Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[hammegk]

My Dear Articulett: I didn't realize you had a reading comprehension problem. Maybe I should cut you a bit more slack.

BTW, that last bit of monkey poo you tossed ... was it fresh?

 

[Checkmite]

Surviving family members are now overburdened with orphaned relatives. The belief in witchcraft was already present in the society. It may even have been an established norm in the society to use an accusation of witchcraft for any number of things such as jealousy, rivalry and so on. The belief is real. The motive for making the accusation may or may not be something the accuser is aware of. It's no surprise to see something like this pop up in these circumstances.

If these people genuinely believed their kids were witches, considering the number of them being kicked out for that reason, it logically follows that there would be an antecedent, in the form of some action being taken to deal with the problem of all these witches running around - and there isn't We're not talking about a couple-dozen throw aways that the community chooses to ignore. We're talking about a WHOLE LOT of kids.

Conversely, the very fact that not accepting an orphaned child places such a social stigma on a family simply supplies motive for inventing an excuse to boot them out.

 

[articulett]

If these people genuinely believed their kids were witches, considering the number of them being kicked out for that reason, it logically follows that there would be an antecedent, in the form of some action being taken to deal with the problem of all these witches running around - and there isn't We're not talking about a couple-dozen throw aways that the community chooses to ignore. We're talking about a WHOLE LOT of kids.

Conversely, the very fact that not accepting an orphaned child places such a social stigma on a family simply supplies motive for inventing an excuse to boot them out.

Really? How many are there. What is a "whole lot"? What are your sources? And you've concluded that none of them actually believe in witches, eh? They just want to get rid of the kids and then when someone asks them why?--they say..."uh--witchcraft...the kid was acting nutso, I swear." Interesting theory you have there. And such confidence! So you've logically concluded that there would be some sort of "antecedent" with all these witches running around--but since there is no antecedent (that you know of anyhow)...then there really must not be a whole lot of witches, right? Oh but you said there was a WHOLE LOT of witches... oh... I get it... because there is no "antecedent" (that you know of)...you have brilliantly deduced that the only people claiming that their kids were witches are the kids interviewed after the fact. Wait...Er... you read some other article and determined they interviewed kid-abandoning adults and asked them why they abandoned their kids and they said (desperately searching for a reason)"the kid was a witch!" And how big was this poll? Don't you think we ought to know a little more before we go sending off our dollars and food baskets to the Catholic orphanage?

Natch.

Is Gurdur your mentor by chance? Or is that Dann's fine reasoning we see on display with a dash of Hammegk's ontological epiphenomenal nothingness?

(Kellyb's article was amazing. The most incompetent ARE, indeed, the most confident. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf so much wisdom we can get from the clueless! Wow--the pompous boobs don't even know that THEY are the pompous boobs--)

Darn...did I derail this thread again? Oopsy--back to your deep conversation boys...nice to see ya'll clubbin' together. Later. Try not to miss me. Kisses.
ut.[/QUOTE]

 

[articulett]

My Dear Articulett: I didn't realize you had a reading comprehension problem. Maybe I should cut you a bit more slack.

BTW, that last bit of monkey poo you tossed ... was it fresh?

Why? ya' hungry?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If these people genuinely believed their kids were witches, considering the number of them being kicked out for that reason, it logically follows that there would be an antecedent, in the form of some action being taken to deal with the problem of all these witches running around - and there isn't We're not talking about a couple-dozen throw aways that the community chooses to ignore. We're talking about a WHOLE LOT of kids.

Conversely, the very fact that not accepting an orphaned child places such a social stigma on a family simply supplies motive for inventing an excuse to boot them out.

There is social stigma, which by the way has a self inflicted component. It isn't just that your neighbors will snub you, you may have your own guilt feelings. The expectation a sibling takes in orphaned nieces and nephews may run deep.

There is often resentment, perhaps mixed with grief. I would be sad if my brothers died.

There is the overwhelming burden of poverty and common mythical beliefs are longstanding.

What my point is, the dynamic involved here is not simple. It is very complex. Just because an outsider can see the relationship between accusations of witchcraft and the burden of an unwanted obligation to one's sibling's orphaned children doesn't mean it is some simple conscious lie to accuse the children of being witches.

