Humanities desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7

Arguments from authority

Argument from authority notes that "any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning" is fallacious. Can't there be any exceptions? The following argument is obviously deductive, and it seems to me to be valid:

What the Tsar thinks "evil" is illegal in Russia

The Tsar thinks that it's evil to eat peanut-butter sandwiches

Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is illegal in Russia

Isn't an appeal to authority always valid when the authority in question has the sole right to define the situation in question? For example, as autocrats, the Tsars couldn't be gainsaid (at least from within the system; let's leave out the Bolsheviks, for example) on questions of legality. Isn't this basically the same as a valid argumentum ad baculum, e.g. "If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail. You want to avoid going to jail. Therefore you should not drive while drunk"? The latter is making an argument about the force itself, which is valid, and it seems that my argument is talking about the definition and the authority himself and is thus valid. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the first two statements are considered to be true, then the third statement is likewise true. Maybe it's unenforceable, but that's not the issue. So if the article claims the argument given is fallacious, then the article is wrong and should be changed. Now, if the third line said, "Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is evil", that would be fallacious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no appeal to authority in that argument. (You'd have to add something like "it's true because the Tsar says it is", like Bugs mentioned - not "it's true that the Tsar says it is".) The reason for the "in the context of deductive reasoning" clause is to make an exception for inductive reasoning (because some people believe inductive reasoning is valid). It's really trying to say "some appeals to authority used in the context of inductive reasoning are not fallacious". Card Zero (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our argument from authority article cleverly neglects to define what constitutes an appeal to authority in the first place, so there's really no reason to pay attention to what it says about them. (The very first thing a Wikipedia article about X should do is to answer the question, "what is an X"? If it doesn't, you know you're looking at a weak article.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is called a "fiat", an arbitrary decree by a person in authority: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can accept on my authority that Card Zero has this right. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be good to note here that "fallacious" doesn't necessarily mean "incorrect". Card Zero (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "fallacy" and "false" both come from the same Latin root, fallere, meaning "to deceive".[2][3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped. Card Zero (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more phallusy than fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The world is kind of banana-shaped, if you're referencing the rare round species called the Banana globula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misconception that an argument that is of a fallacious form cannot be valid. An argument can instantiate a fallacious form and still be valid, so long as it also instantiates a valid form. What is forgotten is that an argument can instantiate multiple forms at once. So showing that an argument is valid is not enough to prove that it is not fallacious. Anyway, I third Card Zero on this one. I don't think any logician would classify that as an appeal to authority-type argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing an example? If you mean that there are multiple ways to convert English to logic, I understand; but it sounds like you mean something else. --As for the original, as mentioned, that's not an appeal to authority.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start with a common logic error: "If it rains, then the ground will get wet, therefore, if the ground is wet, it must have rained recently." Now, if the ground is wet, it might have rained, but there are other instances where the ground is wet due to dew, snow melt, washing a car, etc. We could fix the logic error by replacing "must" with "may". We could do something similar with an argument from authority: "If an authority asserts that it is true, then it may be true." StuRat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course. For example: "[1] If (R or S), then R. [2] ~(R or S). Therefore, [3] ~R." That is certainly valid (the conclusion follows from De Morgan's laws and conjunction elimination) even though it denies the antecedent in form. (I posted this example on the denying the antecedent talk page a while back, actually). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever, I'll have to remember that:-) Thanks for the example, by the way- I was thinking you were meaning something in a different direction.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoenixia1177: If you like clever logical tricks you may want to see some of the material posted on the internet by Raymond Smullyan or John Lane Bell. Example of a logically true statement: There is something such that if it is a unicorn, then all things are unicorns. I.e., ∀(y)∃(x)(U(x) → U(y)), where U is a predicate of being a unicorn and x and y are variables for any thing in the universe. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency to get the converse mixed up with the contrapositive. The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original: If it has rained recently, the ground is wet. If the ground is not wet, then it has not rained recently. (The definition of "recently" will vary depending on the climate, but it still works.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans dressing up for church

