Talk:Neutrality (philosophy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Rod Sacketts (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Philosophy}}. Tag: |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub| |
||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- [end of the Second paragraph] == |
|||
The definition of neutrality as ''the absence of declared bias'' is unprecise as neutrality may be a declared bias. The concept neutrality stems from 'neutral' and 'neuter' which may be understood as 'not either on one side or the other', thus pointing to a middle way philosophy. |
|||
--[[User:Xact|Xact]] ([[User talk:Xact|talk]]) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Neutrality is not so clear, indeed. In what sense is it meant? Objectivity? Secularity? Impartiality? All three (in their strong sense) are rejected (since Kant, Hegel, Marx et al.) The difference between scientific and every-day-thinking and religios (I believe in science!) is not clear. With Marx one can say: You are always part of a class (Impartiality is a capitalistic ideology to opress...), ... And with Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightment I say: Neutrality itself becomes ... undeclared bias? even faced to edit wars there should be found another way to see... perhaps Marcelo Dascal can help:" ... the idea that knowledge production, acquisition, and evolution is not a one-man affair, but the result of the cooperation of many, coming from different perspectives; whence it follows that not only tolerance vis-à-vis the other, but also '''valuing the other’s contribution and integrating it''' – whether it stems from another age, continent, culture, discipline, religion, or individual – is indispensable."[http://www.springer.com/philosophy/philosophical+traditions/book/978-1-4020-8190-3] |
|||
"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- This statement is incorrect. |
|||
Isn't NPOV (potentially (and how can we know?) an ideology,excluding other forms of knowledge? Homeopathy is not expainable with our scientific theories, but it works! What is neutrality, NPOV for? What should be neutralized? |
|||
my site wp.de: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Saviansn <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.215.139.145|2.215.139.145]] ([[User talk:2.215.139.145|talk]]) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* Of course, even incorrect statements are to be considered for this article-- if the incorrect statement clearly summarizes the reasoning and point-of-view of some Reliable Source. |
|||
<br /> |
|||
<br /> |
|||
So I suggest that we either delete this sentence-- Or find some Reliable Source who shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral". So we need a good citation after this sentence. |
|||
== Wikipedia == |
|||
Complete Wikipedia *NPOV* ( Non Neutrality ). It is Good to say Daily Oscar. |
|||
The Oxford English Dictionary gives many examples back in history where "neutrality" means merely applying the rule to the facts. |
|||
And of course, Conservapedia and similar zealous believers may argue that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- but where is there a Reliable Source that shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral?" --[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] ([[User talk:Rednblu|talk]]) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:14, 6 February 2024
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- [end of the Second paragraph]
[edit]"Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- This statement is incorrect.
- Of course, even incorrect statements are to be considered for this article-- if the incorrect statement clearly summarizes the reasoning and point-of-view of some Reliable Source.
So I suggest that we either delete this sentence-- Or find some Reliable Source who shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral". So we need a good citation after this sentence.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives many examples back in history where "neutrality" means merely applying the rule to the facts.
And of course, Conservapedia and similar zealous believers may argue that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral"-- but where is there a Reliable Source that shows that "Advocating neutrality is non-neutral?" --Rednblu (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)