User:Ed Poor
I live and work in New York City as a software engineer and am interested in science, history, music and religion. I am a member of the Unification Church and believe there is an absolute truth including an absolute standard of right and wrong. Nonetheless, I am an "open-minded absolutist".
After comments by SR and April, I temporarily postponed any edits to controversial topics such as sex education and the CFC-ozone depletion-UV-skin cancer issue. My own ethical principles forbid me to entertain a double-standard or otherwise to act hypocritically. I need some time to sort this out.
I like to create stub pages. They're better than nothing, and they attract writers.
I like debate, especially if it helps us reach consensus. I don't mind if people call me names, but I try to avoid returning the favor. Sometimes, however, I have concentrated more on "winning" the debate than on improving the article about which we are debating, which is counter-productive.
I have frequently made sweeping generalizations and often have failed to attribute a point of view to its proponent, giving the impression that it is a generally accepted viewpoint (when it's merely my own belief). This is an error on my part, and I would appreciate any corrections. But please don't delete something just because it's different from your beliefs.
Nice catch on Sergio Aragones last week, by the way. RjLesch
From old Ed Poor article
I've decided that my bias is not an insuperable obstacle to my participation in Wikipedia.
However, I no longer think that the Wikipedia can be a useful resource for resolving controversies. At best, it can be a starting point for someone researching a controversial subject such as global warming or evolution. If my fellow Wikipedians will allow me to link from articles on "settled" issues to other articles outlining objections by skeptics, I will be satisfied.
I do not wish to place the Wikipedia imprimatur on my viewpoints or to abuse the Wikipedia for advocacy. But I think it's useful to the general reader if viewpoints, even if wildly different and seemingly false are described. The alternative is censorship.
Perhaps one effective way to incorporate veering points of view such as creationism or environmental skepticism is to link from main articles (e.g., evolution and global warming) to articles about alternative views. We did that successfully with feminism and masculism -- at least, the vandalism of feminism stopped. This way, the main article on a belief would be from the point of view of its adherents, and articles about alternative beliefs would also be included. Thus global warming can keep its "scientists generally believe" viewpoint, while another article, possibly entitled environmental skepticism, could outline objections to the generally accepted theory. -- Ed
Deprecated:
I am suspending my participation in Wikipedia indefinitely, due to a conflict of interest. I think I may be abusing the concept of NPOV to cloak my own desire to advocate the points of view I believe to be right.
Now, I might actually be right on several or even all of the points I advocate. The question, though, is not whether I am right but whether my advocacy of these points fits in with the purposes that Larry and Jimbo have in mind for the Wikipedia. -- Ed Poor
Software Engineer, father of two. Interested in philosophy, science, pizza, music, children, and world peace -- not necessarily in that order.
Mistakes I've made (thanks for catching 'em!):
I made a mildly offensive joke in a discussion with Wesley, who graciously and patiently explained my error. Thanks, Wesley. (I guess the lesson for me is not to be such a wise guy, especially if I have a "poor" sense of humor.)
I erroneously wrote that the New Yorker was known for its leftist bias. I guess that would be like saying sharks were "known" for being wet. Thanks, Larry, I stand corrected.
Stubs I started (which then blossomed due to others) include:
Among my contributions are:
I have mucked around with:
I love science but am only a layman.
Articles I'm trying to write or edit:
I try to remove "bias" from Wikipedia articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my Learning page.
I respond to praise, reason, and pizza -- not necessarily in that order!!