There is still ignorance involved. There is still a belief in witches. I think it's best here to broaden one's perspective. Look at the wider view of multiple factors at play here besides just a belief in the supernatural.

 

[dann]

Time to start summarizing, but before I begin working on that, I’d like to know a few things:

You get two things wrong here; one is that Dann used the construction that poverty breeds superstition, which is to say that conditions of poverty greatly encourage the growth of superstition; ...

I got that wrong? You mean he's not saying that poverty breeds superstition?

That is what I have been saying the whole time! Poverty breeds superstition!!!

If Dann is saying that poverty contributes to the growth of already-established superstitions among the poor, due to superstition's handy ability to provide excuses for various problems, then I suspect he is correct to one degree or another. However, what he said was:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

I read from this that poverty is the only source of superstition. Otherwise how could fighting poverty possibly "do away with it"? Perhaps he has softened his position since the OP, or perhaps the OP was an exaggeration, which is why I asked him to summarize his current thoughts.

So, no, I haven’t softened my position since my opening post. Those were actually the words from my opening post:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

Your way of twisting the meaning of my words, however, is a little bizarre. If, for instance, I had claimed that certain kinds of pollution breed (or in that context I would probably have used the word: cause) cancer and that this fact would make it very obvious how to go about fighting cancer if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner, instead of looking for new ways to treat people once they have got it, then I cannot see how this would imply that I neglected the existence of all other kinds of cancer-inducing agents. Can you, Paul? And I find it extremely difficult to understand how you come to your conclusion after your alleged reading of the whole thread where I said a number of times that I think that for instance Bush and Blair could not possibly be superstitious because they are poor since they definitely aren’t. OK?

Let me post a few examples which you (and not just you) seem to have missed somehow:

They start as early as this:

#15: “Yes, and you can even be rich, in good health, extremely well educated, have a beautiful wife and well-behaved, successful children .... and still believe in astrology!”

#48: ” But this time it is about England 60 years ago, and it does not explain Tony Blair , nor does it have a condescending title like Time to grow up.”

#53: ”Who cares which delusions Blair, Bush and their rich friends might suffer from in private?”

#109: ” Expose people of today to similar situations, and they will behave in similar ways. Otherwise bright high-school students suddenly come to depend on lucky charms at their exams, and even relatively settled and rich people in changeable jobs like acting, sports or the stock exchange seek advice from astrologers, but still: you don't usually see horoscopes in the magazines catering to stock-exchange magnates, but in poor people's reading material they abound.” (You will have to go to post 109 to see what the words “similar situations” mean.

(By the way, who do you think wrote this just a few posts later?
#112: ”Superstition is the default position (even rich sports stars wear their lucky sucks or whatever it is they can link to their best game). Education is the only known remedy.” (It’s quite funny, actually, but a millionaire friend of mine majored in physics (his dissertation was about black holes). Still, he believes in Sai Baba’s alleged ability to teleport himself instantly from India to the USA. The last time I talked to him (our friendship has cooled a little), he had enrolled for a course teaching how to be physically in two different places at the same time. (He has a problem with being mentally present in one place at a time, I think.) So in this case neither poverty nor the lack of a scientific education is the problem. I think I know what is, but that is another story …
"Education is the only known remedy.")

#117: ”The pope isn't poor either, nor is Bush, nor is Blair, nor were the Reagans. Never denied it. And in the case of the rich or even the very rich, who, unlike the poor, actually benefit from religion, you should consider the many popes who fathered children and tended to have a very extravagant lifestyle! I wouldn't say that they didn't have religion, though, only that this is a very different religion from the kind where you have given up on finding a solution to your problems in this world and therefore only look for the meaning of life beyond reality.”

