[Wikipedia-l] Why I don't believe (any more) in NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

Andre Engels wrote:

>NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
>At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
>
>Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
>arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
>says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
>is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
>his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
>against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
>
Yes!  That's the proof that it works.  The cubical Earth argument may be 
a straw man in the absence of supporters, but an inspired scientist 
needs to allow for the possibility of such a thing, however improbable. 
 There is no limit to the number of strange ideas that dwell in the gar 
reaches of our probability space.  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. 
 Crying "pseudoscience" can only lose arguments, not win them; it brings 
out supporters that were never there before in the same way that it 
happens when some Wikipedian is called a vandal.

>To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
>very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for
>me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others.
>I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political
>or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the
>mainstream scientific point of view.
>
I believe that it must apply to everything, including science.  The test 
of whether free speech is working is in how it treats unpopular subjects 
and views.  Supporters of a majoritarian POV have a tendency to depend 
on the unproven hypothesis that the mainstream view is necessarily 
correct.  I think that the scientific method needs to be applied 
recursively.  I also support the view that the burden of ''prima facie'' 
proof lies with the proponent of an improbable theory.  This is not a 
very high burden, but it doesn't accomplish a lot either.  It at least 
deals with those virtual hypotheses that spring purely from one 
individual's imagination.

>Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if
>someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It
>sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can
>probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000
>years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we
>just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally
>it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder
>than now"?
>
The tropical Siberia hypothesis is likely more probable than the cubic 
Earth hypothesis, and that makes it more difficult.  The proponent puts 
forth his arguments, and you express your contrary arguments.  If you 
have put your arguments well, you shouldn't need to add anything 
further.  You need to trust the reader to make the right decision. 
 There is no obligation to win any argument.. A Zen approach is far more 
rewarding.

Another thing that happens with science is the feeling that you need to 
defend ALL of science.  If your area of expertise is in astrophysics, 
why should you need to defend the views of climatologists.  By getting 
into an unfamiliar scientific discipline you can end up with your foot 
in your mouth, promoting more arguments and feeling very very frustrated.

>What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people
>of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we
>should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all
>over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong.
>Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
>working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
>not what one expects to get from a hobby.
>
That there is no problem does not make you wrong; that argument is a 
''non-sequitur". There is no magic wand solution; finding it could be 
fatal to the project.  If you feel you have put your views fairly on a 
subject, and you still feel irritated by the reactions of others it's a 
sign that, at least in the near future, your time would be better spent 
on some other subject.

Ec