Do African Americans have a greater tendency to dress up for church than other races? In literature, fictional or nonfictional, you can see that African Americans usually dress up for church, equipped with a nice Sunday hat and Sunday dress. In third grade, I acted as the background actor in a play that had one scene where the protagonists were looking forward to buy hats so they could go to church on Sunday. I think the play was supposed to be based on a children's book, because I remember the painted Easter eggs. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, i.e. a generation or two ago, everyone of any race was expected to wear their "Sunday best" to church. Perhaps black churches have carried on that tradition better than whites. But it wasn't just church. For example, if you look at pictures of World Series crowds into the 1940s or so, the spectators tended to dress up, just like they would for going to the theater or the opera. Suit and tie were expected for office-based workers in general as recently as the 1990s. The culture of casual apparel is a recent phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! The book's title was "Chicken Sunday", and it's written by Patricia Polacco, first published in 1992. I read in third grade in 1998-1999. Good memories. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like race-baiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate question - we shouldn't let fear of racism shut us off from legitimate anthropological discussions. For example, see [4] which supports the OP's assertion, and [5] which implies (though I'm not sure it says) that the tradition can be traced back to the era of slavery, in that the celebrants might first have dressed up to celebrate that they were free and could do so. But that's just me looking at the top couple of search hits - some serious students of the Humanities should be able to do a lot better at answering this. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had me hooked until he started talking about fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the hat off this. Patricia Polacco is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about fried chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. He's all yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol get over it bugsa... 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your other entry. Have they stopped speaking English in New Zealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must have been out to lunch during that class. lol get over it ipu... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soz brah didnt mean 2 offend 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that any propensity to dress differently on Sunday is clearly not about race (i.e., supposed but scientifically debunked biological categories). It is about culture. African Americans are considered a racial group in the United States due to the survival of unscientific ideas about race, but in fact they are an ethnic group defined by a degree of shared historical experience and cultural traits. Just as long as we are clear that this has nothing to do with biology. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this trend, particularly among African-American women, and especially at Easter, where special outfits are bought just for that occasion. This seems to have become a tradition. I even saw a TV show about this, where the women were trying to best each other on Easter Sunday. I think it might have been an episode of Everybody Hates Chris. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that it's so much a special African-American thing as it is a case of some blacks holding on to customs which the majority of whites abandoned by the early to mid 1960s (see the famous 1948 movie etc.). There was a classic ca. 1960 Norman Rockwell illustration of a mother and her three children passing through the living room all spiffed up to attend church on Easter morning, while the husband of the (white) family slouches in his bathrobe in a chair with sections of the Sunday newspaper around him, obviously not going to church... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a cultural convention, and it's still maintained (by people of all skin-colours, eye-colours and hair-colours) where I live, though the recent American culture of dressing down for church is slowly creeping in. Dbfirs 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon French Language

