Talk:Ideological assumption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"One of the best-known ideological assumption is that the whole Bible is an unscientific myth" -- maybe this article belongs in Meta -- Tarquin
I've read this twice through now, and I'm still not clear about the point of this article. Worse the long list of "assumptions" looks like flamebait, since there is nothing linking to any articles on the subject of their truth or falsity, even though these "assumptions" are matters of the greatest interest. Stan Shebs 01:51 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree. The article seems to be trying to promote some sort of "conventional wisdom is usually wrong" POV using straw-man arguements. What could be done to make this usefull and NPOV? -- Infrogmation
[edit] NPOV
So, what do y'all think can be done for this article to make it acceptably NPOV? The idea behind the article now is that it is supposed to explain a term as it is often used, especially by particular groups of theorists. Basically, it is used, not to talk about assumptions about ideology, but to talk about the way certain assumptions form the bases for a belief system, such as modern-day scientism, religious beliefs, eugenics, and so on. I for one would like to see the article stay away from criticising science or religion as such (as seemed to be the thrust of the previous version), and just give examples of ways that this phenomenon has shaped cultures in the past, and a description of how the term is used. On a related note, that is why I restored the line about its dismissive use. For a term that is supposedly used to undermine the tendency to dismiss arguments, theories, or ideas without actually exploring their rigor and value to then be used to do exactly that would suggest that new ideological assumptions are being formed behind it. -Seth Mahoney 21:10, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
