Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 21

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 21

Why dont those people who "talk to the dead" get put to the test?

Where are the regulatory agencies when you need them? Why dont they send someone undercover to one of thier shows to look around and ask them some hard questions? Other people that sell products get tested rigorously, why not these guys!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consumer products like drugs and food get tested and such because if something goes wrong, they could kill you. Going to a psychic doesn't have a likelihood of killing or injuring you. And if you're willing to believe it, why shouldn't they be allowed to take your money? Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might also be interested in the articles on James Randi and James Randi Educational Foundation which has offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who can prove paranormal claims. Last I heard, nobody had even agreed to be tested. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People who get taken in by psychic scams probably deserve to lose their money anyway. Unfortunately such charlatans do harm society however by creating an irrational, unscientific culture awash with superstition and fallacious thinking. --S.dedalus (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do people looking for hope and answers deserve to lose their money? Does ignorance and being gullible translate into moral failing? What about being elderly (the aged are the primary targets of scammers)? I don't think anyone "deserves" to lose their money when someone is pretending to provide them with some sort of service but is really conning them. Personally I think even the question of whether someone who gambles "deserves" to lose their money because they are ignorant of basic laws of probability is dubious. There are relatively limited scenarios when people really "deserve" to be duped. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are a few poor souls who, for one reason or another, are not responsible for their behavior, such as the senile. However, all adults capable of rational thought and investigation are perfectly able to do the tiny bit of research necessary to expose these frauds. It would be foolish to invest money in ANYTHING without doing research first. Getting burned is simply how you learn that you did something really dumb. Hopefully next time these people will be more skeptical. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the moral aspect, let's just look at whether it's good for society for such people to be duped. One could argue that when people who can't think logically lose their money, and thus power and influence, to some scam, that this is good for society in that it removes such people from the pool of powerful and influential people who run the nation. It is hoped that this will lead to rational policies, as opposed to the current irrational policies. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way: some drugs work, while others do not. It is thus imperative that regulatory bodies determine which drugs work, so people don't end up buying the ones that do not. Since no medium is capable of maing good on their claims, there would be nothing for a regulatory body to do. Algebraist 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The OP might want to check out this video in which Bruno asks a psychic to ask the late Gianni Versace what Bruno should do with his hair. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the UK there are regulations that limit the claims that mediums (media?) are allowed to make. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the "good old days", policemen actively shutdown tarot card readers and psychic mediums who set up commercial facilities, and prosecuted them as frauds. Regrettably, these days seem to be completely over in the U.S., but in the UK the "Fraudulent Mediums Act" (which required proof of intent to defraud, and resulted in only 10 prosecutions in 20 years) was replaced in mid-2008 by the new "Consumer Protection Regulations" which apparently makes mediums at least issue disclaimers [1]. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is an excellent question. Isn't this fraud? If I am a mechanic and I tell you that I fixed your car and I don't, isn't that illegal? How is this any different? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you can scientifically test the mechanics work. Does the car run? Have new parts been fitted? If I take an oil sample, is it clear rather than than fouled? Psychic phenomena are not yet scientifically testable. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretensions to psychic ability are eminently testable. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why these people rarely make testable predictions. They don't say "you will do well in your career", but "if you work hard you will do well in your career". It's worthless but the punters should have realised that before they paid anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The smart ones certify that they are "for entertainment purposes only" (nudge-nudge-wink-wink). The rest tend to be small community folks who don't draw much attention outside their clientelle. I do recall a news story a few years ago of a woman being pulled into her child's school and accused of abusing her own child... and it turns out, the accusation came from a teacher who was "advised" by a psychic that the child was being abused. I don't think the teacher or the psychic got punished for that one, which boggles my mind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to sue in some jurisdictions; Uri Geller was sued in Israel by a customer of one of his demonstrations of psychic power: the litigant was awarded money by a judge who felt Geller had lied about possessing psychic powers (see Uri Geller#Litigation).