Hi Ed, I just wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia, and tell you not to be discouraged by criticism of your contributions; its par for the course around here. You don't seem to be taking it personally though, and that will take you far around here. :) --STG
Hi Ed, If you are going to make "Race and Intelligence" a separate article, couldn't you provide a link in the "race" article to that new one? I just skimmed over it and didn't see it -- if it is there and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't put it in myself because I think it should come sooner than the list of links at the end, but I am not sure where would be most appropriate. Can you remember where the "race and intelligence" section used to be, write a sentence calling attention to the debate (it is a big part of race, however you look at it -- scientifically, racistly, whatever), and providing the link? SR
Ed, I agree that more specificity in the Sexual ducation article would be a good thing. But otherwise I think you are missing my (and perhaps others') point:
1) it is wrong for you or anyone to assume that because someone rejects your version of morality, that they reject morality. Many people do what they do because they believe it to be right; if what they do is different from what you do, it doesn't mean that they do what they believe to be wrong, it means that you and they disagree over what is right.
2) here is what I would beg you to do: be consistent in your use of the word "morality." In many of your contributions you start off qualifying the word morality ("traditional morality" or "conservative morality." But as soon as you begin writing about the people you disagree with, the qualifying term drops out; thus, you write sentences like "They regard morality as confining and restricitive" (in the sexual morality article). Do you not see what your inconsistencey implies? Why do you not write "They regard traditional morality as confining...?" What you do write implies that these people are simply immoral, and not that they have a different moral standard than you. This is the lack of NPOV. My advice to you is to go over your previous contributions, and wherever you use the word "morality" you qualify it, somehow, so that it is clear that you are not suggesting that some people are moral and others immoral, but rather that people are arguing over what the moral thing to do is. SR
SR, you're spilling a lot of ink (or darkening a lot of phosphor) to no avail. If my articles need editing, just edit them. Anyone would get the impression you don't believe in absolute values. I won't compromise with the destroyers of morality and goodness -- not one little bit. That said, if the wikipedia editorial policy requires a qualifier, please just stick it in. And if there is information missing about other points of view that you think readers will want to see, please add it. -- Ed
Sorry Ed, but to participate in Wikipedia you must compromise with others, regardless of your estimation of their morality. I too stand utterly opposed to the destroyers of morality and goodness, and yet I am trying to engage in a constructive dialogue with you, so you see, I am capable of minimal compromises.
NPOV may be the outcome of a constant process of negotiation and modification of articles. But I take it as a given that people should come to Wikipedia in good faith and not make contributions that are blatantly NPOV. Otherwise, as JHK has observed, they are wasting people's time and undermining the value of the project. Do you come to Wikipedia in good faith? That is what I assumed when I tried to offer you some simple and constructive advice. I promise I will not spill any more ink over this -- if I haven't made myself clear by now, I don't know that I ever will. Perhaps you think you have been clear, but your stated committment to NPOV and Wikipedia contradicts the language of your own contributions. Frankly, you sound a bit confused. That's natural, because evil's best weapon is confusion. I just wanted to give you a bit of guidance; that's what I am here for. ;) SR
- Thanks for the humor :-) I think I've shown my good faith by not re-re-re-reverting sex education after you re-re-reverted it.
- If there's anything specific you want changed, please just change it. I may be a slow learner, but I learn best from example: edit my contributions into an acceptable form, and I will do my best to adhere to that form in the future. --Ed
Ed, I was impressed with your ability to compromise in various articles (specifically in the case of [Irreducible complexity]]. However, I have one suggestion. If you want to start an article, ask yourself if you are doing it to present a moral viewpoint or to provide a NPOV. If you are doing it to point out your version of morality/immorality, then it isn't in the spirit of the Wikipedia. It is not fair to say, "Well, if people think it's not NPOV, they can merely add to it." People who might be qualified to edit the article might not ever notice it. Contributors should attempt to be NPOV from the start. If you're doing it to point out an opposing viewpoint in a factual manner, on a topic that needs it, then go ahead. The only reason I point this out is your Summary field in a couple of your recent topics seems to indicate that you're writing the articles because you want to present a moral viewpoint, not because you want to present a NPOV (link to a site promoting immorality in teens; teens can make wise decisions??). My two cents. --Rgamble
- I think I've been pretty open about my intentions from the start. There is nothing "subtle" about my approach, Dr. Kemp's opinion notwithstanding.
