Talk:Human/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Human. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Compromise suggestion

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which includes scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin 18:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts)

Do humans differ from other great apes in having a highly developed brain? Certainly some of the others have a carriage that's upright enough to free their limbs for manipulating objects. (The sentence structure and punctuation of the third sentence needs work, by the way.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We differ in that ours are more highly developed in the ways we think matter. The EB distinguishes humans in terms of upper limb flexibilty and I would agree that we are more flexible (hands, particularly) in ways that help us to use tools, though not in ways that help us to climb trees. I got rid of the semi-colon in sentence three. Is it still awkward? SlimVirgin 18:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

But is there any source for the claim that our brains are more developed than those of other great apes, or is that an assumption based on the physicalist dogma? The third sentence isn't awkward so much as inadvertently comic (visions of humans using tools in their flexible hands to build complex social structures)... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I didn't even see that. Thank you. I've deleted highly developed brains, and replaced "erected" with "developed" in the third sentence. Also added "language and speech," instead of just speech. SlimVirgin 19:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I like your compromise content; it's factual and well written.--FeloniousMonk 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FM. SlimVirgin 23:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to include something about what happened to our tails in there somewhere, too. ;-)--FeloniousMonk 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mine fell off during this discussion. SlimVirgin 00:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It may surprise you that one can enthusiastically believe in evolution and yet not subscribe to the absolutely reductive biologism that your version of the article reflects. --Goethean 01:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This suggestion is not a compromise. There is more to humanity than biology, yet the first sentence defines humanity in strictly biological terms. This is clearly inferior to the 1 March 2005 intro. --Goethean 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this intro is a good start, although I thing Pharos's intro sentence should be the first sentence of the article. I consider myself a scientist (by interest, not by profession). But I agree that humanity's development of culture and society is unprecedented in the history of this planet and I believe it is clearly one of the most remarkable aspects of our species.

Okay, I've added Pharos's first sentence. Should anything else be added? SlimVirgin 03:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is still more exclusivist, more reductive, less complete, and therefore inferior to the March 1st intro. This is not a biology textbook, and there is no need to reduce humanity to only biological terms, just as there is no need to reduce it to economic, psychological, or indeed, religious terms. The earlier version acknowledged in the first sentence that there were several perspectives through which humanity must be viewed to gain a complete picture, that there are several aspects to humanity. This version almost explicitly denies that. Instead, Wikipedia claims, humans are nothing more than primates. The views of the vast majority of mankind on their own nature are not worth mentioning. This is not a compromise. --Goethean 04:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What distinguishes humans is not that they are primates (which they certainly are), but that they have language, culture, society, and technology, which is quite explicit stated here. But biology is quite essential as the material foundation of this abstract idea-world. Surely it's more than a coincicidence that the species with the freakishly large brain is the one writing poetry, disputing on Wikis, contemplating God. That said, I think the current paragraph could be improved in some of the specifics and emphases and is not the be-all and end-all. I think I'll have a couple of reccomendations when I finish chewing it over.--Pharos 04:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

biology is quite essential as the material foundation of this abstract idea-world.

By that argument, the most accurate entry of all would call human beings "conglomerations of molecules"—after all, physics is essential as the material foundation of this abstract bio-world.--Goethean 04:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be impossible to understand biology reasonably well at all without deep knowledge of molecules and chemistry; ask any college biology major what courses they must take. That said, humans in particular don't have an unusual basic chemistry at all, but their brain, for one, is quite without parrallel in the history of life. I would not, for instance, devote extensive coverage to the workings of the human kidneys, which are not so different from those present in other mammals.--Pharos 04:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I think this is a compromise, because it mentions a supreme being, the idea of creation, and the idea of souls, which several editors were opposed to. Also, it mentions those ideas as being equal in importance to evolution by describing them as competing narratives, which is a big concession. There does need to be a biological thrust too, because as Pharos says, it's the material foundation of everything else; and it's important to point out that, though we may differ from other mammals in the ways outlined, and appear to be quite unique in terms of brain development, language, and culture, we're also related to them, and there are many ways in which we don't differ. What would you add to this paragraph so that it was more rounded? SlimVirgin 05:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would say this definitely qualifies as a compromise, as makes several significant changes from the previous suggestion to be more in line with the objections. Especially with the placing of scientific and nonscientific ideas of our origin on equal footing. However, you may certainly feel that it is not enough of a compromise. I really don't care that much for the March 1st version though; I felt it was too convoluted and complex. I would prefer rewriting it, as we are doing here, and try to be sure that everyone's objections are satisfied. Now the only real objection I have to this version is I feel like it marks the scientific and spritual narratives as competitors I understand it may have to be for concision. But I consider myself religious yet strongly embrace the scientific view—religion and science answer different questions for me. For instance, I see no reason why God would have to create humans in a flash of light; why God couldn't create spacetime, the Universe, the fundamental constants, and so on, and so created humans in that way, and to us with our linear perception of time we perceive some 13.7 billion years have passed between the Big Bang and our origin. That was a really long sentence and I don't intend to start a spiritual/philosophical debate here, but I think there are many who (like I do) believe in the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and so on, and yet believe in God. However this is a secondary complaint which we can address later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The March 1 version began with an acknowledgment of some of the multiple perspectives that are needed to define humanity with any sense of comprehensiveness, fairness or balance. The current version has jettisoned that balance for an uncompromising reductive biologism. Now you have Wikipedia claiming that human beings, humanity, and humankind are nothing more than two-legged primates, who (by the way) have developed religion, language and thumbs. Felonius Monk's revision and this subsequent non-compromise have deliberately impoverished this article. --Goethean 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I feel that some of these comments are not very helpful to improving the article. Even if you don't think it's going far enough, this version is clearly a compromise between the current introduction and the one you prefer. And I understand that you may feel that this version is inferior, though I think it is unfair to assert that we are deliberately impoverishing the article—we are not purposefully making it worse. I respect that you prefer the March 1st version over anything else that's been proposed. That's fine. The currently proposed compromise suggestion is not my ideal version either. However, it is closer to it than the March 1st version is. It appears that there are several people who would like to improve on the March 1st version, so perhaps rather than insist on returning to that version, you could suggest ways in which we could improve this paragraph if you feel it is too one-sided. The main problem I had with the earlier version is I feel it is too muddy and vague; reading it I did not get a clear picture of what it is trying to say. I understand that many believe humans are more than biological constructs but given the vast array of beliefs I think it will be difficult to summarize in the intro, except to give it cursory mention perhaps. I agree with Sam (below) that the soul part is a bit problematic as it stands—in some religions humans may be the only ones with souls but in my religion for instance God is present in all life. Perhaps it could be amended to say "Many humans [how many, do you think?] believe that they differ from animals by possessing an eternal soul", and then elaborating on that later on in the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam and Knowledge Seeker, I deleted "eternal souls" because you're right: many religions say that God is present in all life. Goethan, would you work with us to improve this compromise version? When we've got it to the point where we could live with it, then we could compare it to the current version and to the version you prefer, and make a judgment at that time. If anyone feels the idea of souls needs a mention and can think of a way to work it in, please feel free. SlimVirgin 08:24, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that many believe humans are more than biological constructs but given the vast array of beliefs I think it will be difficult to summarize in the intro, except to give it cursory mention perhaps. True, but you see, this is why I keep pointing back to the March 1 version. It was awkward, but at least it didn't do harm in the form of running roughshod over important perspectives. There is genuine difficulty in defining humanity. "humans are bipedal primates who have developed..." in effect denies that. Acknowledging other perspectives from the outset acknowledges the differences of opinion. --Goethean 16:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adding "spirituality" to the the first sentence might make it. <<Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, spirituality, society, and technology.>> From my own atheistic and certain point-of-view, "spirituality," is just another construct of language, culture, society, and technology, but that is not the point-of-view of most religious people. In my opinion, if we don't somehow recognize "spirituality" by some special word in the series of words that follow "Human beings are . . .," I am afraid the definition violates NPOV by making a statement about humans with which most humans alive would disagree in many different languages and many different accents. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rednblu, thanks for your input. A previous version of the paragraph ended with a reference to the narrative that human beings are unique in having eternal souls, but as Sam and Knowledgeseeker pointed out, not all religions believe this (some say that animals have souls too), so I deleted it. The same problem might arise with your suggestion: by saying humans are unique in their development of spirituality, we imply that animals don't have spirits. Also, I'm not sure "the development of spirituality" is quite the way to put it. I feel it's more NPOV to express the scientific versus spiritual views in terms of narratives, rather than stating "we are spiritual" upfront. Might the last sentence not be good enough, by talking about "spiritual stories"? As follows: "The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which includes scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin 09:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it might be worth mentioning that there are a lot of very different views being expressed on this page (which is a good thing), and so probably no one is going to be entirely happy with the compromise we end up with; therefore, what we're aiming for is something that we can all live with. ;-) SlimVirgin 09:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I tell you again that I am Writing for the enemy. And the only reason I keep insisting on some recognition of "spirituality" is because there are many Wikipedia editors who strongly prefer the March 1 version. And I have no idea myself whether putting "spiritual" into Pharos's sentence is acceptable to those who strongly prefer the March 1 version. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current

