Humanities desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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.

December 16

What's the name of this logical fallacy?

When someone from the perspective of the alternative medicine claims that mainstream medicine does not work, and cites some medical errors.--Scicurious (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a logical fallacy but an informal fallacy known as hasty generalization. --Jayron 32 02:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking data is a cornerstone of conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Cherry picking (fallacy) is the relevant article, a subcategory of the hasty generalization. Of course, cherry picking has a sense of "intent to deceive" to it; where as the other doesn't. --Jayron 32 12:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be intent to deceive, or it could be sincere but wrongheaded. I recall in the Apollo Hoax debate here some years ago, the circular reasoning used by the Hoax believers: That these little tidbits of what they considered "proof" that the government lied, had rational explanations; and that those explanations were unacceptable, because they came from the government, and the government lied. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different fallacy. Cherry picking is an informal fallacy, that is one based on incorrect information; not on logic, which is the way information is used to prove or disprove a proposition. Circular reasoning is different; it is an actual logical fallacy (or more properly a formal fallacy), which is based on misuse of logic; that is it doesn't depend on the information but rather on the process used to connect the information to a conclusion. The confusion between informal and logical fallacies is common (the OP has made it twice now in consecutive days). The best way to explain the difference is that a logical fallacy is an error in process, but an informal fallacy is an error in input. There are two ways one can reach an unsound conclusion: One can start with good information, but misuse the processes necessary to draw the conclusion (that's a logical fallacy), or one can use sound logic, but starting with bad information leads to bad results (that's an informal fallacy). From the Wikipedia article titled formal fallacy: "A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false." --Jayron 32 13:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informal fallacy: All men are alive. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is alive. If you grant the premises, the conclusion is obvious; we get a bad conclusion because the premises are bad. A different formal fallacy: All women are alive. Socrates is not a woman. Therefore, Socrates is not alive. A good conclusion, but bad logic, because if you insert the name of a living man, you'll get two correct premises, but your conclusion will be wrong. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of nirvana fallacy as well, since every human endeavor ever has involved errors. "Errors happen" is meaningless information. What is important is the rate and seriousness of errors and how they compare with the benefits. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To break this down. There are two statements that almost everyone can agree on:

Mainstream medicine improves life for some people, fails to cure others and makes some worse.
Alternative medicine improves life some people, fails to cure others and makes some worse.

At this point, logic fails us and we have to resort to statistics in order to distinguish which of the two should be used. What percentage of people are cured by each approach? What percentage experience no benefits? What percentage are made worse by the treatment?

The logical failing is that logic should not be employed in an area better suited to statistical analysis.

In statistics, this is a case of "the plural of anecdote is not data" and "correlation is not causation". SteveBaker (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Royal at British Coronation

In 1911, Abigail Campbell Kawānanakoa, the widow of Prince David Kawānanakoa but an American citizen by law, was invited to attend the coronation of George V because of her royal connections (news story here). That makes me wonder, during the event did she only attend as a private citizen (with no preferential treatment)? Who decided the guest list for the 1911 coronation? Who sent out invitations and what were the criteria for choosing someone? Besides the obvious heads of states and foreign royals of incumbent world monarchies were other non-reigning/deposed royalties considered? Also can anybody help me find British news coverage of her presence at the coronation?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source (actually an abstract of a source, but it gives you a title and bibliographic info to work from) which may be helpful for you. --Jayron 32 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guest list at a coronation is truly immense, I haven't been able to find a figure for 1911, but there were 8,000 in the Abbey in 1902, all by invitation. Some idea of the list can be gained from this list of the 1911 "Procession of Royal Representatives, Royal Guests and their Suits", followed by the "Procession of the Princes and Princesses of the Blood Royal". In addition, there were a large number of Governors-General and prime ministers of the Dominions, colonial and Indian princes and rulers and colonial governors who took part in the procession through London on the next day. I suspect that your ex-princess was not very notable by comparison, but then there's not a huge volume of information on the web about the 1911 coronation - I'm trying to put an article together but struggling a bit.

