Talk:Human/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Being versus doing

Mel, SV, Tom-- Since what we are trying to do here is write an introduction to an encyclopedia article, the introduction should be concise and not reference primary writings which by definition are often research and hence belong in a subsequent subsection, Kant included. Agreed? A definition of a thing should in normal instances be relatively easy since it would be limited to listing easily agreed upon facts. But since some insist that the belief that humans are more than just biological entities but also spiritual entities (again a belief), our task is more difficult. We've all agreed that to include the belief that humans are spiritual entities in the intro it should be attributed to those that hold it. So, in writing the introduction, it helps to look at this functionally. There are two functional categories for the topic of human: what humans are (WHA), and what humans do (WHD).

Paragraph for WHA (What Humans Are):

• Biology -relevant facts will be cited.
• Spiritual - a belief that will be attributed to those that hold it.

Paragraph for WHD (What Humans Do):

• Culture -to be semantically correct, everything humans do falls under the category of culture. That includes behavior: society, technology, language, religious practices and spiritual beliefs. Since some believe that the particulars of their spiritual beliefs are reality or transcend reality, that belief will be attributed to those that hold it. --FeloniousMonk 18:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, FM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me too. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it should also be mentioned that they are in mutual relationship, they are influencing each other. --Eleassar777 19:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MIR space station

Sorry to disturb your metaphysical match with such a trivial issue, but I was just going to suggest that someone adds a reference to the years people spent on the Russian space station MIR into the Habitat chapter, right before ISS. As it is now, omitted, this looks like an article from a US counterpart to the Pravda, where the world on the other side of the Berlin wall doesn't exist :-) Hingo

Good idea, Hingo. By all means, go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thales

Thanks for adding the Thales quote and the Greek, Jossi. I moved it to the top of the self-awareness section as it seemed a good way to introduce that, but feel free to move it back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good as is. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:38, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Culture, language, and emotions

I've done a general copy edit, and have moved birth and death, sexuality, body, and emotion higher up under the biology section, and gave language its own section. It would be good if culture, language, and emotions could be expanded. It would also be good to have a section on morality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

From the article as it is now, one could infer that culture is almost exclusively related to religion. --Eleassar777 16:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than delete material though, we should probably add to it, so we should think about writing a section about culture from an anthropological perspective. There might be material in Culture that would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Moved "Society" to "Culture" subhead. I propose also to move "Language" under "Culture" as well. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a bad idea. I was thinking it should have its own section as it's so central to what humans are, and of course is connected to the way we think and hence the idea of self-awareness. Perhaps you could move it to Culture for now, and then if we ever get enough material, we can give it a section of its own. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just moved the Language section into Culture, but it didn't look like. We say that culture is values, norms, and artifacts, so it looks odd to then have language as part of it. I think maybe it should have its own section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unclear sections

I've removed these two paragraphs from the article as they were unclear and unreferenced. If they're to go back in, they'll need references and a rewrite. I'd have rewritten them myself, but I don't know what the first is trying to say, and the second as it stands is false, plus the Pascal quote, if it is a quote, needs a citation, and should be in the Emotions section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

The rules of scientific classification require a description of an individual specimen of the species. In 1993, Robert Bakker formally described the skull of paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope in an attempt to make Cope the type specimen for Homo sapiens. Despite current requirements that the specimen be available to the describing scientist (Cope was born in 1840 and the scientist who described and published Homo sapiens, Carolus Linnaeus, did so in 1758), it is unclear as to the lack of validity of Bakker's publication and many consider Cope to be the type specimen.

The mental ability of humans and their intelligence make them, according to Pascal, the most sad creatures of all animals. The ability to have feelings, such as sadness or happiness, distinguish them from the other organisms, even if this assertion can be hardly proved with animal tests. Humans' existence, according to most philosophers, configures itself as the search of happiness.