I appreciate the hard work, but I very much prefer the current version of the intro. I am a theist, but anything suggestive of humans uniquely possessing a soul smacks of egocentrism, to me at least. I think thats a POV which doesn't need specific expression in the intro. The image needs swapped w the taxobox tho, of course ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would never want wikipedia to endorse belief in a soul or spirit. I merely want wikipedia to report that to billions of people, that is part of the meaning of being human. --Goethean 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "billions" do not believe that the soul is unique to being human. Billions believe that humans possess a soul, of course, but as far as how many deem it to be unique to mankind? Well, thats not so hard to figure out as you might think. That group would include no Hindu's, Buddhists, Jains (basically no eastern religions). It would also not include any of the many indigenous or animist religions. Frankly, the only group of people I can think of who might believe such a thing are the Abrahamic religions. Out of them however, I would argue only a minority believe the soul is unique to humanity. I personally find the idea shocking and abominable, as do the majority of Christian animal lovers I know. The concept is common, but not enough to merit presense in the intro. The spiritual aspect of man is another subject altogether. See [1] for numbers. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Goethean said half of humanity believes (A) that possessing a soul is part of being human. You are asserting that only a minority believes (B) that only human beings have a soul. Is this correct? User:Ed Poor (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Yes, that is correct. Saying that the possession of a soul is an important part of being human in the minds of most people would be fine w me. Saying that possessing a soul is what makes humans distinct from other aspects of creation would be an unfair emphasis on a minority POV in the intro, IMO. Stating that many believe such later in the article, in context, would be fine however. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess my main point is that I don't like the wikipedia defining humanity as simply being a bipedal primate, end of story, while the vast majority of people don't see it that way. Even adding on accomplishments such as the development of language and religion don't change the fact that we are disregarding these people's beliefs. --Goethean 16:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that's what I liked about the 1 March version. It began by pointing out that it's not as simple as: humans are bipedal primates. It began with various perspectives for looking at humanity. That's more inclusive, I feel. --Goethean 16:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cave Painting

what's the cave-painting of the hand, btw? I like it, but just showing an image of a brownish smeared hand without saying where it is or how it is dated is completely unencyclopedic. provide a reference, or exchange. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So far as I remember (I didn't upload it) it's Australian aboriginal cave-painting, from a famous site whose name has slipped my mind. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

bipedal

the "bipedal" in the intro is silly. it harks back to Plato's non-feathered bipeds, and is not proper in classification attributed to "biologists". biologists classify us as mammals, primates, homines, without counting "feet". I know that "bipedal locomotion" is the subject of serious research, but it doesn't enter into taxonomy / phylogeny. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The story in Plato is somewhat amusing, and gives an idea about how long people have been trying, with varying degrees of success, to define humanity. We could consider including a reference to it. --Goethean 16:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica also begins its definition of "human being" with reference to bipedal primates, as follows: "a bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning ..." SlimVirgin 17:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