Hello Napoleon eventually became the Emperor of France, but he was born in Corsican and didnt speak french very well, so when did he learn to speak french fully cos he had a hard time of it as a kid? 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Napoleon indicates that he attended a religious school and two military academies on the French mainland and then entered the army. He would have been surrounded by exclusive French speakers. At some point during his education (probably before he was admitted to the elite Ecole Militaire), he surely became fluent in French, even if he spoke with an accent. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, French was a lingua franca, especially for Europe, at the time (cf. List of lingua francas#French), in much the same way English is today for most of the world. If you travel to Germany, for example, you'll find many people who can speak English quite well today. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even before Napoleon, French was spoken in the upper classes of many parts of Europe. In royal courts from Russia to Spain, French was at various times at least a second language. See Francophile, which discusses how French culture and Language became the "thing", especially during the Age of Enlightenment. It would not have been that unusual for ANY upwardly mobile European with aspirations to learn French at that time. --Jayron32 21:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His father was a lawyer and represented Corsica at the French court, so I would be surprised if he hadn't learned some French at home. Napoleon Bonaparte by Elaine Landau says that he left Corsica for school in France at the age of 9 years-old in 1779, and that he spent four months at a preparatory school in Autun specifically so that he could learn French (presumably to the standard that he would need at Brienne). Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I am wondering how a man like Bonaparte, a person who was bullied in his junior years for his Corsican accent, was able to become the unequivocal ruler of France whom every Frenchman (bar Royalists) accepted as their ruler. 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some factors:- 1. Napoleon was academically gifted and hard working, "one of the youngest military officers ever appointed in France" (Landau, linked above). 2. He went into the artillery, in which progress was down to technical skill rather than social status. 3. The French Revolution both destroyed the existing social order and presented France with some formidable military problems. Enter a clever, ruthless and ambitious young officer who was untainted by association with the former regime and had a bit of luck on his side - "cometh the hour, cometh the man". Once given free rein, he proved that he could deliver the goods on the battlefield. Finally, the various phases of the Revolutionary regimes collapsed in turmoil and in those circumstances, everybody wants a war-winning general to take charge and restore order. "Vive L'Empereur!" Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W Bush were all elected US President despite having accents that are not the norm in most parts of the country. At least one member of this trio was widely held to have diminished mental capacity, but that was no barrier to his election either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not referring to the only US president to earn an MBA (from Harvard, no less)--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Stalin had funny accents too. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, neither Hitler (Austrian) nor Stalin (Georgian) were of the ethnic ancestry of the country they eventually became leaders of. --Jayron32 01:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Austrian is an ethnicity. Rmhermen (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is he wasn't from Germany. You can use whatever name you want for whatever classification name makes you the most joyful. But he still wasn't from Germany. --Jayron32 02:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it depends how you define "Germany" - see Pan-Germanism and German nationalism in Austria. For many, Austrians were Germans. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all that is true in no way invalidates the notion that Hitler was not from within the borders of the political entity that he became leader of. Nothing you say is either wrong nor contradicts my point. You can continue to make true but inconsequential statements if you like, but Hitler will still have been born in Austria, which will still have been a separate state when he became leader of Germany no matter how many other true statements you also make. --Jayron32 12:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible relevance to German v Austrian attitudes of the era is the remark attributed to Bismark – "A Bavarian is a cross between an Austrian and a human being." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the innovative but sometimes laughable 1927 silent film about his life by Gance, Napoléon (1927 film), young Napoleon at military school pronounces his name ""Nap-eye-ony" and the other French students laugh and say he said "straw to the nose." I can conceive of the last part being "auz nez" but how does "nap-eye" sound like "straw" in French? Edison (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paille is French for straw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Napoleon's school tormentors thought that "Na paille" was the same as "La paille?" It seems quite different. Edison (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some mondegreens rely on auditory connections that are somewhat more obscure than that one. L and n are close cousins (say "lana lana lana lana lana"), and for my money, it's quite easy to see how someone could think he was saying "La paille aux nez". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Hitler's accent, Hitler grew up in Braunau am Inn, which is right on the border between Austria and what is currently accepted as Germany. Alansplodge has correctly pointed out that many Austrians and Germans during the late 19th and early 20th century considered Austrians to be Germans who were excluded from the German Empire through an accident of history. Most did not consider Austrians a separate nationality. Moreover, just 25 years before Hitler's birth, Austria was generally considered a part of "Germany" by most Europeans. Aside from this, Austrians and Bavarians speak essentially the same dialect of German, which Wikipedia has labeled the Bavarian language. Hitler's accent would have been indistinguishable from that of a Bavarian living in Germany, across the river from Braunau am Inn. According to the German Wikipedia article on the Innviertel, the region that includes Braunau, pronunciations in that region are more typical of Bavaria than of the rest of Austria. Even if Hitler had had a distinctively Austrian accent, most Germans would have accepted him as a fellow German nonetheless. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know a Berliner who says that Hitler had the most impressive speaking voice of any German he had ever heard, regardless of message. He said nothing of the accent. Does an Austrian accent sound bad? For example, I think a Scottish (Craig Ferguson) or RP accent, or an old-time Atlanta Georgian or Roanoke Virginian accent sounds wonderful, as compared to Cockney, Lawn Guyland, or Brooklynesian. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfulness is in the ear of the listener (a well known Cockney proverb) ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler had an Oberösterreichisch accent which sounds similar to Bavarian German. He rolled his "r"s like they do in Munich. It's a nice enough speaking voice." [6] Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Essential Health Benefits" in Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates insurance plans cover ten "essential health benefits," including maternity/newborn care and pediatrics. Unlike with the other benefits, there would seem to be certain classes of people who, by nature, would never need these two. The EHBs result in more expensive insurance, because naturally the more types of treatments the insurance company has to cover the more it will charge. Does this mean, for example, that a single man without children will be paying a hidden premium for his health insurance to cover these "essential" benefits? If so, is this a bureaucratic oversight or an intentional effort to pool costs? I could understand an argument that one day he may have children, just as he may not be suffering from substance abuse or a chronic disease, or indeed he may not use the insurance at all. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the man not benefit in tangible ways because the people around him are healthier.? I mean, even if I don't have kids myself, public schooling benefits me because all the people around me aren't stupid (ideally). So merely because a man is a healthy individual without children doesn't mean his qualit of life is not better because the people around him are generally healthier, and thus more able to be contribute to society themselves In Productive ways,rather than to be dependent on others because their mom didn't have access to good prenatal care. The childless man benefits because he lives I a better world. --Jayron32 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK so he may not have kids of his own (or he may have and not know it...) - but he could still fall prey to diseases that a woman couldn't such as testicular cancer: not to mention the other diseases that disproportionately affect men rather than women. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article insurance defines it as "the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment... Insurance involves pooling funds from many insured entities (known as exposures) to pay for the losses that some may incur." Jane Doe may never have diabetes or prostate cancer or use Viagra and may not be an avid skiier and thus will never break her leg on the slopes. Every person pays "hidden premiums" for medical services that they will not personally use because insurance is by definition an effort to pool costs. ZMBrak (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure who these people are who have no need for newborn care and pediatrics, but science would sure like to study them. :) Wnt (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few people who are not, at some point in their life, a newborn. APL (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very few... Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These costs are already in existing health plans. Most plans will cover at least some sort of maternity costs. Insurers don't generally sell male- or female-specific plans now, and they won't under the ACA. Existing plans that cover preventative health will probably explicitly list that they cover regular prostate and breast cancer screenings, even though most people will never need coverage for both. Katie R (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful to know; thanks. FWIW I am one of those people who likes my current coverage and gets to keep it. I get coverage through my employer so this issue doesn't directly affect me personally, at least for now. This particular point just chafed me a bit. I could see the social benefit of mandating that I get motorcycle insurance despite the fact that I don't ride a motorcycle. But if insurance plans are already gender blind and will continue to be, I suppose it's not a big deal. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for information on hosting e-archives in the cloud.

I am hoping to find more information on cloud services for smaller to medium sized archives thinking about moving their digital collections to a third-party vendor.

I'm looking to find information on costs, benefits as well as drawbacks to third-party hosting as WELL as cloud hosting vs. traditional, home-owned servers, etc.

Also interested in whether or not this is a good idea for archives based in inclement weather locals. Because cloud-based information can be moved to other servers when a storm comes through, I am wondering if this is a good idea to ensure that an entire collection of e-records would not be wiped out if a hurricane or tornado came through, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.119.222 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Drive by Microsoft? 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through Cloud storage or File hosting service? They lead to Comparison of online backup services and Comparison of file hosting services. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were the start of my search. What I'm super in need of is this information specific to archives trying to find a way to keep their electronic records, well, electronically.