SlimVirgin, Blaise Pascal on his Penses (Pensées), wrote:

Weariness - Nothing is so insufferable to man as to be completely at rest, without passions, without business, without diversion, without study. He then feels his nothingness, his forlornness, his insufficiency, his dependence, his weakness, his emptiness. There will immediately arise from the depth of his heart weariness, gloom, sadness, fretfulness, vexation, despair.

and this:

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

This last one would be an appropriate citation for a section on Pursuit of happiness, a subject that it inextricably human, and sorely missing from the article IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

We could also add a bit from Aristotle's Ethics, in which he discusses eudaimonia (happiness, to flourish). "Eudaimon" is composed of two parts: "eu" means "well" and "daimon" means "divinity" or "spirit." To be happy, according to Aristotle, is to be living in a way that is attuned to God, or well favored by God. This was one of the earliest mentions of what happiness is and/or what does it means to live "well". Quoting from a discussion of Aristote's Ethics from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]

The biological fact Aristotle makes use of is that human beings are the only species that has not only these lower capacities but a rational soul as well. The good of a human being must have something to do with being human; and what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a better life, is our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is what happiness consists in. Doing anything well requires virtue or excellence, and therefore living well consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence.

I've put your Pascal quote (about the emotions) into the Emotions section. I think it's a great idea to have a Pursuit of Happiness section. You might want to talk to Mel Etitis about that, as he's a philosopher and might want to contribute regarding Aristotle (and others). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

References

We have a short list of references in the References section, but with no indication in the text which points they were sources for; and the inline references we do have are not listed under References. I can fix the latter but not the former. Would whoever added these please say which section each of them was used as a reference for? Otherwise I'll move them to Further reading. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1963. "Anthropology and the natural sciences-The problem of human evolution," Current Anthropology 4 (2): 138-148.
• Jablonski, N.G. & Chaplin, G. 2000. "The evolution of human skin coloration." Journal of Human Evolution 39: 57-106. [2]
• Robins, A.H. Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation [3] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Rogers, Alan R., David Iltis, and Stephen Wooding. 2004. "Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair." Current Anthropology 45 (1): 105-108.
• Sagan, Carl: The Dragons of Eden, A Balantine Book, 1978, ISBN 0345346297

I've listed the inline sources in the References section. There were only three, which isn't enough, so (within reason and if possible) no other substantial points should be added without supplying a reference, and it would be good to find references for some of the material already there, especially for any figures we give. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

As the editor who added these references hasn't said what they're references for, I'm going to move them to Further reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consciousness

I am glad there is a new section on "Consciousness". I have made "Self-reflection" a subsection of "Consciousness". It fits better there that standing alone, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree; good edit, Jossi. The only thing I wasn't sure about was moving the paragraph that started "from a scientific point of view" into Psyche, as it isn't really about that. So I moved it back to Self-Reflection, but now both that and Psyche are subheads of Consciousness. Hope that's okay with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Genetics

Thanks for adding the genetics section, Lexor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

good times.

Anyone care to discuss Mr. Bensaccount's deletion of reference to the dispute by some over evolution? [4]

Apparently you do, though you have not even bothered to say why. There is no reason to list various groups' opinions on origins here. Bensaccount 02:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

right. because there are not over a billion people in this world who carry a contrary opinion. my bad. i forgot. carry on. (i do hope someone from the other side of the aisle is willing to stand up for reason in this case). if not, so be it. nothing's a surprise anymore, i'm afraid:(. Ungtss 02:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ungtss, but people know when something is out of place. For example, there a quite a few people who don't believe in the moon landing, but they don't warrant a place in the astronomy article. Bensaccount 02:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

carry on, ben. carry on. and take a look at the last paragraph of moon landing. then compare the 6% that buy those claims to the 45% who buy creationism. then go vfd a user page or something. Ungtss 02:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't need you constantly telling me to carry on. Bensaccount 02:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nope. you do just fine on your own. Ungtss 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The number of people who have misconceptions is irrelevant, by the way. Although your numbers are entirely fictional. Bensaccount 02:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this discussion is over. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Ungtss 02:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what that is, but just so long as you realize you are wrong. Bensaccount 02:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those less sympathetic to the bible might take some interest in his second deletion. [10]Ungtss 01:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