All taxonomy above species level is essentially arbitrary; bipediality is more or less the defining characteristic of the phylogeny (not the same as taxonomy) of the many species involved in human evolution. Bipedality came considerably before large brains.--Pharos 05:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am still not sure if this article is about more than one species. homo sapiens redirects here, not Homo (genus)! H. sapiens is a single species, and should be objectively defineable. Plato was, of course, in the article (but not in the intro!), before he was exported to Human_self-reflection#Classical_antiquity. Correct me, but I thought zoological taxonomy was at least aiming at consistency with phylogeny? (otherwise, what would be the point? You could classify, for example, all blue animals into a family, etc.) It just irks me to have well defined, phylogenetic terms like primate and, redundantly, mammal, combined with bipedal that applies as much to as as to chickens. Of course, bipedal is an actual feature, while primate is simply pushing back the definition to another article. I'm just saying we should separate phylogenetic classification from descriptions of individual features, I guess. I'm not objecting to mentioning the widely known fact that most people are walking on two legs. dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Handling the competing points of view

SlimVirgin asked Goethean to take a look, and he in turn asked me, so here I am. At first glance, the intro seems entirely materialistic. I am changing it so that it attributes the materialistic assumptions and conclusions to "biologists" (generally). I plan to introduce the main alternate point of view as gently as possible: that there is more to being human than walking upright, having an opposable thumb and complex brain, and blowing up your enemies with cruise missiles.

But I intend to be ever so careful not to impose this alternate POV as "correct" - and certainly not as "the only correct" way to regard humans. Just as I'm sure the other editors here have no wish to endorse the biological, materialistic POV as the "only correct way" for Wikipedia to describe us.

Even if 95% of scientists (and 99.8% of biologists) believe humans evolved without God's help from lower animals, that's not quite consensus enough for Wikipedia to assert that this view is true. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

The actual % is actually quite suprising, I'll find a cite. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [2][3][4] found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution". See also [5].

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, it's not biologists that define the term 'human' so much as it is anthropologists and philosophers.

Second, no other significant, credible and neutral encyclopedias (or other equally significant reference sources) include a spiritual distinction in defining 'human' in their intros. Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides no mandate for us to redefine meanings of terms. To that end unless you or anyone else can show us a number of other significant, credible and neutral encyclopedias (or other equally significant reference sources) that prominently define human in spiritual terms in their intro, the argument it that must is a non sequitur. And since the POV 'human as spiritual being' is already addressed fully in the Culture subsection, absent any precedent, there's no justification for it in the intro.

There is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Doing so would: a) put wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional/outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles.--FeloniousMonk 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even were you right (which your not) about other encyclopedias, other encyclopedias do not define us, and your suggestion that atheist academia and secular humanism be emphasized to the exclusion of all other views is especially difficult to sympathize with, and clearly not based on NPOV (an unnegotiable policy, BTW). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I'm so wrong about other encyclopedias, how about posting some links that prove me wrong. I dedicated two nights going through all the encyclopedia articles on 'human' at two libraries at Berkeley, and not one mentioned spirituality as a distinction in defining human in their primary definition/intro. So the argument remains a non sequitur. Invoking "atheist academia" is a straw man and contradicted by your own citation above of the 2001 Gallup poll which states of US scientists 5% believed in biblically literal creation, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Clearly either you're wrong on this point in your race to use inflammatory language, or 45% of scientists are closet atheists. Which is it? And no one here is arguing the secular humanism be emphasized at the expense of any other views. What are you talking about?--FeloniousMonk 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "humans are spiritual beings" and "many people believe that human beings are spiritual beings." I, for one, am not arguing for the former, and would likely oppose it, unless it was balanced with other POVs. That's why I recommend distancing clauses like "From the point of view of biology and anthropology" --Goethean 16:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand the distinction you point out. I also acknowlege that a significant number of people define human to confirm or accomodate their beliefs, and I have no problem presenting that in the article. It is already being done in the Culture subsection. The neutrality policy does not dictate that special definitions of the article's subject be accomodated in the article's intro or that wikipedia's primary definition of a subject be completely out of step with all other encyclopedias and primary references. The neutrality policy dictates that the discussion present a fair presentation of their beliefs and dispute between the parties, that is being done, and it has no place in the intro.--FeloniousMonk 16:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you want to acknowledge the debate later on in the article, but to only present science's perspective (which happens to be your own perspective) in the summary definition. I hope that you can understand why that's unacceptable to me. --Goethean

Sorry, but that's a straw man. That humans possess spiritual beliefs is already addressed in the intro: "These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools." Trying to avoid making my own straw man argument here, you want the intro to include spiritual belief more prominently? The intro is factual as it stands. Any assertion that states or implies spirituality's role is anything other than behavioral is not factual and I'll oppose it for being such. Again, the point is academic in that no credible/neutral encyclopedia defines humanity in spiritual terms in it's primary definition.--FeloniousMonk 17:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...a significant number of people define human to confirm or accomodate their beliefs... --FM

...special definitions of the article's subject be accomodated...." --FM

These phrases reveal the problem. To you, acknowledging beliefs that are outside of the scientific method is to acknowledge falsehood. To me, it is to acknowledge other truths and other methods of finding the truth. We must decide whether perspectives other than the natural and social sciences are to be acknowledged as legitimate by wikipedia. --Goethean 17:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, any assertion that states or implies spirituality's role is anything other than behavioral is not factual. Claiming it defines us, is a "truth," or is "transcendental" is to give it a meaning which can never be defined or measured objectively (in reality). Your definition of truth is what's causing your problem here- it's impossible. Truth is the non-contradictory identification of reality. Epistemologies that claim the truth irrationally, such as spirituality/religion, are going to run into problems like this every time they assert their claim to a truth that runs counter to the facts. Meaning is always epistemological, not metaphysical or intrinsic. --FeloniousMonk 17:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was the March 1 version non-factual?--Goethean 17:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Religions and spirituality present legitimate perspectives, as does science. It's not Wikipedia's job to pronounce whether they are true or not; only to report on what they say. --Goethean 17:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accordingly, wikipedia can also say what biologists and anthropologists say about those beliefs, for example, if they say that they have no merit. But that's still not the same thing as the wikipedia claiming that those beliefs have no merit. --Goethean 17:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, folks. Wikipedia deals neither in Truth nor in Legitimacy. Wikipedia deals in human "knowledge". Is it possible there are editors in the house who are not properly indoctrinated yet by studying WP:NPOV lately? Tom Haws 18:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality is about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. But remember, everyone is entitled to their own POV, but not to their own facts. We must present any perspectives that run counter to, or are inconsistant with the facts as POVs.--FeloniousMonk 18:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the March 1 was not factual in that it presented spirituality something that transcends all humanity, and hence as an important metric in defining what it is to be human. It is not; spirituality is catch phrase for lumping together very different, often mutually-exclusive concepts. As such it is an arbitrary concept itself making it meaningless as a metric. It's meaning is only cogent to those who share the same POV. Any such metaphysical notions are arbitrary, meaning without any basis in reality. Sure, Persephone getting abducted by Hades and then later rescued by her mother Demeter will explain why the seasons take place, but there is no reason to choose this explanation instead of "the legend of the flatulent goat who drastically alters the weather throughout the year".