The English Witchcraft Act (1735) punished people who pretended to have contact with evil spirits; this was replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951; that was repealed in 2008 but there have been plans to replace it by allowing mediums, faith healers, etc to be prosecuted for making false claims if they charge money, making them conform to EU consumer rights directives[2]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The date of Christmas

Why do we celebrate Christmas on different dates when we are all Christians?

I know that some use the Old calendar and some use the New calendar,but what interests me is which one is correct and why isnt it possible for both sides to get to an agreement?

So basiclly my question is which calendar is right and which side moved away from the original religios interpretation?

Thank you.

87.116.154.181 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a different date; it's still December 25 in the Julian calendar, but for anyone using the Gregorian calendar, it's January 7. I guess they've both moved away from the original interpretation, which was that CHrist was born in March or May, or that his birthday was unimportant. December 25 just happens to be a Roman festival day, co-opted by the Christians. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have Julian and Gregorian confused, Adam. It's 25 December in the Gregorian calendar (that's the one most of the world uses); it's also 25 December in the Julian calendar, but the Gregorian equivalent of that date is 7 January because the Gregorian is currently 13 days ahead of the Julian. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Right...that's what I meant to say. What I wrote is much different from what I thought I wrote! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

In any case, the majority of Christians whose denominations traditionally used the Julian calendar have shifted the observance of non-Easter-related holy days to the Gregorian calendar (or to the "Revised Julian calendar", which is the same as the Gregorian calendar until 2800 A.D., and was actually mainly a way of effectively adopting the Gregorian calendar while still loudly refusing to recognize the authority of the Pope), and this has left a relatively smaller number of "Old Calendarists" (the one big hold out is Russian Orthodoxy). The observance of Easter-related holy days is a different matter -- all Orthodox denominations still use the Julian calendar calculations for the dat of Easter. Of course, the Gregorian reform was not too relevant to those churches (such as the Ethiopian etc.) which never used the Julian calendar in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

there's actually a conspiracy-theory answer: pagans used to celebrate the winter solstice around this date, so early christians "coopted" these pagan celebrations into Christmas (ie arbitrarily selected Jesus's birhtday to fall on these celebrations) 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially since, by Biblical description, Jesus was likely born in late Spring or early Summer, so the date is arbitrarily chosen by the church anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. In my country we celebrate Christams on January 7th and I know that many other countries like Russia,Greece,Romania,Bulgaria and other celebrate it on 7th as well.

My question was really why cant the churches make an agreement so that we all celebrate it on the same day? Because its very strange to me that we are all christians and we all celebrate the same thing,but we do it on different dates?!?

When did the different dates of Christmas celebration started? And is there any intention that there will be an agreement during our lifetime?

87.116.154.181 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as a Christian, Christ's birth is not what saved you from sin. It was his death. For nearly all of Christian history, Christmas was a relatively minor celebration, and Easter was the big deal. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Nativity of Jesus#Date of birth. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of "The Honorable"

Is it proper or standard to affix the prefix "The Honorable" before the names of U.S. Marshals? Neutrality^talk 06:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. B00P (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed, but make sure you're not confusing them with U.S. magistrates, where it would be appropriate. --Sean 13:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

small jewish rules

is there a name for small jewish rules? such as (from the hannukah article): "the purpose of the extra light is to adhere to the prohibition, specified in the Talmud (Tracate Shabbat 21b–23a), against using the Hanukkah lights for anything other than publicizing and meditating on the Hanukkah story."

what is the weirdest of these rules? (realize this is subjective, but what are some of the strangest of these to people not familiar with them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See Halakha. As for weird... there are a lot of weird ones. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

613 mitzvot, or if you want to single out one, a perennial favorite is Shaatnez -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See The Year of Living Biblically, in which a modern secular New York journalist tries to do what it says on the tin. He tries to be a better person through the big ones (thou shalt not covet etc.) but also tries to get into the mindset by discovering the little ones and following them too (no fruit from young trees, no mixed-fibre clothing). BrainyBabe (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone identify this painting for me?

