I disagree that a person can not see the mote in his own eye so to speak. I generally know when I'm being biased and if you don't know then research, logic and truth can soon find it more often than not.
I think the important thing is to have integrity or at least a desire for integrity/truth because when you combine that with research there is no reason that an error can't be detected and corrected. The only issue is if one has too much attachment to their beliefs to go through this process and people who fair badly at this are called skeptics... And the edit Wikipedia. Most often erroneous beliefs exist because of a lack of exposure to the truth (often deliberately) and applying a tilted playing field. Both of these things I believe the skeptic can be aware of if they choose to seek the truth. Instead they believe they must defend their truth. There must be ways to disassemble erroneous beliefs, perhaps removing the emotions around the belief could be an important component. Now to go way off topic I actually know of a way to remove someones emotional charge for an issue. The Meridian system is real and has been scientifically proved, it has even been dyed in rabbits and when a radioisotope is injected into an "accupuncture" point it does not radiate as when injected elsewhere but moves along the meridian. By stimulating the Meridian system (which can be achieved in many ways even covert ones) while focusing the mind even just the subconscious on something with an emotional charge that thing can be cleared of any impact. A craving, a fear, a memory causing PTSD. And it can even be done on someone without their knowledge. I am not speaking of theory or what I believe but what I know. I would suspect that if you could target the right thing you could remove a persons reluctance to being truthful and rational on one or even all subjects. Ok I've gone far off topic and doubt anyone reading this will have read or witnessed enough mind/energy healing related stuff to think that what I am saying is real but I am really intrigued by the possibilities. BTW for those curious the technology I am referring to is similar to the somewhat well known EFT only more powerful. And the implications of such "energy" technology on Physics is interesting because while quantum physics can be mysterious enough to explain some weird things I don't believe the meridian system or other "energies" can really be explained under the current quantum model and it really requires a fluid aether model of which there is plenty of evidence in things that are real yet subtle but which physics rarely acknowledges. And while I have shifted from the topic of Wikipedia I am still very much on subject for skepticism as I expect most everyone on this list to give essentially no consideration for all of what I have mentioned above. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > John Berry wrote: > > An encyclopedia can either give a biased answer/opinion/pov/conclusion that >> the reader should ignore, or give no answer/opinion/pov/conclusion >> presenting all sides letting reader choose. >> > > I do not believe it is possible for anyone to have an unbiased point of > view, or even to know how biased they are. Some people are more biased than > others, but the person himself cannot see the mote in his own eye. > > I think it is silly to demand that an author have a neutral point of view. > Instead, we should ask the author to state his or her point of view clearly > so we can anticipate where the bias is likely to be. > > > >> Perhaps as I suggested earlier Wikipedia is mostly fine as it is but >> should have a notice on all articles that cause controversy stating that the >> reader should not blindly assume the conclusion in the article is the right >> one as this article may be permanently biased and that only in depth >> research may assure the reader of his or her own answer.. >> > > That is a *very* good idea. They should have a tag at the top saying that > a substantial number of experts disagree with the contents. Of course one or > two people are likely to disagree with practically any assertion, so there > may be cases when the defenders of the status quo feel that this tag is > unwarranted, with justification. > > - Jed > >