check that. he reverted as soon as i told him what it actually meant. Ungtss 02:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, I feel that this sentence: "Some religious groups object to the theory of evolution: see creationism, argument from evolution, intelligent design, creation (theology)" is fair enough and ought to stay. It's not in the intro or otherwise forcing itself to the forefront; and it's true, and relevant to that section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you, SlimVirgin:). Ungtss 04:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you might be right on this one -- enjoy it Ungtss, it doesn't happen often. Bensaccount 15:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it is not so much that you are right, but more that the section in question is so incredibly uninformative that a bit of creationist propaganda is the least its problems. Bensaccount 23:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's actually true of a lot of this article. It states the obvious then goes no further. It's been a controversial article to edit, and I think people lost heart to some extent, and also perhaps didn't want to risk an edit war, so editing has been conservative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

An article on humans by humans- ergo the talking about the uniqueness of itself and its high intellect and so on... and of course it speaks of culture, except that it knows no culture outside its own. hmmm... interesting... dont know if this is the reason for the "neutrality disputed" but it should suffice -Dwarf Kirlston

Why exactly is it disputed, and who wants what done so we can remove the dispute header? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to remove it. The disputes have largely died down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

i'd support that. page looks good to me. Ungtss 01:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ungtss. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm ready for it to go down too (from one who's been watching the discussion but hasn't participated in a while). — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a consensus to me, so I'll take it down. If anyone thinks that's premature, by all means feel free to revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the dicussion about balancing the introduction and including some of the spiritual aspects of humanity? --Zappaz 03:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People chose to stop it and I'm glad we did, because it had become unproductive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion ended when Slim Virgin demanded that any additions—or at least those that she disapproves of—be documented "with reference to scholarly sources". One assumes that it will be the anti-religion crowd that will decide what qualifies. Tom has been diligently working on a proposal, but it's a tall order, and one that will most likely be met with dismissal. I see the outcome as the result of successful bullying on the part of SlimVirgin, Mel Etitis, and FeloniousMonk. The introduction continues to falsely present the biological viewpoint as the only legitimate perspective. --Goethean 18:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yep! ---Rednblu | Talk 18:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If something needs done, go ahead and do it, this article will need constant "balancing" forever. There is nothing we are less able to be objective on, every one of us is editing the article on ourselves, and our family history on this page. The key to NPOV is writing something all reasonable persons can live with. That often involves writing for the enemy, expressing a POV you don't like. No significant, verifiable POV should be excluded from this or any article, regardless of the demographics of the talk page. The key is to balance rather than adding alot of content; this page needs to be more of a hub for people to link from to pages regarding the specific facets of humanity. It’s especially important to keep in mind on a page with infinite potential such as this that were here to assist the reader rather than to express ourselves. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should place the above text in bold at the top of the talkpage of every article where the 21st century cyberwars of religion and areligion rage on:). Ungtss 13:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore the above. Contrary to the opinion of these two users, it is possible to be objective, so for those just reading this page for the first time: aim for truth and clarity, and do not add POV to the page. It is against the policy of Wikipedia. Bensaccount 17:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've seen how objectionable you've been above, is that what you mean by truth and clarity? I suggest you read NPOV since you obviously havn't. Adding verifiable POV's is what we are here to do, determining the "objective truth" isn't. Sam Spade 18:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Bingo. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would state it differently, although it is most probably only a question of semantics. Perhaps not adding verifiable POV but ascribing verifiable POV. It is important to say who believes different things, to state sources. Please read this. --Eleassar777 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If no effort is made to differentiate bias from objective truth, then NPOV is being violated and these users should be banned. Bensaccount 20:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets see what we've got here... a user (Bensaccount) feels they have a window to the "objective truth". Furthermore they see bias on the parts of others who lack this seeming advantage, and feel they should be... Banned.

This says alot to me. It tells me that either User:Bensaccount is both a prophet and Jimbo's sockpuppet or... I'll leave that up to my fearless readers to decide. Sam Spade 12:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read it again Sam. You are attributing to me something I didn't say. The question is: Do you try to differentiate bias; if not, you should be banned. Bensaccount 15:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably Bensacount is just a troll. (posted by User:193.77.253.47)

spiritual aspect of human

So the spiritual aspect of human died down? Sorry, but I've been closely monitoring the Terri Schiavo entry for spurious accusations and an defamatory characterizations of the people involved. Those of us working for balance have been insisting upon cited sources for accusations and claims differing from those of the courts.

