Miscellaneous desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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

April 26[edit]

Beneficial superstition[edit]

The word “superstition”, at least in my experience, is generally used in a disapproving way. Since our article superstition seems to pussyfoot around that question, let me ask here: Is superstition always bad, or are there any examples for superstition being (rationally) beneficial? ◅ Sebastian 09:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean like, having a superstition to prefer double blind placebo controlled studies? --Jayron 32 10:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if that's truly a superstition, one would think that this multiplication of entities praeter necessitatem would sooner or later be cut by science. Conversely, if it's truly beneficial, science would sooner or later find that out and it wouln't be a superstition anymore. ◅ Sebastian 13:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you answered your question then. If, as you say in your OP, "there any examples for superstition being (rationally) beneficial", then you just said "if it's truly beneficial, science would sooner or later find that out and it wouln't be a superstition anymore". QED. Well done. --Jayron 32 15:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That particular example is about something scientists do (double blind studies). So if science has something to say about it, they'd all know about that conclusion and respect it. A superstition about something else - which way up to eat eggs, say - might continue to be a superstition among the unscientific, even after scientists have established that it is indeed beneficial. Just because something should be done for rational reasons, doesn't prevent people from doing it, and benefiting from it, for silly reasons. (Though there's a complication in that any superstition can be argued to be harmful to rationality.) Card Zero (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't put shoes on a table, you won't get a clip on the ear-hole from your mum. Sounds like a plus to me. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it also avoids getting muck on a surface you will be eating from. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that one. Yes, with the benefit Alansplodge brings up, that answers my question. The article also calls it an old wives' tale, which may be a good pointer to more examples for what I'm looking for, since it's a somewhat more neutral term. ◅ Sebastian 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various modern and historical ritual purification traditions could be called superstitions, and many are beneficial in ways that the originating cultures didn't fully understand. Staecker (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, too. Thanks, guys! ◅ Sebastian 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Japanese swordsmithing, which was full of complicated rituals that had been discovered to result in sharp blades - because the folded micro-structure is strong and the process admits the right amount of carbon into the steel, but they didn't have those explanations for what they were doing, they had magical ones. Card Zero (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a superstition does no harm (and forbids no benefit), either to the person expressing it or to any other entity, then there is no reason to consider it “bad.” If a superstition also makes one feel – or actually be – better, as might be the case with faith healing (i.e., placebos) , then there can be a positive effect. Whether science can rationally come to grips with the question, however, is a non-starter, since the question isn't “true/false,” but “good/bad.” As for the case of 'old wives tales,' these may be reflections of wisdom passed down through the generations in the form of stories or taboos. Many religious prohibitions on eating certain things, for example, make perfect sense in an economy that has no refrigeration. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A common superstition in English-speaking countries is that walking under a ladder is (a sign of) bad luck. If this belief makes superstitious people avoid walking under ladders, a case can be made that the net effect is beneficial. --Lambiam 21:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The superstition, if genuinely believed, could be a symptom of poor education though. That does hurt both the person and society as a whole in the long run. Fgf10 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the poor education might be a harm, but the topic is superstition. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition is a bad explanation, so it's worse than a better one. But better than nothing. Card Zero (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walking under a ladder has two real, though likely rare, risks. You risk knocking the ladder over, which could harm the person on the ladder. You also risk having something dropped on you from above. If you avoid walking under ladders because of superstition, you avoid both possible bad outcomes. Therefore, this is an example of a superstition which is, to a small degree, good. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the superstition in Britain that it's unlucky to bring blackthorn into the house, on the grounds that it once formed the crown of thorns at the Crucifixion. [1] Anyone who has worked with this common hedgerow shrub/tree knows that its thorns cause horrible septic wounds and that it's so dense that it's hard to cut and doesn't burn easily, so not the best choice for domestic firewood. Alansplodge (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty shots in the European Cup Finals[edit]

Hello. The first final to be decided by penalty shoot-outs was Roma-Liverpool in 1984. But if the final of the previous season (1982-83) between Hamburg Juventus, had ended in a draw after the classic 120 minutes, would the match have been repeated? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.96.22 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. At Penalty shoot-out (association football)#History it explains that, prior to the adoption of the shootout, there were three possibilities 1) extra time 2) replay 3) drawing of lots. It seems that all three methods were used at various times by various competitions. A demonstrative example was the UEFA Euro 1968, where a semi-final match was decided by lots (Italy advanced on a coin toss after a 0-0 draw against the Soviet team), and the final match had to be replayed after ending at 1-1 on the first attempt. Both of those matches featured a 30 minute extra time period. --Jayron 32 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German article claims that UEFA had made the decision in 1975 to decide drawn finals of the Cup and Cup Winners' Cup competitions on penalties. Given that the 1976 European Championship finals was decided on penalties (I saw that, I'm old), it seems likely that that would have applied for the 1983 cup final as well. But someone would have to dig up the rule book to be sure. (Doesn't UEFA employ a historian for such questions?). --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps influenced by the only replay of the European Cup Final, which was between Bayern Munich and Atletico Madrid in 1974. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]