#147: ”I also find the same problem in civilized, well-educated Denmark where cancer patients are sometimes put on standby for weeks or months before they can have their much needed operations, chemo og radiation therapy: What is the point of telling these unfortunate people, who very often turn to woowoo remedies in despair, that they had better put their fate in the hands of modern science instead of turning to quacks and witchcraft? They already did! But the government’s cutbacks in expenditures means that science can’t deliver. (We already know that quacks can't deliver either, but what's the point if there is no alternative? These people don’t go to quacks because they are stupid. They don’t go to quacks because they are ignorant. They go to quacks because they have been let down, have no other practical solution, and – of course – because they are poor! The rich patients go to a private hospital – in Denmark or abroad.” A very important point, in my opinion. Maybe I should have ‘softened’ it for your stomachs and mentioned that some rich patients probably also go to quacks, but not because they cannot afford proper medical care like the poor. Very few people look forward to dying, so even millionaires may consider paying someone to tell them that their terminal cancer can be cured with a combination of green tea and feta cheese …
(And I probably wouldn’t even tell them that it was time to grow up either!)

Seems odd you ignore the positives. Especially since Dann gave supporting evidence and you haven't even discussed it.

I'm not ignoring those who agree with him. In fact, you could summarize his current thoughts if you'd like.

Well, you certainly didn’t mention those who agree with my arguments when you referred to “people” as the reason for your intervention: “ People don't appear convinced …” Not just “some people”, including yourself? Or for that matter: "People who count ..,"? To me your statement does seem to ignore the positives ….

But back to my main problem with your intervention, Paul. Would you please explain to me again how you come to the conclusion that I think that "poverty is the only source of superstition"?
And won't you please compare it with articulett's "Education is the only (!) known remedy."? (my (!), dann)

 

[dann]

It is very complex.

I am right when I assume that you would find it too simple to tell people in a situation like this that it is time to grow up?

 

[dann]

Oh, finally!

Finally???! I have been saying the same thing over and over since my opening post. If you had read it, you probably would not feel so relieved that you have ‘finally’ made me admit (?) it again, would you?

So, dann, in your world, if I gave a witch hunter a million euros, said witch hunter would no longer be superstitious.

I think you ought to try, Slimething, but it probably depends: Which witch hunter are you talking about? If I say that asbestos causes cancer, I don’t think that I imply that I can cure a patient suffering from asbestos-induced lung cancer by eliminating asbestos from the workplace (which he no longer has), do I?

This is established, of course, because none of us have ever seen supersitious, wealthy people.

We haven’t? I’ve seen plenty, and I even happen to know a few personally. See post above!

No Winchester House exists, for example.

I think I am the one who has mentioned Bush and Blair a couple of times on this thread. Do you really think that Winchester is a much better argument?

Really a stupid, simplistic worldview, dann. Poverty and misery contribute to a great many things. For your rant against skeptics to hold water, you have to establish causality. Of course, you would have been right if you could have established that but you can't.

No, you are right, Slimething, I haven’t been to as many poor countries as you, so I cannot.

So, admit you were wrong. Apologize like a mature human would. Then you can go away and grow up a little.

Apologize to you for what? All of your ad homs?

 

[hammegk]

Why? ya' hungry?

An attempt to share. Isn't that cute.

But, no, no! Bad! That's not what humans eat.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is what I have been saying the whole time! Poverty breeds superstition!!!

Sorry, just giving Gurdur trouble about the wording of his sentence "You get two things wrong here; one is that Dann used the construction that poverty breeds superstition, ..." I should have used a smiley.

So, no, I haven’t softened my position since my opening post. Those were actually the words from my opening post:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

So you're really saying that poverty is the only cause of superstition?

Your way of twisting the meaning of my words, however, is a little bizarre. If, for instance, I had claimed that certain kinds of pollution breed (or in that context I would probably have used the word: cause) cancer and that this fact would make it very obvious how to go about fighting cancer if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner, instead of looking for new ways to treat people once they have got it, then I cannot see how this would imply that I neglected the existence of all other kinds of cancer-inducing agents. Can you, Paul?

The words "do away with it" mean that you can eliminate it completely, which implies that the cause you mentioned is the only cause. I guess you mean to say that you can do away with that amount of superstition that is caused by poverty. Of course, I still have no idea how you would do that.

And I find it extremely difficult to understand how you come to your conclusion after your alleged reading of the whole thread where I said a number of times that I think that for instance Bush and Blair could not possibly be superstitious because they are poor since they definitely aren’t. OK?

I saw that, but it seemed to contradict your OP. Now I realize that your OP sounded much more black and white than you meant.