As to who decided on the guest list, there was a Coronation Committee, [1] which was chaired by the Earl Marshal, but I suspect that they would have been advised on this issue by the mandarins at the Foreign Office. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would any US citizens be considered on that list? The notability in Kawananakoa's case to the American audience was because she was a US citizen and a former royal at the same time, but I don't know if the claims on the newspaper articles about her being the only American invited was true or not. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this contemporary news article, there was an official delegation from the United States as well as many others. Hack (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Pastor Jack Graham degrees and appointments do not fit?

According to research on Pastor Jack Graham I am finding conflicting information on his degrees and his appointments as a pastor. How can he be studying in one place and pastor in another place at the same time? I found this information from 1970 to 1977 on Wikipedia. This was very confusing to me? Could you clear this up, please? Thank you for your time. Sincerely, crazy old lady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8444:1C00:B8CA:41EF:7A84:16C3 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't leave spaces before paragraphs as it messes up the way your text is displayed. Anyway I take it you're referring to Jack Graham (pastor)? If so, I don't quite see the conflict you refer to in the early period. The article says:

In 1970, at the age of twenty, he was ordained pastor of his first church, married and halfway through Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree with honors.

and

Graham began his ministry as pastor of East Side Baptist in Cross Plains in Callahan County, Texas (1970–1971). Following his associate pastorate at Sagamore Hill Baptist Church (1972–1975)

As I understand US universities, per Academic term and other stuff I've read before, they generally start in September or perhaps August. And most degrees like the Bachelor of Science take 4 years for completion for a full time student. So if he was halfway through his undergraduate university study in 1970, this would suggest he was either in the end of the second year, or beginning of his third year. So he should have finished his study by August 1972. (Perhaps August 1971 if halfway was use more loosely and he's actually in the middle of his third year early in 1971. Or if he started at a different time then is the norm.)

Checking our article on Callahan County, Texas, it says it's in Abilene, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area where the university is located. I haven't checked the precise locations of each one, but it sounds like it's easily possible these aren't that far from each other, so aren't really different places. So being the pastor at the church while studying full time at the university was probably possible if the demands on him as pastor weren't too high.

Next our article also says:

By 1976, he and his wife, Deb, had one son, and Graham was associate pastor of Sagamore Hill Baptist Church in Fort Worth, pastored by G. Fred Swank.[2] That year he also completed work for a Master of Divinity degree with honors from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. Four more years went by, and Graham received a Doctor of Ministry degree in “Church and Proclamation.”

and

Following his associate pastorate at Sagamore Hill Baptist Church (1972–1975), he went on to pastor First Baptist Church in Hobart, Oklahoma (1975–1978), First Baptist Church in Duncan, Oklahoma (1978–1981)

This is a bit more confusing as the years are a different (one implies he was still at Sagamore in 1976 whereas the other says he had already left). The Master if Divinity degree is also a bit confusing, although it's not clear what this entailed, it's possible it was done off campus particularly if it was primarily a research degree. Likewise precisely where he received his Doctor of Ministry degree from isn't clear, although even if it were Fort Worth, as I presume it was a research doctorate it may have been completely off campus. So this later section could do with some work, but it's only from 1975 onwards that the confusion begins although it may simply be that it should be 1976 rather than 1975 or vice versa.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for (in)effective use of pepper spray in self defence

Amazon has apparently been illegally selling pepper spray and stun guns in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/16/amazoncouk-banned-dangerous-weapons-found-sale There is an argument going on in the comments section of the linked news report, between those who think these items should be legal available for use in self defence, and those who say they would be useless because any prospective attacker would have them too and would have the element of surprise. Are there any actual (reliable) statistics for how these items are used in countries where they are legal? E.g. how often do people successfully use them in self defence, vs. how often they are used offensively? Iapetus (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help any? --Jayron 32 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That study reports on the changes to rates of injuries to officers, of injuries to suspects, and of excessive force complaints following the introduction of pepper spray into three North Carolina police forces. I suspect that Wardog was more interested in its effectiveness as a self defense tool for the average civilian. -- ToE 03:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, that Uber driver used it pretty effectively on his violent passenger, in a news story from a few weeks or months ago. It would seem that, whatever the situation, whoever shoots first has the strategic advantage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote =/= data. That is, there is no meaningful way to extrapolate any universal principles from one story. Anecdotes should not be used to make statements about general trends or greater truths. --Jayron 32 13:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soytenly. The OP asked "how often do people successfully use them in self defence?" and we know the answer is at least "One". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the euro affect economic growth?