- I want to ensure that good and true points of view are included in the Wikipedia. It's as simple as that.
- Now, I realize that Larry and Jimbo have an NPOV policy, and I applaud that. It's actually quite necessary, lest he who speaks loudest and longest win each debate. It's rather daring of them to permit such near-anarchy.
- It's true that I sometimes (often?) forget to qualify my contributions. I'm a terrible writer, I admit it. Yet it's rare for anything I've contributed to be really need to be deleted from an article; it just needs proper wording.
- Perhaps it's inherently hard for authors to be their own editors. Other wikipedians have asked me for advice on how to attain NPOV, and I've been thanked repeatedly for finding NPOV solutions to apparently intractable raging feuds. (Remember Bible Stories?) I ask you all to return the favor, as needed. -- Ed Poor
- I agree with Rgamble on the general principle - but others are far worse at this than Ed. But we all need to be reminded once in a while that we must rise above our personal feelings on a subject and present it fairly. That is not to say the we should include every idiosyncratic line of reasoning - all it means is that we must include good arguments on the most prevalent viewpoints on an issue. For example, it would be ridculous to include anything more than a single sentence on flat-earthers on an article about the earth. --maveric149~
- To clarify, I do not mean to say that I think Ed is a terrible writer, nor do I believe he is not a good contributor to the Wikipedia. I merely wanted to point out that if he is worried himself about not always putting forth a NPOV (and he does seem to state this in previous comments) that he should merely ask himself (as I do also when I write an article) whether it's to provide factual information or another viewpoint about something, or whether it's to promote or sway others to a moral viewpoint. Subtle distinction but I think if a Summary indicates strongly that the writer feels the item being discussed is immoral, then it's not being written strictly to provide a NPOV. Just a suggestion, and one I follow myself. --Rgamble
Ed, since you changed interval to interval (mathematics), could you please change all the links pointing to interval from the math pages to interval (mathematics)? AxelBoldt, Monday, April 15, 2002
It's April 17, and I have completed the correction. I don't think Ed has contributed a single link change... (sigh) -- Miguel
re: Talk/ Chomsky and anti-semitism: Well put, Ed. SR
Hi Ed. I just want to clarify a couple of things concerning your recent comments on the Incest page. First, whatever the "incest taboo" refers to (marriage, sex, or both), and whether it is truly universal or not, it does not mean that people do not engage in incest. In other words, one who claims that the incest taboo is universal is not claiming that incest does not occur, rather, they are claiming that in all societies incest, or certain forms of incest, are considered wrong. As a matter of fact, I think most anthropologists understand the universailty of the incest taboo to mean that incest is also universal. "Taboo" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, just that when it happens people think it is wrong (for example, every country I know of makes murder illegal, yet murder occurs in almost every country. It is because murder happens that people have to come up with a rule against it -- does this make sense to you?) Second, when anthropologists try to explain the incest taboo or its universality (and there are a lot of different arguments that are hard to prove conclusively), I don't think any of the anthropologists meant for their explanations of the taboo to be understood that incest is a good thing. Maybe I am confused by the exchange on the talk page, but at least as far as the discussion by anthropologists and others concerning the "incest taboo" is concerned, I do not know anyone who has ever claimed that incest does not happen or that incest does happen and is good (I am here defining incest very narrowly, to mean intercourse, of course if you define it more broadly the arguments get a lot more complex). I think this last point is the real issue -- whether one has an absolute or relative definition of incest, and a broad or narrow definition of incest. Thus, one can say "incest is always wrong" while defending some behaviors by saying that they aren't really incest, or one can say "incest is sometimes wrong and sometimes right." Does this make sense to you? SR
Thank you for your clarifications, SR. Perhaps the biggest problem was that "taboo" seemed to be taken in the sense of "non-existent", i.e., it never happens. What I personally mean by "taboo" is something that is forbidden because it's very bad, so bad in fact that it is rarely even talked about.