I agree that religions and spirituality are legitimate perspectives as metaphysical beliefs or opinions that bring psychological comfort, but they are not useful as epistemologies for describing reality and generating metrics used to define things found in reality, like humans, which is what we are trying to do here in the article.--FeloniousMonk 18:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not; spirituality is catch phrase for lumping together very different, often mutually-exclusive concepts. --FM

Biology has conflicting theories, also. --Goethean 18:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of which are open to revision in light of new facts or understandings. That's how a rational epistemology is supposed to work. Your point?--FeloniousMonk 18:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the statement: According to biology, human beings are bipedal primates? --Goethean 18:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, it's what follows afterward that's problematic: "In spiritual terms, they are described using various concepts of soul which, in religion, are understood in relation to divine powers or beings; in mythology, they are also often contrasted with other humanoid races." Again, the sentence cites arbitrary metaphysical notions without any basis in reality, hence they are subjective to the point of being meaningless to anyone other than those who hold them. The intro especially should stick to the facts that are readily accessable to all, not just the pious.--FeloniousMonk 18:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The intro especially should stick to the facts that are readily accessable to all, not just the pious. --FM

The fact that people think that people have a soul is accessible to anyone. --Goethean 18:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Facts: That there are people that believe humans possess a soul Yes, indeed there are. That humans actually do possess a soul. No evidence for that, so it cannot be presented as a fact. That there are people that believe humans possess a soul is already presented in the article in the culture subsection and in passing in the current intro. Hence, the actual facts are being addressed.--FeloniousMonk 19:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not the role of you or of the wikipedia to determine whose beliefs are correct. That they are held by billions of people make them notable enough to be included—with appropriate attribution—in this article. --Goethean 22:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that religions and spirituality are legitimate perspectives as metaphysical beliefs or opinions that bring psychological comfort --FM

This is extremely condescending. You clearly see wikipedia as nothing more than the delineation of the scientific perspective. Why are you on the wikipedia? The wikipedia is about the sum of perspectives, not bashing the ignorant over the head with science. --Goethean 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not meant to be anything other than a statement of fact. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of human knowlege, not place to witness faith or culture-jam for a particular beleif. I will grant you that most spiritual metaphysical notions start out as an explanation for some phenomenon (the sort of explanation found in many old Greek myths that we laugh about today, like that I cited above) and that there is a sort of internal consistency within each one which explains why some of these have persisted. They do successfully provide an explanation for something, it's just that that explanation might not be true.--FeloniousMonk 18:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone's POV, I'm merely pointing out the epistemological/logical inconsistencies in them and why those inconsistencies prevent them from having their POV presented as fact. Implying that I am doing otherwise smacks of trying to silence my objection.--FeloniousMonk 18:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM, I want you to know I agree with you that this sentence is not very accessible, and thus is problematic. "In spiritual terms, they are described using various concepts of soul which, in religion, are understood in relation to divine powers or beings; in mythology, they are also often contrasted with other humanoid races." The whole point, as I understand it, is that to a huge portion of the world, probably a majority, Humanity is to be understood within the framework of a spiritual world that transcends, precedes, and begets the physical world. To speak factually about the physical begetting the spiritual is simply a misreporting of human "knowledge". You can report that secularists view spirituality as a physical manifestation, but you must also in a non-marginal way nod that spiritualists view the physical universe as hanging from spirituality. Whether or not this is accessible to your belief system is not important; just report it. Tom Haws 23:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Relevance or irrelevance of humans as spiritual beings

Monk wrote:

There is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Doing so would: a) put wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional/outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles.

I guess this means that keeping in step with other encyclopedias is important for Wikipedia. If so, I suppose that the only exceptional thing about us is that we're GPL-licensed. But the NPOV policy of not taking sides seems more important to me than "keeping in step". What if all the other big encyclopedias have been endorsing a materialistic POV?

Reporting on alternate POVs is not necessarily "personal research" in the sense Wikipedia is trying to discourage. If a contributor simply reports that many people in general or some significant writer(s) in particular regard humans as having a spiritual side, I don't see how this violates our editorial policy.

Most importantly, while it is true that a major trend over the last 150 years in academic circles has been to consider spirituality merely as a function of behavior and culture, this is only one point of view. Specifically, it is the materialistic POV. A large number of people, both in and out of academia, espouse an alternate POV. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, welcome to the talk page that nicely reflects the nature of the subject of the discussion. ;-) There's probably no point in your editing the current intro as we're working on a compromise version. The old (March 1) version is here, and the current version here.

As you've just tuned in. here's a breakdown of the positions:

Not keen on the old (March 1) version (though perhaps for different reasons): FeloniousMonk, Mel Etitis, Knowledgeseeker, SlimVirgin.
Not keen on the current version (again, perhaps for different reasons): Rednblu, Tom Haws, Goethean, Sam Spade, Ed Poor.
No preference expressed: Pharos, Wesley

Therefore, we're working on this compromise version (below). A criticism of it is that it doesn't contain sufficient reference to spirituality, so I've tweaked it to emphasize that aspect more. SlimVirgin 17:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature of the species. These include materialist and spiritual perspectives promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being, and that an essential attribute of humanity is its spirituality.

SlimVirgin 17:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ed, you say "materialistic" as if it's a bad thing. No one is saying that including the views of those alternate POVs in the article is personal research or can't that they can't be included. But stating or implying that those views are fact or tantamount to fact would be personal research and violate NPOV though, and that is what the current (and SV's proposed) into replaced.

