Humanities desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

December 10[edit]

A winter question for Chopin[edit]

Before I describe the proceeding questions, I would like to note I do not concur with these sentiments, well not entirely.

I recall sometime ago, reading an article online regarding Chopin. I believe I looked up somrthing like "Chopin sucks" or "Was Chopin anti-seimetic". The conclusion was stumbling upon an article, more robust than a blog post but less sophisticated than an academic entry.

I am curious about a series of claims purported, aswell as if anyone can uncover the article. The claims were something of the sort of

○ Chopin would compose "high" on the piano, because in the salons or affluent gatherings which he frequented he could more easily converse and flirt, the article i believe specfically denotes the intention of looking at their breasts, with the debutants and other fashionable sort that haunted those places while they watched from the end of the piano.

○ Chopin had a sort of incestous relashonship with George Sand.

○ Chopin was a mediocre composer

I am quite sure their were more fantastical statements, but here my memory is caught by bramble

Any help into procuring the article or the context to the claims is appreciated

Thank you -- 2600:1700:7830:DE40:7D00:D668:CF79:2064

I'm just wondering what a "sort of" incestuous relationship would be between a man and a woman who are not related. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been claimed that both descended from Adam and Eve, but the documentary evidence is incomplete. --Lambiam 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Chopin's wikipedia "As the composer's illness progressed, Sand had become less of a lover and more of a nurse to Chopin, whom she called her "third child". In letters to third parties she vented her impatience, referring to him as a "child", a "little angel", a "poor angel", a "sufferer", and a "beloved little corpse" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7830:DE40:7D61:F5FB:CF92:BAF2 (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely this article by David C. F. Wright. Hmm, bad Wikipedia[1]. fiveby(zero) 13:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow, what a crap article. Here's an amusing writeup on Mr. Wright. [2] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful. Full of childish finger pointing. One can only wonder where he got his PhD from, and what its subject was. It couldn't have been in music criticism, history, intelligent analysis, or any kind of writing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im having trouble replying normally. But it is that one! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7830:DE40:6153:92BA:10AE:467E (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of "argument by explanation"[edit]

I remember there being an article in Wikipedia which describes a fallacious argument form, or rhetorical device, in which someone creates the impression that a proposition is true by providing an "explanation" for it. For example:

"Children become temporarily hyperactive from eating large amounts of sugar because the sugar contains energy which is burned through increased activity."

This creates the impression that children become hyperactive from consuming large amounts sugar, which is false.

I think the argument is named after some historical figure who first noticed it, perhaps a famous one, but I'm not sure. Can you remember the name/article? --Cubefox (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's false? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, for one, but that's besides the point; they're looking for the rhetorical device and just tried to provide an example. This seems like Affirming the consequent, but real-world examples of fallacies often fall into multiple categories. Here, fallacy of the single cause plays a part. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's risky to try to use controversial assertions as examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are fallacies. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation of hyperactivity is a non sequitur, if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I'm really certain that the article specifically for this rhetorical device of "argument by explanation" exists, or at least has existed recently. One thing I didn't mention was that it contains a quote from the person who first identified it. Some British or American intellectual I believe, something like one to two hundred years ago. I found it linked in some old post by blogger Scott Alexander, but I can't remember which. (It is interesting that Wikipedia is now so large that we can't find some articles it contains.) --Cubefox (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a good example? "Broccoli is poisonous, because it is a green vegetable." The given explanation is by itself valid – broccoli is indeed a a green vegetable – but not valid as an explanation. Saying it another way, someone might argue, "Broccoli is a green vegetable. Therefore it is poisonous." This is formally equivalent, while making it more explicit that this is not a valid syllogism but (as said before) a non sequitur. One can turn it into a formally valid syllogism by adding the major premise, "All green veggies are poisonous." --Lambiam 05:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something that often gets confused. A 'logical fallacy is specifically a fault in logic, and nothing else. Logic is just the valid methods that one can use to take input ideas and derive a new output idea from it; it's a kind of mathematics of thought. One can think of logic as a sort of mathematical function that takes as inputs certain statements, and produces as an output a new statement which is considered valid so long as all of the rules are followed. For example, if I say "All blue things are apples, and Bill Clinton is blue, therefore Bill Clinton is an apple", that is a perfectly valid logical construction. There is no fallacy in there. The conclusion statement "therefore Bill Clinton is an apple" is a valid logical conclusion from the two statements "All blue things are apples" and "Bill Clinton is blue". If the input statements are themselves false, that's not a logic issue. It's not a fallacy. It's just bad input. GIGO is the term from computer science, but it applies here: Garbage in = Garbage out. Even if the code processing the garbage is good code. --Jayron 32 15:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds very similar to Bulverism, from C. S. Lewis. The difference is that Bulverism creates the impression that something is false, by providing an "explanation" for why someone would (perhaps incorrectly) believe it. --Amble (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is the article I meant! A Bulverism is indeed more restricted than what I remembered. A Bulverism is specifically about explaining why someone has a wrong opinion even though "his opinion is wrong" may well be false. So it is about "explaining" a (potential) falsity, though one specifically about the opinion of someone. --Cubefox (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Marks key for 1901 investiture of Prince of Wales[edit]

What became of the ceremonial key made by silversmith Gilbert Marks, for the 1901 investiture of the Prince of Wales (later George V)? It's not listed on the websites of the Royal Collection Trust or National Museum of Wales. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no suggestion of any investiture, private or public.[3] in 1901? fiveby(zero) 15:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This key? fiveby(zero) 15:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any investiture in 1901. There is a mention here of Marks's "steel and gold key for the dedication ceremony by the Prince of Wales" but what dedication ceremony is not mentioned. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this must be the Croydon key Fiveby linked to - which was from 1898 so it was Bertie not George. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1898 is a scanning artifact, Croydon Town Hall 19 May 1896. Still can't find the key, but here's the mace. fiveby(zero) 17:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody knows, it might be the Museum of Croydon, which is located in the very same building. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Jürgen von Blumenthal[edit]

He was a monarchic anti-nazis. That means he was still loyal to the autocratic regime of the former Kaiser Wilhelm II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.128.12 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia article about this guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hans-Jürgen von Blumenthal. Cullen328 (talk)

A monarchist subscribes to the tenet that a monarchy is a better form of government than a republic. This does not imply loyalty to any specific actual or intended monarch. --Lambiam 05:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, our article says that von Blumenthal was a leader of Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten, the para-military wing of the German National People's Party, which (initially at least) was dedicated to restoring the Hohenzollern monarchy in the shape of Wilhelm II, who was still holding court in the Netherlands. Many monarchists later changed their support to the Nazis, including Wilhelm, German Crown Prince, who after the kaiser died in 1941, declined approaches by anti-Hitler conservatives. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All officers of the Wehrmacht were required to swear the Hitler Oath. Someone harbouring a different loyalty would have kept it to themself. --Lambiam 21:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One suspects that the Gestapo were not very tolerant of alternative loyalties, oath or no oath. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]