[WikiEN-l] NPOV

Thu Mar 20 05:04:53 UTC 2003

Toby Bartels wrote:

>>>Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's
>>>definitely not true)?
>>>
>>Not if the something is truely a pseudoscience, as for example
>>[[astrology]].
>>
>And say that it's definitely not true?  That's POV.
>I don't think that astrology qualifies as a pseudoscience either,
>since its practitioners don't traditionally claim to be scientists
>(although some do *now*).
>
Claiming to be a scientist is a prerequisite to being a pseudoscientist. 
 Some of those who now claim to be scientists really do try to use 
scientific methods.  If experimental success were the deciding factor in 
determining if someone is a scientist we would have far fewer scientists.

>>>Is it POV to use words that can be '''interpreted''' as insulting?
>>>
>>Yes, Dummy!
>>
>If a person is mentally retarded, then it may not be NPOV to say so,
>and any way of saying it could be interpreted as insulting.
>Nevertheless, deprecated terms like "moron"
>(however correct they may be in their technical senses)
>should be avoided in favor of those that haven't yet become
>primarily words of insult, like "IQ below 70".
>
The multitudes who consider George W. Bush to be a moron tend to apply 
the popular meaning of that word instead of the technical one.

>