Talk:Neutrality (philosophy)

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. --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."[1]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.215.139.145 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Complete Wikipedia *NPOV* ( Non Neutrality ). It is Good to say Daily Oscar.--Rod Sacketts (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)