- Yes, I think you and I have the same understanding of taboo -- and for what it is worth I think all anthropologists share your understanding of taboo, at least in this case.
Perhaps it's not a clear enough word for an encylopedia article. We might do better by saying:
- Many societies have rules against behavior X. It's considered immoral, exploitative, etc.
- The annual incidence of behavior X is 25 per 1 million population in society Y.
We can, if necessary, insert into the article a comparison between incest and murder. Perhaps this will help distinguish between (A) the rule against the action and (B) how often it occurs.
In any case, the edit war seems to have subsided, and I hope we all (Vicki, SR, ark, and me) can cooperate to make a good article. --Ed
The problem with the claim that the incest taboo as a taboo is universal, is that it's not true. Most primitive societies see nothing wrong with incest. In fact, the argument "the tribe doesn't consider it incest so we won't either" (IOW, they see nothing wrong with incest so we'll just dismiss it) is a common one among anthropologists.
The further claim that anthropologists understand the incest taboo to mean the universality of incest is also false. If they did, Lloyd deMause and his followers (who maintain precisely that incest was universal) wouldn't have been viciously oppressed by mainstream academics. And further, this contradicts them dismissing all cases of incest.
So both of SR's central claims are wrong. His supporting arguments are equally wrong. It is not true that primitive societies see anything wrong with murder. There are recorded cases of stone age tribes where the people see absolutely nothing wrong with murder. In fact, "war" in the context of a primitive tribe is nothing but mass murder; an ambush of unprepared and helpless civilians leading followed by a total massacre.
Further, the proper definition of incest includes any kind of sexual stimulation. If you want a "broad" definition of incest then you can include a parent deliberately giving their child to a stranger to be raped. The feelings on the part of the child (they betrayal, fear and anger) are the same as if the parent did the raping. The reason why the parent did this (because they have incestuous desires but fear indulging in them themselves) are also the same. THAT is an example of a broad definition of incest. SR's suggestion to limit incest to only sexual intercourse is total bullshit. If we did that, then lesbian sex would not qualify as sex! And in any case, it would be pointless since there are many recorded instances of sexual intercourse, as well as genital fondling and sucking. So none of this advances SR's position.
And finally, there are plenty of anthropologists who think that incest is good. In fact, the mainstream argument was (is?) that "it can't be incest because it's a good thing" in clear cases of incest (with or without sexual intercourse) between a parent and young child!
The issues involved are really very simple. Yes, incest exists. No, there is no such thing as an incest taboo. Yes, anthropologists both deny its existence and see it as a good thing. Which is why they think there is an incest taboo. The issues themselves are very simple but they're the complete opposite of what most people believe. Which is why people who are not ready to accept reality insist on making everything "complex". So the issues are only really simple for people who are willing to reject everything they believe about society and morality.
People are welcome to say that the universality of incest is a radical and controversial belief. As long as I get to say that it's the only belief that's based on any actual evidence.
And here I'll provide some simple and incontrovertible evidence for my position that anthropologists are fuckups. Anthropologists aren't the only fuckups with respect to child abuse:
If you look up pedophilia in the DSM-III and DSM-IV you will notice a curious difference. The difference is this: in the DSM-III, pedophilia is having sexual desires for children. In the DSM-IV, that's not sufficient. You also have to have a problem with those desires. So if you merely have sexual desires for children, yet don't feel at all troubled by these desires and have no legal difficulties because of them, then you are not a pedophile! -- ark
- There are two related issues: what does "incest taboo" mean -- does it mean that incest does not occur, or does it mean that people consider incest wrong? and do anthropologists deny that incest occurs? Here is a quote from Bronislaw Malinowski's 1929 The Sexual Life of Savages. Malinowski was a pioneer of the ethnographic method and is considered a founding father of modern anthropology; moreover, this book is considered one of the founding texts in the study of kinship. In it Malinowski makes clear that incest does occur, and that it is taboo:
- The most important person on the father's side is obviously the father himself. here we meet the second fundamental fact in household morality: though the father is not a kinsman of his children, secual intercourse between father and daughter, though it occurs, is not only illegal and improper, but is viewed with definite moral repugnance. Marriage between father and daughter is not allowed or even imaginable to the native (page 528).