If neutrality is about presenting competing versions of what the facts are, and facts being facts, there are several points that you'll have to admit: It is only those who are spiritual or religious that define 'human' in spiritual religious terms, just as your recent edit to the article implies that it is only biologists who define humans as "bipedal primate mammals." That spiritual beliefs make us human is just that - a belief- not a fact. It's a belief held by a particular group marked by dedicated belief in the absence of, or despite, evidence (faith), and a record of asserting their belief over other competing epistemologies. Should the perspective that spirituality is not just merely a function of behavior and culture be noted in the article? Yes, as long as it is attributed, and it is not presented in into, which implies that it is a significant metric in defining human.

As I've said, I have no problem accommodating the spiritual perspective in the article as long as any assertion that states or implies spirituality's role is anything other than behavioral is attributed and is made clear that it's opinion, not fact.--FeloniousMonk 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you, 67 (and Slim) for elevating the intellectuality of my Thursday! There's obviously a lot going on here. I guess I'll turn to other things for a while and let my unconscious mind consider what you've all said. (Maybe I'll even pray about it, God might tell me that the materialist viewpoint deserves more respect than I've been giving it! ;-) Ta ta for now ... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm 67 here, I got randomly logged off.--FeloniousMonk 18:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humans are...

SlimVirgin asked me to try to state my opinion of the current efforts at an intro. I will try, but this is obviously (as I follow the discussion) going to take a while longer. The current intro starts by saying humans are bipedal primates, etc. I think we are having an unstated problem with the first two words, "Humans are". Those who like the proposed intro have been saying, "Everybody agrees that humans are bipedal primates, so we should put that first." I think it is approximately true that "everybody" agrees that humans are bipedal primates, and yet I think there is trouble with the opening. And I think I may have pinpointed why. Tom Haws 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have identified two different kinds of "Humans are..."

"Humans are..." (definitively)
"Humans are..." (descriptively)

All people generally respectfully assent to how bilogists describe humans as bipedal primates, Homo sapiens, etc. I myself have no problem describing humans in any of a number of ways such as this. But many people wouldn't allow that humans are defined as bipedal primates, Homo sapiens, etc. For example, if my child says to me, "Teacher says people are mammals." I would of course answer, "Yes." But if child asks, "What are people?", I will think a little harder. And if I want to be non-biased, I will answer, "Well, sweetheart (or buddy). There are a lot of different ways people answer that question." I hope that helps you who are pushing for this currently proposed intro to understand why some others of us seem intransigent to your explanation that "everybody believes this part, so it should go first." What should go first is a very careful and non-biased attempt to say what "humans are..." (definitively) Tom Haws 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of different ways people answer that question.

Why can't the article open with a spiffed-up version of that statement? --Goethean 18:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for that. In light of your post, I've tweaked the suggestion again:

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man") and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. They belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices.

The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature — or essence — of the species. These include materialist perspectives promoting the view that human beings evolved from other life forms over millions of years and are, in essence, no different from their primate relatives; and spiritual perspectives that emphasize a spiritual dimension to life, and which may include the view that all life, including human life, was created by a supreme being. The materialist and spiritual narratives are not mutually exclusive. SlimVirgin 18:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now were back to the March 1 intro. I do not support or endorse this version of the intro. That certain groups of humans with arbitrary, intangible beliefs, i.e.; spiritual beliefs, define human by their own belief is beside the point and should not be mentioned in the intro except to mention that they do it. That they choose to do so is a matter of choice and not supported by any fact other than that they've chosen to do it. The intro needs to stick to the facts that are readily verified and accessible to verification by all. I can support your previous intro still though:

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature of the species. These include materialist and spiritual perspectives promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being, and that an essential attribute of humanity is its spirituality.

--FeloniousMonk 19:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can support this version FeloniousMonk?

No. I support SV's previous version which I cite above. I oppose any intro that states "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." Spiritual belief is not a universial or credible metric for defining the concept 'human' for all the reasons I pointed out earlier. The spiritual POV is presented further down the page where it belongs, in the Culture subsection.--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM, doesn't everybody "define human by their own belief"? Tom Haws 20:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reality is always the ultimate standard of evaluation. Objectivity is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality. Actually understanding something is act of referencing reality in determining the truth. So the truth of a belief is dependent on its correspondence to reality. Those who define human by beliefs that do not correspond to reality, are said to be independent to reality, or in contradiction to reality have no legitimate expectation to have their beliefs treated as fact.--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's an extremely rough version of what I envision:

According to biology and anthropology, human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism), as illusion (Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

--Goethean 19:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On my view, the "science" section could be lengthier, but not so long as to reduce the religion section to a mere footnote. This intro could then be followed immediately by an expansion of the bio/anthropology perspective. --Goethean 19:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And of course none of us are trying to say that this article has to give prominent nod to the idea that spirit is unique to humans, or to anything at all about the question of the origin of the human body. I only say this because it appears some of you are carrying over thoughts from Creationist talk, which this of course isn't. And also, I personally believe the only reason we are belaboring this point of non-bias on the Human page is that it matters to us humans. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that there are no dogs, dolphins, or bonobos editing the Wikipedia. :-D Tom Haws 19:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I propose this synthesis of Goethean's proposal and the current intro:

Human beings are classified by biologists as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man): a bipedal primate mammal distinguished from other primates only by biological and behavioral differences and belonging to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning and articulate speech.

The ability to reason and speak contributes to the behavioral differences between humans and other primates, most noticeable in the highly developed culture of human beings. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of an eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism, Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

That's my attempt at a compromise giving spiritual beliefs some real estate in the intro (despite the fact we'll be the only putatively neutral encyclopedia doing so).--FeloniousMonk 21:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality. --Goethean 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehehehehehe. See Epistemology for starters (under Empiricism). The objective of science is to obtain the closest possible match to reality as is possible. It's a similar system to wikipedia if you will (or rather other way around, wikipedia is based on the system used by science to arrive at NPOV). Insofar as science fails. *FIX IT* , you can publish papers if you disagree, but you'll have to prove your position. Until then, let's stick to the current scientific position. Thanks! Kim Bruning 22:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I suggest that both you and Felonius Monk read up on current research on empiricism. In short, it says approximately the opposite of what you think it does. here is an 1951 essay by the most important empiricist of the latter half of the 20th century, W.V.O.Quine, in which he concludes that naive empiricism (the philosophy with which Felonius Monk has been hubristically slamming the "religious" on this board) is untenable. --Goethean 16:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM, I would prefer if you added Goethean's views to the compromise version I wrote up, as the current intro borrows too heavily from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Also, to Lincspoacher, I removed this: "Central to this is the argument 'when did we become human', ie at what point did we change from being merely soulless 'clever apes' and become 'humans' with souls. This point has only just begun to be debated," as it count as "original research" or a personal statement. Also, your edit that references a BBC Horizon TV program needs a proper citation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monk (or 67 as I once called you), I appreciate your nod to the POV of "some of the major world religions" - and I assure you I don't plan any kind of "give me an inch I'll take a mile" takeover of the article. At least 90% of the article should stick to the materialistic perspective of biologists.