(1) The euro removes the cost of doing business across currencies (good for growth) (2) The euro doesn't allow interest rates to be finely tuned for every country (bad for growth) Which of these effects is stronger? Is GDP growth in the eurozone higher or lower because of the euro?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euro#Economics contains much of the data you would need to draw your own conclusions. --Jayron 32 18:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in the effects of euro adoption across the entire eurozone, or in a particular country? For the new adopters, such as Lithuania (Lithuania and the euro) and Bulgaria (see Bulgaria and the euro), adoption is estimated to boost GDP in the long term. See [2], [3]. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth reconsidering if the second part of the assumption -- that interest rates can be finely tuned for an economy, so as to benefit growth -- is correct. While there is ample evidence in some countries, others have found that an insufficiently independent central bank is not necessarily an asset to growth. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a chart comparing growth in Euro countries and non-Euro European countries: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8978275/euro-chart-disaster-eurozone Munci (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which flag did Transnistria use between 1990 and 2000?

Hello,

Article Flag of Transnistria states that the current flag was adopted in 2000, using a version of the 1952-1990 flag used by the Moldavian SSR. Transnistria split from Moldova in 1990.

The article does not mention which flag was used between 1990 and 2000. Is anyone able to put this information in the article? Answers welcome at Talk:Flag of Transnistria#1990-2000 flag. (Copied from the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology by Skogsvandraren (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This 1999 book and this 1992 newspaper article both refer to a green and red flag used after 1992.184.147.121.46 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the World _ Dniestr Republic (Moldova) - Trans-Dniester Moldavian Republic / Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika has quite a detailed article comprising a number of posts by editors and quotes from various sources. A note added before January 1997 says "The flag of the Dniestr Republic is identical to that of the old Moldavian SSR." A note added in November 2000 says; "A flag was adopted officially on 25 July 2000 (but before several variants were in use)." As the new Transnistria flag and the Maldovan SSR flag are very similar, I expect that the "several variants" weren't too dissimilar either. Alansplodge (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam War 1967

2602:306:C40D:D670:A6:6E45:4FDF:9EAE (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC) I have received two articles from Wikipedia about the above subject. I was a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War, was shot down, captured and incarcerated at the Hanoi Hilton for more than six years. I am currently writing a book about my life. A POW friend during his initial interrogation when asked the names of his squadron mates at the urging of his interrogators said many of his mates were against the war and proceeded to name some lessor known movie actors like Tom Ewell (sp). It was purported that the North Vietnamese brought this up at the Tribunal . The NVN were embarrassed when it was revealed that they had been hoodwinked. Needless to say the POW paid the price when the NVN returned to Hanoi. I have heard that some reporter possibly from the NY Times in the audience, after enduring a boring assignment sat up when he heard the NVN pitch and wrote an article about it.[reply]

Can you find any evidence that the incident took place ? Wikipedia has been very helpful to my task, many thanks.

Allen C Brady

Let's begin by nailing down Tom Ewell and Russell Tribunal - we have articles on these... what we want of course is the raw transcript or video of the proceeding. It looks like the Russell Foundation is here, but I'm not seeing what I want at first glance. This links to the transcript of a lecture, not the proceeding, unfortunately... I expect for someone of your distinction either of these ought help with research... but we certainly should look further... Oh, also, I suggest you should consider registering an account. There's a feature that if you have User:Allen C Brady set up as your account, someone can write "{{re|Allen C Brady}}" in a discussion like this and you'll get a notification of it whenever you next log in. That way you can raise various topics and know you didn't miss anything before they were archived. And of course Wikipedia is lusting for whatever scraps of non-copyrighted Army source material or photos you've taken of historic events that you might be willing to donate. :) Oh wait, this looks more promising: [4] Does that look like I'm on the right track? (I still don't like the 'selected and edited' bit) Wnt (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ART - TRANSLUCENT PAINTINGS ON THIN LAYERS OF ELEPHANT TUSKS OR ANIMAL BONES