I'm trying to get any information I can on this picture:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k241/agochar/GnosticSoul.jpg

It is on the cover of Stephan Hoeller's Gnosticism. One thing I'm wondering about in particular: I have seen color versions of this and black and white versions; does anyone know about coloration, whether or not the color was a later addition?

Thanks in advance, if it doesn't get answered here it just doesn't get answered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.98.10 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Flammarion woodcut. It says that the print was colourised by a local (from my point of abode) 10 years ago. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy of entities in Greek mythology

Were Titans, Zeus and co, and their parents and grandparents (respectively) all the same "species", e.g. Titans (as the only named "type")? If not, what separates them? I realise this is fictional, but the Greeks were quite rational, right? They considered the world in terms of logic, and applied reasoning, surely?

I've read through the articles for Twelve_Olympians and Titans.--Rixxin 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation/foundation myths (i.e. what came before Zeus, etc.) are actually something of a mess in Greek mythology, but insofar as there was a quasi-standard accepted account, it was probably Hesiod's Theogony. You might be interested in the semi-classic book "The Greeks and the Irrational" by E.R. Dodds (there seems to be no Wikipedia article which refers to it). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"... the Greeks were quite rational, right?"
Well, not entirely from our point of view. To begin with, their notion of what things could breed and produce viable and non-sterile offspring - almost the definition of what a species is - was, shall we say, peculiar. (cf Minotaur and Leda) Now since Zeus had children with female Titans (eg Apollo, Artemis, Hermes), then their Gods and the Titans were the same species, essentially just different generations. On the other hand, Zeus also sired Dionysus and Heracles upon human women. (He got around.)
On the whole, though, I'd say, "Yes."
— B00P (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on which Greeks. There are attempts to rationalize the stories (like Hesiod, or Apollodorus), but educated Greeks (like, most of the Greeks whose names you know) didn't really believe that stuff. They usually believed in some sort of supernatural divine forces, but they didn't literally believe in the myths. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Greek mythology included a rather noted case of assexual reproduction. I think trying to find some sort of Linnean consistancy to understanding a complex mythology like this isn't all that feasible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Why do (neo)nazis deny the holocaust? If they hate Jews they should be happy that it happened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.238.59 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. As long as the Holocaust is a known historical fact, Nazism and Neo-nazism are very unlikely to be considered acceptable political positions. These people want legitimacy, but first they have to "prove" that the Holocaust didn't happen. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment. They would argue, quite correctly, that the burden of proof lies on those who claim it did happen, and that there needs to be substantial and incontrovertible evidence of it happening. Most of the world considers the evidence to be overwhelmingly abundant (although I, like the vast majority of others, have never personally gone to the primary sources, but I am prepared to accept the word of those who claim to have done so, because there are so many of them.) However, some people know it happened but just deny it, for whatever perverse reasons they might have. A small percentage of people are genuinely not convinced by the evidence they've seen, but they're in the same group as those who genuinely believe the Earth is flat. Nevertheless, they're entitled to their opinions (even if, in some countries, they're not entitled to express them.) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