Now that I’m seeing this (comment above) I have to say that an article on human that excludes the religious/spiritual aspect is akin to talking about the human body and leaving out a major organ such as the heart or brain. Whether or not I personally believe in the existence of a supreme being is irrelevant. That so many humans do believe in a higher power is. So, what happened to all those marvelous paragraphs describing spiritual beliefs in the summary? Wjbean 12:42, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

I didn't know there ever were any, I'll go look for them in the page history. When did you last see them? Sam Spade 12:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Words, not paragraphs. November 1, 2004 through March 2, 2005. (There was a brief time (October?) when the opening included paragraphs on religious perspectives, but this was short-lived). Tom Haws 15:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sam. Look at Archive 9 under "Newcomers." Wjbean 14:44, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Hmm ... i looked back at the proposed compromise under "Newcomers." It looks fantastic and npov to me -- could somebody clarify why it was rejected? Ungtss 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a word? Filibuster. Edit as necessary ;) Sam Spade 08:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weird revert

what was this about?

Sam Spade 08:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it was either my mistake or a weird edit glitch. I thought I saw the edit as having changed lack of water leads to dehydration and thirst (implying that the second follows the first), to lack of water leads to thirst and dehydration (implying that thirst precedes dehydration, which would generally be wrong). However, there's no sign of that in the diff, which is odd. I'm about to do a copy edit anyway, so if the thirst thing is still there, I'll change it. Sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

No worries, just curious. Sam Spade 08:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New sentence in intro

Hi Ungtss, I'm not sure I agree with your recent addition to the intro: "Other uniquely human enterprises include science, philosophy, religion, music, art, medicine, and law." We've already got philosophy in the final sentence of the intro, which I feel is an important sentence (written by Zappaz) as it mentions how traces of these debates can be found in the earliest historical records, and that's a good point to make; so it looks odd to have it mentioned again higher up in the intro. Also, the list begs the question as to why we choose these activities and not others. In addition, while the others are names of areas of study, religion isn't, unless you mean theology. Plus, we mention them all further down in the text. And finally, music is arguably not unique (whales). For all these reasons, I'm wondering whether that sentence introduces more problems than it solves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Um ... okay:). excellent critique, and points all taken. in an effort to save the links, i moved it up to the section above. i think this addresses many of your complaints. while the word philosophy appears twice in the intro, it's in different contexts, i think (also, technology already appears twice, so i don't think this is a hard and fast rule) -- and your question begging argument applies to all the other activities listed (why language? why technology?) . also, in removing any reference to "uniquely human," the whales can be included in "music." any better? my sole goal here is to provide reference to some of the "heights" of human activity. what do you think? Ungtss 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the new position might be worse: "Humans are distinguished from the other primates by an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, introspection, culture, society, technology, science, philosophy, religion, music, art, medicine, and law." The capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection are the things that have given rise to the rest, so we can't have them in one list as though they are the same types of things. Philosophy is something you do with abstract reasoning etc. Also, we say culture and society already. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer not to have this list in the intro, as I think it's in part repetitive and introduces complications. I felt that the intro as picked out by you, and added by Sam, plus the sentence from Zappaz, had expanded the intro enough, and it read quite well, and seemed well-formed. I take your point, though, about including some of the heights, Ungtss. I'm wondering if perhaps it should be a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

There's also an extensive discussion on this in the archives. :-) Kim Bruning 22:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should we perhaps insist all new editors review the archives in detail prior to editing? ;) Seriously tho, tremendous progress has been made, as the polite and amiable nature of this convo attests to. I tend to agree with Ungtss that a list of links to important aspects of humanity would be handy early on, but I also agree w SV that placement and accuracy are key... perhaps it can find a place in a new 2nd section? My intent w this article is for it to be a hub to link outwards from, rather than a detailed explanation in full of the sum total of human existence (God forbid! ;) Sam Spade 06:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sounds good -- i like your idea of a standalone paragraph at the end of the intro -- i'll try again:). Ungtss 13:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)