By the way, we are the only putatively neutral encyclopedia in existence. Every other one has a POV which informs it, and they're usually pretty up-front about it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've never doubted your good faith, Ed. Though I do have some doubts about the neutrality of the content of wikipedia based on the number "controversial" and "NPOV" tags in evidence, not to mention that there are plenty of instances to be found of culture jamming and POV warrioring daily. By it's very nature wikipedia's content may may be POV one day and NPOV the next, so claims to it being neutral in net strike me as a bit overly grand.

Here's my next attempt, incorporating SV's comments:

Human beings are classified in the natural sciences as bipedal primates, with the taxonomic classification Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man). They are distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of an eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism, Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

Yes, no, flames? --FeloniousMonk 21:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I could live with that version. SlimVirgin 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the failure to attribute the beliefs of the natural sciences. This is a deliberate marginalization by Felonius Monk to make a fact/fiction distinction between the beliefs of scientists and religious adherents. Should the wikipedia really imply that religions are false? Failing this, the single sentence on religion could easily be expanded to include major philosophical views, like existentialism. --Goethean 22:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, "along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans," is needless filler. --Goethean 22:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only remaining problem in that intro is the way it narratively progresses toward religion as a product of the bipedal primate, rather than unbiasedly presenting the religious/spiritual and any other definitions of humanity as standing independent. Here are the words that accomplish the progression: 1) "unique development of language, culture", 2) "As a consequence", 3) "given rise" 4) "beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools". And all this is followed by the first words of the next paragraph: "According to some of the major world religions". It seems rather an intentional framing of religion as a delusion of the overractive Homo sapiens brain rather than another way of defining humanity. Tom Haws 22:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there have been enormous compromises on the scientific side, and to keep on asking for more is beginning to border on the unreasonable. As for chimpanzees etc being needless filler, I disagree. Many people won't know what the great-ape family is. It's not a question of a fact/ficton distinction or marginalization, Tom. It's simply that NPOV states that majority views be presented as such. There is no implication that religious views are false. How could existentialism fit in? SlimVirgin 22:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that NPOV states that first two sentences of a Wikipedia article are to endorse the dogma of the majority? Any reasonable reading of the NPOV page requires that even the leading definition would report the wide divergence of opinion on the definition--where there is a wide divergence of opinion on the definition. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, the Wikipedia guidelines on how to write a great article states: "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." Unfortunately for your argument what you term the "dogma of the majority" happens to be what best reflects reality. What does that say about your own dogmatic POV?--FeloniousMonk 00:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And the divergence is very wide when one side says the spiritual is merely an explanation of the physical, and the other side says the physical is merely a tool of the spiritual. This width must be tackled head on. Neither side deserves tyranny. Tom Haws 23:24, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any proof that spirituality is anything other than a mental construct? If so, I for one would be pleased to consider it. Barring such evidence, spirituality's role in the article must remain aligned to reality.--FeloniousMonk 00:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Science is also a mental construct. --Goethean 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but science describes reality---and isn't that what we're trying to do here? grendel|khan 18:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Religion describes another person's experience of reality. Do you really think that the experience of 65% of the world's population doesn't merit a single sentence here? --Goethean 20:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the difference between what people may believe and what is. Religion is a social construct, one that does not cut across all cultures. It's a feature of many human societies, and an important one. But it's just not that important to defining humans unless you believe in it. grendel|khan 22:04, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Science does not have a monopoly on reality. There are multiple legitimate perspectives on reality. Your opinion notwithstanding, the opinions of 3 billion people are notable enough to merit a single attributed sentence in this article. --Goethean 22:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." ...and when there is no agreement on the topic at hand, a fair article would start out by giving the different sides of the controversy, attributing each acurately. The suggested compromise fails to do that. --Goethean 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you want to get in which view is in the majority. Not with 2 billion plus christians in the world.

Tom's problem could be avoided by merely attributing the scientific view appropriately. --Goethean 23:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, the problem with your objection is that by all rational accounting religion is a product; a mental construct. So presenting the religious/spiritual and any other definitions of humanity as standing independent would be factually incorrect.

That would be your rational accouting, not mine. Tom Haws 05:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Does spirituality or religion exist independently of man? I have no idea if it does, and as I've said to Ed I put it to you plainly that neither do you nor anyone else here. Since an absence of support is what marks objects of faith, it's safe to say spirituality like every other epistemology is a mental construct. But if you've got some credible/rational proof showing that the religious and the spiritual exist independently of our thought, then please, by all means, present it.--FeloniousMonk 00:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM: "I put it to you plainly that neither do you nor anyone else here." You are speaking increasingly presumptuously and personally against the beliefs of your fellow editors. It isn't productive toward the end of the article to simply and repeatedly assert that the other POV is a house of cards, especially when held by billions of your brethren. About the best you can do is assert that "nobody really believes that." If you would like to speak at length with me in another venue, we can talk about why spiritual beliefs persist among seemingly rational people, and why I assert plainly to you that I do have very much more than an idea of the reality of what I believe. Your disbelieving it and belittling it does not change what I personally have experienced to be real. And yet you are free to believe as you do. And we don't have to agree before we can write a beautiful article together. Tom Haws 05:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to try to determine the worth of religious dogma or scientific theory. Our job is merely to report fairly and to attribute claims accurately. --Goethean 00:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I have very strong factual objections to the repeated assertions you make, dear FM. But I feel it is inappropriate to divert the discussion into an attempt to establish facts that we disagree on. You believe P and I believe Q. That represents human knowledge. (Yes, as a matter of fact I and billions of others do believe that the religious and the spiritual exist independent of Homo sapiens. And you and billions of others don't.) I am thinking that we all have been erring in attempting to use this article to define humans. As my thought experiment for this section started out, "Humans are...", I return to it and say, "That is too much for this article." Rather perhaps this article should expressly treat the subject of how the word human is and has been used. In such a framework, we might explain that some people have used human to speak of what is unique in the universe (including wearing clothes, telling stories, and having a mission from heaven), and others have used human to speak of what is in common with the rest of the universe (including fitting humanity into chemical and biological taxonomies). We also might discuss what has been said about the difficulty of self-definition. Tom Haws 04:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia should not paper over or whitewash controversy. Instead, it should describe it. --Goethean 15:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Goethean-- I agree fully that wikipedia should describe controversy, not whitewash it. I've tried to do that in my proposed intros, as has SV.