WHEN IN INDIA I PURCHASED A PAINTING OF A "A GOD OF LOVE" AND WAS TOLD IT WAS ON A THIN LAYER OF ANIMAL BONE AND THAT IN THE PAST THESE HAD BEEN ON THIN LAYERS OF ELEPHANT BONES. I CANNOT FIND ANY DESCRIPTION OF THIS TYPE OF ART — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.227.100 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not type in all capital letters. It is the equivalent of screaming at people, and is seen as rude when you do so. Wikipedia has an outline article titled List of artistic media which may be a start for your research. --Jayron 32 23:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not complain about people who type in all capital letters. Doing so is seen as intolerant, petty, and pointless... Wnt (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? Use of the passive when the active would do better is seen as ... wait ... :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I guess by Wnt, but few other people. Considering that many people have changed their behaviour when informed of such simple netequitte; and that in a lot of the internet including on wikipedia and including this reference desk, typing in all caps is a good way to ensure plenty of people ignore you post (in some places in the internet it may even encourage deletion), it's very weird to say it's pointless. Far more intolerant, petty and pointless is making dumb complaints about people offering simple resonable advice on how to ensure people actually read your comments or question. Of course, if people actually choose to write in all caps despite knowing the consequences, that's their choice, but the evidence strongly suggests the majority of people doing so are simply ignorant of the consequences not intentionally doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just miniature painting on ivory. Couldn't find anything in WP, or elsewhere for that matter. Here's something but it's pretty old. Contact Basemetal here 02:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief mention at Portrait_miniature#Materials, although it's only talking about European painting.184.147.121.46 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the "god of love" you've got there is probably (I can't be sure of course since I haven't seen your painting; it'd be great if you could upload a picture of your painting so we could see it) "the" God of Love, namely kAmadevaH who was supposedly incinerated by zivaH (I'm using Harvard-Kyoto here because I'm too lazy to go look for the standard transliteration characters). That's why kAmadevaH is said to be "without a body" (an-aNgaH). Nonetheless he is pictured in numerous paintings (presumably his likeness before he was incinerated?). One of his typical attributes is that he has a bow made of sugarcane whose string is a line of honeybees. The arrows are various kinds of fragrant flowers. His vAhanam is a parrot whose name I forget. Contact Basemetal here 09:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kāmadeva, Śiva, an-aṅga. I prefer to use the combining stem rather than include the explicitly nominative ending –ḥ, particularly when (as in the case of Śiva above) the noun is not used nominatively. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the noun Śivaḥ, the name of the god, is not used in the nominative? There are millions of occurrences of Śivaḥ (and its numerous synonyms) being used in the nominative. But maybe I've completely misunderstood what you were saying.

This said, regarding the use of the stem instead of the nominative when referring to Sanskrit nouns in English, you certainly are in the majority. And noun headwords in all Sanskrit-English dictionaries I am aware of are indeed stems rather than nominatives. Nevertheless there are numerous reasons why the minority practice is preferable. Here are four: 1. the stem often violates Sanskrit phonological rules for the allowed finals so if you keep using stems you become accustomed to uttering sequences of sounds which are in fact impossible in Sanskrit 2. this practice is at odds with the common practice in all other languages (e.g. in Latin it would be equivalent to using "domino" for "dominus", "puero" for "puer", "urb" for "urbs" etc.) 3. using its nominative (or some other casual form if needed) when referring to a noun is the uniform practice of grammatical literature written in Sanskrit 4. for the stems in a, which make up something like three quarters of all nouns in the Sanskrit language, learning the nominative helps immediately remember if the word is masculine or neuter whereas if you only learn its stem you can't tell, you have to learn that in addition.

Contact Basemetal here 11:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the noun in the phrase incinerated by Śiva is not nominative. — And I grumble about the common usage in Latin borrowings too, when the nominative singular is explicitly marked with –s. —Tamfang (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]