2009/4/22 Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get >>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European >>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek >>> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains >>> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there >>> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque >>> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their >>> prefaces.> >> I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... >> could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your >> first sentence? > I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not > possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why > some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities > demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.) Yes, that makes sense :-) > Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well > according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV > has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try > to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro > dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get > a book which is not useful: en:wp has experienced this - the arbcom finally had to say "no, peer-reviewed journals are more reliable sources on global warming than Rush Limbaugh radio transcripts or Michael Crichton novels, and fifty faith-based science advocates don't get to vote the UK's top climate scientist off the island. Don't be bloody stupid." In a few more words than that. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l