Moreover, I am not trying to either boost or devalue the worth of religious dogma or scientific theory. Nor am I speaking presumptuously and personally against the beliefs of my fellow editors. You insist on a statement in the article that defines humanity in spiritual terms. That statement implies that spirituality is an independent fact equivalent to other facts that distinguish humans from other animals. That statement assumes that spirituality is indeed an independent fact. Yet there is no proof that this is true. So it is only reasonable of me to 1) doubt the truth of your claim, 2) insist that you justify your claim. I'm sorry that it upsets you, and I understand that it is tantamount to questioning your faith, but writing a neutral and factual encyclopedia article demands that claims of fact be verified and justified. And it's not like Goethean does not constantly make digs about science (which I'll note welcomes the scrutiny).

So what I am doing is insisting that any implied or overt claims about spirituality's role in defining what is 'human' be justified by either evidence or reason. You insist that in reality spirituality is more than a human mental construct and that the article needs to reflect that. I'm saying prove it.

Both SV and myself have tried to accommodate your POV in the article. If you continue to insist that: a) spirituality is something that exists independently of man, b) that spirituality defines man, I, and others that follow me, are going to insist on proof for that POV. Without proof to the contrary, the intro will reflect that spirituality is not something that exists independently of man and hence our practice of it defines us.--FeloniousMonk 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You insist on a statement in the article that defines humanity in spiritual terms. That statement implies that spirituality is an independent fact equivalent to other facts that distinguish humans from other animals. That statement assumes that spirituality is indeed an independent fact. Yet there is no proof that this is true. --FeloniousMonk

As you know, FeloniousMonk, these statements do not accurately describe any part of my proposal for the article. My proposal is that religions' descriptions of human beings be attributed to religions, and that the sciences' description be attributed to the sciences. I would appreciate it if you would read my proposal and respond to it. --Goethean 20:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Without proof to the contrary, the intro will reflect that spirituality is not something that exists independently of man and hence our practice of it defines us. --FeloniousMonk

FeloniusMonk, you are not the sole editor of this article. Stop telling the other editors of this article what will be in the article and what will not. You are not the guarantor of proof. You are not the bailiff or judge in this case. I am going to call you out every time that you presume these roles. --Goethean 20:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, no person or group of persons owns this article, but please remember that includes you. It seems to me that you have given no ground here, whereas FM has, as have I. It would help if everyone were to drop their entrenched views. I don't mind Tom's idea of beginning by mentioning the difficulty of self-definition. SlimVirgin 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, go read the thread again. The only person I see here telling someone what they can and cannot do is you-- and that's flat hypocritical of you. I've never suggested that I am the sole editor or have the final say.

Perhaps you fail to realize that the problems with overemphasizing spirituality the article (as found in its pre- 3/1 content) will not go away even if you silence those like me who object. This article, like every other article on WP, must reflect reality. Get used to the idea that others will insist upon it even if I don't. People are free to believe that spirituality exists independently outside of man. But they are not free to assert or imply in this article that it is a fact. If they want that POV aired in the article, it can be presented as an attribution, which indeed it already is in the Culture subsection.--FeloniousMonk 21:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have given no ground here, whereas FM has, as have I. Go back and look at the March 1st article and then consider at how much ground FM has won. He has succeeded in demolishing all balance. Now instead of human beig defining themselkves in various ways, all perpectives are presented as fictions and explained from the scientific perspecive. The words "spirituality" and "soul" arn't even being considered, and mine is the only proposal that even mentions the content of the religious perspective. --Goethean 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

We need a topic and, er, some important points:

defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points

Okay, I'll shoot: the topic is "What is a human being?" and the most important points are:

What does the body look like?
- How is it structured?
- Tell me about eating, digestion, nutrition, elimination, etc.
- What are all those nerves and muscles for? (And what's a lymph node?)
How does these things reproduce? (In case we want some more of them... ;-)
Is what you see, what you get?
- Or is there more to being "human" than just having a body?
- For example, these creatures get together and build things: houses, cars, cities (then they blow them up!)
- Oh, yeah, some folks think they have a "spirit" (isn't that a hoot? ;-)

Does that work for you, Slim? Monk? Everybody? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am increasingly seeing this as a bad approach, because everybody already "knows" what a human is, and much of this encyclopedia is dedicated to exploring in detail the questions you ask. I am increasingly less certain about the topic and the important points. It almost seems hopeless to try to start the article with "Humans are..." In short, perhaps I am amid the mental deconstruction that preceeds new synergy. I only hope the rest of you have approached this problem as sincerely and openly, and that the result will be an improvement on everything hitherto proposed. Maybe it would be useful (or at least interesting) to ask each other some detailed questions to help each other pin down the idea of humanity from our respective points of view. For example, "Tom, is an angel human? Is a devil human?" "FeloniousMonk, is only the species Homo sapiens human? Is all of the species Homo sapiens human?" Tom Haws 17:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

A bad approach to what? If the purpose of the article was to assert that humans are nothing more than their bodies and their behavior, then it's been struck a mortal wound; it just doesn't know it's dead yet.

But if the new purpose of the article is to explore what it is to be a human being, then maybe some of the physical stuff can take a back seat (i.e., be split off into articles like Structure of the human body or Human behavior).

Or maybe we need an entirely new article addressing the question of what humans are and / or how humans perceive themselves. If there's as even a split as suggested above between adherents of materialism and religion, then let's find a place to describe the controversy.