- Perhaps the most important text in the anthropological study of kinship is Levi-Strauss's The Elementary Structures of Kinship. In this book, Levi-Strauss cites an earlier (and today practically unknown) anthropologist, Levy-Bruhl. Levy-Bruhl in fact made the argument that ARK is suggesting anthropologists make: "The famous question of the prohibition of incest...whose solution has been so sought after by ethnologists and sociologists, has none. There is no purpose in asking it. In the societies just discussed, it is useless wondering why incest is forbidden. The prohibition does not exist [because ... incest] is something that does not occur." Note that it is clear that "taboo" does not mean that something does not occur, only that when it does occur people consider it wrong. Like ARK, but unlike the anthropologists ARK refers to, Levy-Bruhl is suggesting that there is no "incest taboo." But unlike ARK, and unlike the anthropologists ARK refers to, Levy-Bruhl is suggesting that incest does not occur. Levi-Strauss quotes Levy-Bruhl in order to rebuke and admonish him. Levi-Strauss states that incest does occur, and that is precisely why there is a need for a social taboo. SR
The problem is that even this much is a delusion. It's not true that prohibition of sexual intercourse between very close family members is universal.
Also, as far as the incest taboo goes, we've gone from discussing the existence of sex between family members, to the official prohibition against sexual intercourse between very close family members. If that's what you call "the incest taboo" now, nobody else will recognize it as such and we might as well junk the concept entirely.
Now here's why even that much is untrue.
The neolithic primitives don't think in terms of incest and social (family) relations. They think in terms of sex. When they say that too much sex between a mother and child is wrong, they mean precisely that too much sex is wrong. They do not say that there is anything wrong with incest at all. It just happens to coincide with "too much incest is wrong" because that's the kind of sex they have. They're incestuous so when they say "too much sex is wrong" that happens to be identical to "too much incest is wrong". And here's why we must consider them incestuous: if you ask them whether non-incestuous sex (between an adult woman and a child who isn't her son) is okay, they'll tell you it's completely forbidden. (Why? Because an infant is the mother's personal dildo and they don't like to share!) So incestuous sex ranks higher in their twisted minds than non-incestuous sex.
The situation is equivalent to the hypothetical case where someone prefers oranges to apples, but says that too much fruit gives you diarrhea. Are we supposed to conclude from this that they think eating oranges is wrong? No! But that's the logic you're using for incest among primitives.
If you have a society that already has problems with sex (thinking it dirty and polluting, and capable of killing you) then the fact that they don't want too much incest means nothing.
What it does mean is that, in principle, if you could magically take away their fear of sex, then they'd have absolutely no problem with public incestuous sexual intercourse. That's not something you can explain to people if you persist in using concepts like an "incest taboo".
And in practice, the way to reduce the primitive's fear of sex is precisely to stop all sexual activity between mother and child (intercourse or no intercourse). Once you do that, then they will develop an incest taboo. So your special emphasis on intercourse is complete bullshit and detracts both from the theoretical and the practical discussions. It's simply not a useful concept if you have any desire to truthfully talk about reality.
Incidentally, your long quote about father-daughter relations only furthers my point. Father-daughter relations were of absolutely no importance before the 20th century. You can quote whatever the hell you want about them, anthropologists can study whatever the hell they want about them, and it will still matter about as much as the earth-shattering issue of whether picking your nose in public is taboo. It's completely true that father-daughter incest is unimaginable to the primitives. Just like it's completely true that sex with the neighbor's cat is unimaginable to most people. For them to even contemplate incest between father and daughter, there'd have to actually be a pre-existing relation between them. -- ark