. That was one
of the reasons that Fred branched to make I-E. We
don't do this with NPOV, and you're thinking of
DPOV/SPOV. (come to think of it, DPOV=SPOV)

> > If NPOV (as written)
> > were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
> > biology textbook example then we would have to
> present
> > creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with
> the
> > viewpoints of biologists.
> 
> No, I think this is a common misconception about
> NPOV, but that isn't
> the way I see it at all.  The topic of the chapter
> on evolution in the
> science book is not "evolution and everyone's
> opinion about it".  The
> topic is "scientific consensus views on evolution". 
What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a
majority view.
> Such a chapter
> may (and likely should) include a paragraph to
> indicate that other
> views, religious views, exist, but that's not the
> topic of _this_
> book.
> 
> Restricting focus to the topic of interest is
> perfectly legitimate and
> falls within the scope of NPOV, rather than being an
> addition *to*
> NPOV.
> 
No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV. A
diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the
topic of interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased
because of a lack of information, and you don't have
to keep misusing the jargon. 

> Remember the big argument about "communist state"? 
> Part of the
> problem there was that the two sides were talking
> past each other as
> to what the article was *about*.  Was it "everything
> good and bad
> about communist countries"?  Or was it "the
> political science
> definition of the term 'communist state'"?
> 
I still disagree with that decision, which, I guess,
weakens my argument.

> That's similar.  It's not POV to talk about bad
> things that happened
> in communist countries.  And it's not POV to exclude
> such talk in an
> article that's actually about something else, namely
> "how political
> scientists define this term".  Both can be NPOV, and
> yet, both can be
> inappropriate for articles within a particular scope
> of interest.
> 
> The real acid test is this: could an honest
> creationist read our
> idealized biology text and come away saying "Yup,
> that was a good book
> about what scientists believe about biology.  I have
> a greater
> understanding of their theory now.  I would have
> preferred a book
> about something else, but this book is a fair and
> honest and accurate
> treatment of the subject."

Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it as a
representation of reality, which is always assumed
(and a few words couldn't change in the minds of
most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree
with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are
they still there? [classic creationist argument] This
book should adress that."

> Can this be achieved without contortion or weaselly
> soft-pedalling?  I
> think so.
> 
> --Jimbo

Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not
NPOV. No one wants a book that has no application in
reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use
in the real world, and that assumes that biology is
true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still
wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology
applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments
against biology for the real world in a seperate
section.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com