Don't give up now! we've just started to realize what the problem is (now we can fix it). This is a good problem, let's tackle it! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

<purpose of the article is to explore what it is to be a human being>

Your thinking on the purpose of the article is flawed. The purpose of an ecyclopedic article is to describe its topic, not explore it.--FeloniousMonk 19:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of an ecyclopedic article is to describe its topic, not explore it. Sure, when the subject is uncontroversial—unlike this one. --Goethean 19:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's only controversial because those same people who think an encyclopedic article is the place do research, i.e.; explore, insist on having their own special understanding arising from personal belief treated as a fact in the article. There's little controversial here outside of that.--FeloniousMonk 21:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points Tom. This is what happens when a diverse group tries to reach consensus on a shared definition of a real, factual thing that only some believe has intangible attributes that affect that definition. It's only natural each POV wants an equal place at the table; the problem is when beliefs are asserted to be facts (please know that I'm not trying to inflame you or anyone else here). We must agree on what are facts, and what are POVs. But first we must settle by what means we are to make that distinction, our choices are knowledge arrived at by reason, or the arbitrary (unjustified belief).

For example, if I were to say, "We are all brains-in-a-vat. I can't prove it, but I have faith that we are.", then I have lost the argument before I began it. It grants the premise that reason is not absolute and to have lost the argument before it began.

Either reason is going to be our only means of knowledge here or it isn't. There is no middle ground or compromise between the two. If reason is your means of gaining knowledge then one must always reject the arbitrary. The existence of spirituality as a thing independent of man is not a complex issue. Since no evidence exists that it is a thing independent of us, reason dictates that it is an instance of the arbitrary. This is why I've insisted since arriving here that we limit ourselves to factual things in distinguishing humans in the intro. Do humans hold spiritual beliefs? Indeed they do, and it is mentioned in the intro. --FeloniousMonk 19:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if I were to say, "We are all brains-in-a-vat. I can't prove it, but I have faith that we are.", then I have lost the argument before I began it.

True enough. But if 3 billion of the 6 billion human beings consider us to be brains in vats, you might want to consider that they have reason for doing so. 3 billion people believe that human beings are created in the image of god. You are assuming that they are acting irrationally, that they have no reason to hold these beliefs. But you are wrong. They hold these beliefs because their experiences and culture have led them to believe this just as your experience and culture have led you to believe that human beings are bipedal primates. --Goethean 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, it is entirely fallacious to argue that simply because a certain number of people believe something, the beliefs must be true or justified. In any event, we are not here to argue whether religious beliefs are true or not. We are writing an article on humam beings, and of course reference to these beliefs can be included, whether true or false. It is, furthermore, nonsense to say that a belief in God is as justified as the belief that we are bipedal. Please note Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View: our job here is to characterize disputes, not engage in them. SlimVirgin 21:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's called the argumentum ad populum - the appeal to the majority. It's the logical fallacy of believing that because something is popular, it is right.--FeloniousMonk 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is, furthermore, nonsense to say that a belief in God is as justified as the belief that we are bipedal. I don't believe that that's what I said. And in fact, it's not what I believe. I did say that both religious beliefs and scientific beliefs emerge from the intersection of upbringing and oobservation. --Goethean 23:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either reason is going to be our only means of knowledge here or it isn't. There is no middle ground or compromise between the two. If reason is your means of gaining knowledge then one must always reject the arbitrary.

This naive empiricist epistemology was demolished in philosophy in the 1950s. Read W. V. O. Quine's article "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Experience is a legitimate way of gaining knowledge. That you have not had the same experience as me does not illegitimize or nullify my beliefs in any way. Stop presuming which of my beliefs are rational and which are not. --Goethean

But that isn't naïve empiricism; indeed, it isn't empiricism of any kind, making no mention of empirical experience. Nor does what Quine (who, by the way, can't be cited like a Biblical reference, as though no-one has ever argued that he's wrong) says in that article touch the general view against which you're arguing. (The stuff about what is rational being a matter of what the majority believes is even more peculiar and less acceptable, as is the more straightforward epistemological relativism into which it turns.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you've missed the bus here, Goethean. I not arguing for any form of empiricism here.--FeloniousMonk 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, how are you using Quine to support your position?

Quine's essay, "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism", ended the era when it was responsible to distinguish between scientific beliefs and religious beliefs, for example, as different kinds of beliefs. The wikipedia entry put it like this:

Our theory about physical objects is epistemologically comparable to the gods of Homer. Quine believes in physical objects and considers it a scientific error not to, but not because of some epistemic difference in kind, but because the theory of physical objects has turned out to be a more efficient theory.

This revolution is what led to the relativism of contemporary postmodern philosophers like Rorty. It also led to the recent successes of Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, who had been largely derided earlier (his success is evident in the fact that there is a Society of Christian Philosophers which is part of the APA). That said, I am not a relativist. I do not think that any belief is just as good as any other. But I also do not believe the old naive empiricist myth of the world as the sum of all scientific facts. There are differences in perspectives, and those differences are legitimate. There is no objective set of facts that describes the world unless you include people's interior perspectives as part of that set of facts. This doesn't mean that any old thing that some crazy fool thinks is a fact. But you maximize the world's meaning when you are epistemically charitable (that's Donald Davidson), when you treat people's beliefs with respect. You should try to be inclusive rather than exclusive when describing the world. So that is the basis for my belief that religion reflects a perspective on the world. It's not a scientific perspective, but it is a legitimate perspective. --Goethean 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind Tom's suggestion of starting by referring to the difficulty of self-definition. SlimVirgin 21:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. --Goethean 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

becoming human

If your going to have a page on Human, you have to have a discussion about WHEN we became human - the point we transited from being 'clever apes' to the point we became 'human'. Whether that means a discussion about having a 'soul' then so be it.

I have tried twice to introduce this point, twice it has been censored. If you do not have this point on your page, you are committing censorship, and your so called 'neutral POV' is bullshit. (posted by Lincspoacher)

Hi Lincspoacher, please sign and date your comments. You can do this by adding four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~. The reason I deleted your edit is that you asked when we stopped being soulless apes, and became humans with souls. I deleted this because (a) the way it was written was non-encyclopedic, and (b) it presumed that apes and humans differ in that apes don't have souls and humans do, and we can't make that presumption. SlimVirgin 21:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)