Well, you certainly didn’t mention those who agree with my arguments when you referred to “people” as the reason for your intervention: “ People don't appear convinced …” Not just “some people”, including yourself?

Sorry, I did not mean for "people" to imply "everyone."

But back to my main problem with your intervention, Paul. Would you please explain to me again how you come to the conclusion that I think that "poverty is the only source of superstition"?

It was your wording "... if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?" I'm sorry my analysis of your position was superficial.

~~ Paul

 

[Roboramma]

I don't get it. There seems to be very little disagreement here. The only point of contention seems to be whether or not Randi was wrong to title his commentary "Time to Grow Up". Aside from that it seems that most agree to the main issues - yes, poverty can and does influence the tendancy toward superstition, yes there can be superstition and irrational beleif without poverty, yes alleviating poverty in africa would be a good thing. We are left with disagreement about degree - Is it better to focus on education or poverty if we care about aleviating suffering in Africa?
But if that's the question that we're trying to answer here, you could have fooled me, as no one seems to have offered anything substantial as means of answering it.
Taking out the egos from the thread, there seems to be very little left. Then again maybe I'm missing something...

What I, anyway, see remaining is posts like skeptigirl's post #197. And I have to ask, does anyone on either side disagree with what she said there? If not, the current argument seems moot.

 

[Roboramma]

The words "do away with it" mean that you can eliminate it completely, which implies that the cause you mentioned is the only cause. I guess you mean to say that you can do away with that amount of superstition that is caused by poverty. Of course, I still have no idea how you would do that.

I think he's saying that while superstition may have many causes, the most obvious and the cause most easy to do something about is poverty. So if we intend to "do away with" superstition, the first course of action is to focus on poverty. This doesn't mean that there can or should be no other courses of action, just that he feels this is the most useful one, and that focusing on other things is putting the cart before the horse.

I'm not sure I agree, and I think that this point is one of the ones that should be debated with civility in this thread because we could actually come to some meaningful answers, but I don't think the point is necessarily foolish.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think he's saying that while superstition may have many causes, the most obvious and the cause most easy to do something about is poverty. So if we intend to "do away with" superstition, the first course of action is to focus on poverty.

I'm way more pessimistic about eradicating poverty than you are, I guess. I'd focus on education.

~~ Paul

 

[Gurdur]

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

So you're really saying that poverty is the only cause of superstition?

Weird.
Dann says poverty breeds superstition. IOW, plain English, superstition will be far more present with poverty than without it.

You, Paul, then say "you're really saying that poverty is the only cause of superstition?".
How stunningly illogical.

Tell me, Paul, how is Dann supposed to be claiming that poverty is the only cause of superstition, when he says poverty breeds superstition?

I do trust you can see the difference (just to remind you of actual cause and effect) between:

X -> often Y
and
if Y, then X

I mean, trying to get from even "X -> Y (let alone X -> often Y)" to then "if Y then X" is a very obvious logical fallacy, Affirmation of the consequent.

The words "do away with it" mean that you can eliminate it completely, which implies that the cause you mentioned is the only cause.

A massive strawman.

I guess you mean to say that you can do away with that amount of superstition that is caused by poverty.

I would say that was fairly obvious to most.

Sorry, I did not mean for "people" to imply "everyone."

uh huh.

 

[dann]

How stunningly illogical.

Let's leave it at that, Gurdur. I think it is clear to (almost) everybody that if, for instance, you said that poverty breeds discontent and that the way to stop discontent would therefore be to put a stop to poverty, nobody would assume that you can't get p***** off when Sylvia Browne appears on TV.
I think that Paul was misled by "people".

 

[dann]

So you're really saying that poverty is the only cause of superstition?

No, but I think it is the major one.

The words "do away with it" mean that you can eliminate it completely, which implies that the cause you mentioned is the only cause. I guess you mean to say that you can do away with that amount of superstition that is caused by poverty.

I don't think that you can talk about a certain "amount" caused by poverty: 85% poverty, 10% ignorance and 5% defective genes. But I will try to explain that again in detail within a couple of days. (See my sig line about the "condition which needs illusions.")

It was your wording "... if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?" I'm sorry my analysis of your position was superficial.
~~ Paul

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear enough from the beginning.