the same reason the political left wants to establish that 911 was committed by Bush and friends: the WHOLE US POPULAQTION opposed the war on Iraq, just as THE WHOLE US POPULATION opposes America invading Iran right now. As long as Bush could suppress democracy just by saying "look, we are invading Iran now" boo! boo! 90% disapproval ratings. boo! boo! "... because let us never forget September the 11th"... that's why we deny it. (I think). Guantano bay is "justified" by 911, so if you can deny 911 was caused by terrorists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.163.211 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the juvenile rant above... The holocaust is seen by some people (particularly those who don't like Jews) as a "badge of honor" for the Jews. They get to claim a special status for being the target of great persecution. When I was in Germany, there was a big argument about the right to discuss the holocaust. I believe that the final ruling came down to state that nobody could legally question the existence of the holocaust and any appearance of nazism would be considered a hate crime - very much limiting any freedom of expression. (Someone who knows what the laws actually are should correct my interpretation.) So, neonazis can nullify all of that by finding a way to claim that the Jews just made up the holocaust in order to falsely get their current "preferred" status which has allowed many things - including the creation of Israel with extensive financial and monetary backing from other countries. There are those who are not so deluded that they seriously believe that the holocaust didn't exist, but still argue against it. They claim that the holocaust wasn't as bad as the stories claim it was. Also, they point out that Jews were not the only people killed in the holocaust, but that a huge Jewish conspiracy has worked to eliminate all proof of anyone else so the Jews could keep it all to themselves. If it were me, I'd stop fighting such a dumb argument and point out that the genocidal wars are continuing and must be stopped regardless of who is involved, nazi or Jew. -- kainaw™ 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel is a Holocaust denier or anti-Semitic (despite what some Zionists claim). Also—look—there are people who claim that we never went to the moon, that 9/11 was the work of federal agents using controlled explosives, that HIV/AIDS doesn’t actually exist. There seems to be a portion of the population that is just perpetually in denial about really obvious historical things. Holocaust denial, though linked to anti-Semitism, is really just another crackpot conspiracy theory. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some interesting historical details here. Initially there were some NS groups that essentially defended the Holocaust (albeit perhaps not in explict terms) immediately after WWII, and later catched up with holocaust denial. We should note here that Holocaust denial isn't just about complete denial of all atrocities during WWII, many 'deniers' will simple reduce the numbers of casualities (stating that concentration camps had 100 000s of victims, not millions), to make the Nazi war crimes smaller in comparison to say the Great Terror. What's the point? Enabling far-right nationalism to re-enter the political arena on the same terms as other political tendencies. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward—as one neo-Nazi group put it, ""The real purpose of holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's way too simplistic. Yes that's one reason why some may do it, but there's plenty of other reasons most of which have already been discussed. Many of them are genuinely deluded and so genuinely believe in their claims and are not simply saying them to further their political goals. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having spent a decent amount of time reading the so-insane-it's-funny Vanguard News Network website, I'd also add that the notion of a powerful international Jewish conspiracy seems important to a lot of white supremacists. The (American) neo-Nazi view of the world seems to be that white people are kept in a state of willing subjugation by the mind control voodoo those horned Jews transmit through the media which they, of course, control all of. Sort of like They Live with Jewish people instead of aliens. The neo-Nazi is, therefore, the enlightened, informed minority who has reclaimed his values and is fighting the good fight against oppression, debasement, and impurity. This underdog aspect is important to a lot of social and political movements; people like identifying themselves with the underdog, but, moreover, when they're convinced they are the underdog (ie, "Hey, whitey! Don't you know you're getting scammed?"), they get angry. Now, if it's crucial for neo-Nazis to get white people angry about oppression by "international Jewry," it's crucial for them to paint Jews as a formidable enemy, protected, at the very least, by wealth and influence. The fact that Hitler managed to liquidate much of the Jewish population of Europe in less then ten years with minimal difficulty, and was only stopped from completing the job by the turning tides of war, does not really say much for the international Jewish conspiracy. Instead, knowledge of the dehumanizing experience of the concentration camps tends to have the reverse effect of humanizing persecuted Jews in the minds of gentiles, and turning Jews, undeniably, into underdogs. Sure, that's not a problem for the confirmed white supremacist who's desensitized to such things, but as others have stated, neo-Nazis want legitimacy; they want to broaden their movement. It's easier to convince people that the Holocaust didn't happen than it is to convince them that Schindler's List is a good-time romp through politics done right. But, and perhaps more importantly, convincing people that the Holocaust didn't happen only confirms the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy, one which rewrites history to play on our sympathies and bring us further under its control. Uh-oh, RaHoWa, time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. For some reason people are often desperate to believe conspiracy theories (Michael Shermer? Care to chime in?), so the value of a good, consistent Jewish conspiracy myth far outweighs the value of gloating over the Holocaust. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)