Talk:Natural point of view

Add topic
There are no discussions on this page.

Up front, I'll say that this is just as valid to call "the embodied point of view" although that doesn't help to bridge the gap to the idea of "natural law". "Embodied point of view" is an enti is a valid redirect.

This article belongs in the same name space as neutral point of view, wherever that is.

Which is probably meta.

This article seems to be written as if you consider that the 'Embodied point of view' is embodied in you, User: What an ego you have! The Anome

Yes, I do have a huge ego, and...

Yes, I should have mentioned that. One consequence of actually attempting to *take* this point of view and *write* from it is that you come across patronizing and arrogant, and it's quite difficult to not do so. I used to worry about this until I read Clare Graves and Don Beck's analysis that this was *ALWAYS* true of more-embodied views... specifically "higher orders of conciousness always sound hierarchical, sexist, racist, to the lower value systems" which are focused on simple reduction of conflict.

So, the article probably *does* have to be written that way, and it probably *does* need people like you to say that. This is what encourages you to identify your own "natural point of view" or "embodied point of view" that we gradually summarize to reach whatever we see as "neutrally natural" to humans, or to Hominidae, or citizens of Earth, or whatever...

Maybe we should state that articles in the meta are *not* NPOV and that it's specifically resserved for articles that *can't* be so written? That seems a good distinction.

While it is true that articles in the meta needs not be NPOV, although life would be better if people would try that sometimes, this is not the distinction which separates 'meta' from the encyclopedia proper. The encyclopedia is for NPOV articles. The talk pages on the encyclopedia are for discussion of how to get to NPOV on the article. The meta is for discussion about the encyclopedia. There is no place anywhere on the wikipedia domains for non-NPOV encyclopedia articles. If you want to write a "Green" encyclopedia, just let me know, and I will set a wiki up for

you, at my expense, to put forward your point of view. --Jimbo Wales

At least you can see that you appear patronising and arrogant. Can you also understand that there may be more than one set of opinions on an issue? Wikipedia works on this basis. Please write your non-NPOV stuff here, and leave the Wikipedia for encyclopedia articles: defined as NPOV reporting on what the different strands of human thinking consider to be true.

The "Natural Point of View" article belongs in the same space as the "Neutral Point of View" article... actually they are both clearly meta.

Neutral Point of View is not an encyclopedia article. It is a statement of Wikipedia policy, which the Wikipedia community generally agrees with (with various reservations). --Stephen Gilbert
mine is just one of many reservations, obviously, but without some governance process it's pretty difficult to tell how widely shared any of them are - the project appears like it could descend to chaos without some process at least to list our visions and worst cases.

Sure, there are always more than one set of opinions. In fact I'd like to hear of a lot of other ways to assess "natural"... and of course they should all be metas.

A few other discussions, like "reasonable method" also maybe are metas...

I wish I knew "what the different strands of human thinking consider to be true." But I only know one way to find out. Write what you think is the honest truth, balance it with the harshest criticisms you ever heard your worst enemy make, clean it up a bit so you don't seem to have multiple personality disorder, and then sit back and see who freaks out...

For about 2/3 of my articles so far, that's "no one".

For another 1/6, that's one person, who either took a hand as editor or got into a collaboration that was quickly effective to produce a good article.

For the last 1/6, that's either one unsatisfiable person or multiple parties. That's where you learn something.

But, whatever, I was the first one to say that this discussion was a meta... and now this is a meta of a meta...

You can add all sorts of odd and unusual articles to the wikipedia. Just make sure you employ NPOV guidelines when describing the topics. In five words, NPOV boils down to: X said Y about Z. Sticking to this format, you'll rarely go wrong.

When we start saying things like the following, it can get more difficult:

  • Scientists generally agree that...
  • Liberals believe that...
  • Most Americans regard...

I propose that we source the sources, that is, indicated who says that scientists, liberals, or most Americans think a certain way. Sometimes attribution of the views is as controversial as the views themselves, or more so.

According to Al Gore, "the science of global warming is settled" (perfect NPOV). Scientists agree that America's use fossil fuel causes global warming (would be better with a source).

  • According to an article in Science magazine, scientists agree...

The latter is preferable, because it leaves room for an editor to add:

  • Ten thousand scientists signed a statement disputing...

"In five words, NPOV boils down to: X said Y about Z."

This is the soul of the question. A "Natural" point of view would not require every X to be able to "say", nor every Y to be comprehensible in a human natural language. Z might be something that simply can't be codified clearly... defining Z itself might be the whole issue! There are few of these issues, but they tend to be central and controversial. One is always at least picking one authority to name the topic in question.

So, you propose that we do what, exactly? Shall I create a program to start creating endless strings of text, in hopes of hitting upon an article Y which

accurately describes things not comprehensible in a human natural language? But even if I did that, then a la Cantor diagonalization, I would not have said all that there is to say, for I would have left out real numbers that can not be stated algorithmically nor as a fraction.

Please speak only of things of practical import. We are writing an encyclopedia,

and juvenile postmodernist b.s. isn't particularly helpful.

Your comment about our not having an article on the Amazon rain forest -- now,

that's of practical import. But the idea that we don't have articles which express the inexpressible -- that isn't helping anyone to see how we might change.

--Jimbo Wales

One of my favourite things about the Meta site is that people are free to write things like this. More importantly though, the Meta forum means that I am also free to express my firmly held opinion that this entire article is one of the most ridiculous diatribes of supercillious nonsense that ever masqueraded as intelligent thought. Whoever wrote it is well served by maintaining anonymity, because they deserve to be laughed at and pointed to in the street. Whoever you are, you are a complete tosser. - MMGB

thanks for the comment - at least you read it. "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." - Gandhi
if it's total crap, of course, one never gets past the "laugh" stage.
Gandhi also left out the part about the Muslims and Hindi killing each other after you win, but that's for another article... AxelBoldt
Gandhi worked very hard to keep India in one piece, and was sold out by a British deal with the North-West Muslims who broke off as Pakistan and left Bangladesh on the other side of the country more or less to rot until 1970 when it split. Notice there is little trouble between India and Bangladesh.

So, how are particle accelerators "destructive technologies?" I mean, sure they can be used to inform destructive technologies, but aren't they just tools to expand our understanding of the world around us? How is this different from calling a microscope, or even a magnifying glass for that matter, a destructive technology?

Return to "Natural point of view" page.