 

[Checkmite]

Really? How many are there. What is a "whole lot"? What are your sources? And you've concluded that none of them actually believe in witches, eh? They just want to get rid of the kids and then when someone asks them why?--they say..."uh--witchcraft...the kid was acting nutso, I swear." Interesting theory you have there. And such confidence! So you've logically concluded that there would be some sort of "antecedent" with all these witches running around--but since there is no antecedent (that you know of anyhow)...then there really must not be a whole lot of witches, right? Oh but you said there was a WHOLE LOT of witches... oh... I get it... because there is no "antecedent" (that you know of)...you have brilliantly deduced that the only people claiming that their kids were witches are the kids interviewed after the fact. Wait...Er... you read some other article and determined they interviewed kid-abandoning adults and asked them why they abandoned their kids and they said (desperately searching for a reason)"the kid was a witch!" And how big was this poll? Don't you think we ought to know a little more before we go sending off our dollars and food baskets to the Catholic orphanage?

Calm down.

70% of 20,000 is a whole lot of street kids. Still, perhaps my motivation in my particular line of reasoning is pointing out the fact that people read this article and are so absolutely certain that the answer to this social ill is teaching the people to be skeptical of witchcraft, while I, on the other hand, choose to be skeptical that these people really believe in witchcraft. Lying to make oneself look not-as-bad is a trait far more common in the human family than a real belief in witches. Your mock exasperation and quipping about Catholicism have nothing to do with anything I've been saying.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

Weird.
Dann says poverty breeds superstition. IOW, plain English, superstition will be far more present with poverty than without it.

You, Paul, then say "you're really saying that poverty is the only cause of superstition?".
How stunningly illogical.

I guessed you missed the "do away with it" part.

Tell me, Paul, how is Dann supposed to be claiming that poverty is the only cause of superstition, when he says poverty breeds superstition?

Is there something about the definition of breeds that includes the fact that the breeder can't be the sole cause?

I do trust you can see the difference (just to remind you of actual cause and effect) between:

X -> often Y
and
if Y, then X

I can't find the word often in what Dann said.

I mean, trying to get from even "X -> Y (let alone X -> often Y)" to then "if Y then X" is a very obvious logical fallacy, Affirmation of the consequent.

I did not know that the word breeds really means implies.

A massive strawman.

Apparently it was, although I did not realize it until Dann clarified what he meant.

I would say that was fairly obvious to most.

Possibly, yes.

~~ Paul

 

[Slimething]

Finally???! I have been saying the same thing over and over since my opening post. If you had read it, you probably would not feel so relieved that you have ‘finally’ made me admit (?) it again, would you?

No, not really. Just one response to me ago, you said that your point was that Randi should not have titled his item in the way he did. You can argue that with Randi. Also, when questioned, you've hidden behind your magazine clippings so that it was difficult to root out exactly what you were saying without wasting time reading the links.

I think you ought to try

Nah, it's your point, dann. You do it.

Which witch hunter are you talking about?

Irrelevant, dann. Is this the best you can do?

If I say that asbestos causes cancer, I don’t think that I imply that I can cure a patient suffering from asbestos-induced lung cancer by eliminating asbestos from the workplace (which he no longer has), do I?

Specious argument, dann. You are trying to equate the belief in witchcraft with an organic malady. You are trying to muddle the argument with a secondary effect while I have been careful to keep the focus of the debate on the primary. Nice try.

We haven’t? I’ve seen plenty, and I even happen to know a few personally. See post above!
I think I am the one who has mentioned Bush and Blair a couple of times on this thread. Do you really think that Winchester is a much better argument?

I should had placed an irony warning around that text. Do you remember when articulett told you that you had falsified your own argument many times in the thread. What do you think that meant?

Apologize to you for what? All of your ad homs?

No, your high-handed accusation that all skeptics have to grow up and are unconcerned with the plight of their fellow human.

Of course, I don't expect you to apologize to me for calling me a liar. That would take real cojones which I'm fairly sure you lack. Grow up.

 

[dann]

Of course, I don't expect you to apologize to me for calling me a liar.

That's good, Slimething.
[ignore][/ignore]