Vindauga

I’m fairly sure that I am remembering correctly when I say that Steven Colbert had folks start editing Wikipedia in order to show how “truth” can change. What this has to do with anything else I am about to say is questionable.
I recently taught a section on the philosophy of science. I really like Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Feyerabend’s Against Method but neither of those books is the reason I choose to teach a PhiSci section (I wonder if PhiSci will catch on like SciFi). Honestly, I taught this entire section just so that I could have my students read Evelyn Fox Keller. Keller points out that the objective reporting of data is nearly impossible and that our conception of a bias-less science is dead wrong. One example that she uses, which I think makes the point abundantly clear, is how we view active and passive agents in chemical and molecular interactions. Aristotle described the components of human sexual reproduction as possessing the attributes of the member from which they came; sperm were active and eggs were passive. In Greek society men were considered to be active and women were considered to be passive, so it made sense to assume that the part that men would contribute to reproduction would be active as well. It is a horrible kind of essentialism but it made sense. Its not true, by the way; it has been shown that the egg reaches out to select a particular sperm and draw it in. The truly interesting part though is how this conception progressed and expanded. This conception is something that we have carried with us. Up until Keller wrote text books would use all kinds of passive terminology to describe the actions of eggs (they “float” down the fallopian tubes, for example) while using all kinds of active language to describe the actions of sperm (they “swim”). This trait, which placed on these pieces was in turn read back onto ourselves; women’s passiveness was now evidenced in their very parts, even the role of the egg in reproduction was passive (and we tend to use passive words to describe pregnancy). This relationship though grew beyond the realm of sexual distinction. In chemical interactions we describe the larger molecule as the passive one and the smaller molecule as the active one. In physical interactions we do the same thing, without a frame of reference the smaller object is perceived as the active one and the larger as passive. Hell, we even see this in large scale interactions like gravity; smaller objects are said to orbit larger objects. So, the moon is active in its relationship with the earth while the earth is mostly passive. Sure, there might seem to be a good reason for thinking of this relationship like we do but given general relativity we really ought not conceive of it in the manner that we have; the object that is moving depends entirely on the perspective (besides, even Newton’s formulation points out that the moon exerts a force on the earth as well).

Anyway, on to the point. There is a conservative group that has decided that Wikipedia is far too liberal to be of value and so decided to start its own internet encyclopedia, one that more accurately represents their values (but, amusingly, Wikipedia’s software isn’t too liberal to be of value). The site, www.conservapedia.com is one of the more amusing things to read. Admittedly, the site is a good deal younger than Wikipedia and so hasn’t yet had the time to develop a robust series of entries, but even still just comparing the entry on the People’s Republic of China to just about anything else is hilarious.

Other things that crack me up about the site include,

1. You are not allowed to use BCE in date, you must you BC. Why? because it “denies the historical basis” (the birth of Jesus). This one really makes me want to post and use the Chinese calender or maybe the Mayan calender because the stipulation states ” When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus” which seems to clearly allow for the use of other calenders unrelated to Jesus.

2. You have to use the American spelling of words. Repeated use of other, I can only assume British, spellings will result in you being banned.

3. The site has some truly interesting math to show that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the average American.

4. All “rational behavior” is economic behavior and it is not irrational to behave immorally.
I could go on for days. Go ahead, check it out, hit ‘random page’ its fun. Seriously though, this raises serious issues about the nature of ‘truth.’ When what is ‘true’ can be displayed in ways that openly attempt to alter or change meaning and content of what is expressed we seriously need to revisit what we mean by “true”. I do not deny that there are biases, that liberals and conservatives alike will focus their attention on those things more directly in line with their concerns. But what concerns me is that one could openly claim to view something from a particular perspective, a perspective that clearly changes the meaning of what is being considered, and still claim that the information is “true”. At least, one should not be able to do this and claim any kind of authority on the subject. If knowledge and information are simply “true for me” then no perspective has any greater claim to it than any other? Why not have a liberal/conservative bias if no position is more accurate, if neither has any greater claim to true? It seems that the conservatives who organized his site, in their zeal to have a site that won’t define the word “whore,” have overlooked that the very presupposition of the site denies the value of perspectives.