Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So the complex recipe, the one that isn't naive through and through, is to tell the poor and (?) the superstitious to get an education, grow up and get a job?
And that also goes for the people in Congo who cannot feed their children?

I didn't make it sound so sarcastic or condescending, did I?

What's the simple recipe? It's certainly not "just give everybody money." So what would it be?

~~ Paul

 

[dann]

You're wasting an awful lot of time arguing against a seemingly invisible post.

Nobody here has called anyone stupid. Nobody here yet seems to have taken offense at anything. We're calmly discussing this issue; because I take a less-than-common viewpoint, you seem to be ascribing motivations to me that don't follow. It would be almost comical for me to be upset that these people are being "insulted" by being called stupid (which I'm not, because nobody's done that yet), while I turn around and call them liars and pretend that's better somehow.

I think you are, right, Joshua. But certain kinds of behaviour have been described with word several times:

#33 dann: Satanism is stupid enough as it is, and their particular brand of it is not any better than the rest, but it does not include raping children.

#40 dann: But they aren't witches, so it is stupid (and still not natural).
#40 dann: Simply telling them to grow up is cynical, arrogant and thus stupid.

#50 dann: Only desperation, it says, and I tend to agree! So much, actually, that I suspect the CSM of being responsible for the stupid title that the journalist probably would not come up with.

# 73 Gurdur: What's with the stupid strawmen?

#118 dann: People know that this isn't right, it's something that they do not like to do, so they come up with a lot of stupid excuses.
#118 dann: My point: Bundling these two very different stories together under the title Time to grow up is stupid. Pretending that superstition is in any way the cause of the wretched business in any of the two cases, starvation leading to abandoned children and statutory rape, is stupid.

#138 Athon: I agree that dann has poorly argued his case, and has used language that has clearly upset some people, but I would have thought some people would indeed be mature enough to not take affront at such a stupid thing.

#142 dann: It is actually very annoying when you behave like a school teacher and pretend that because you have asked a question that even the most stupid (but very well-behaved (which I’m not)) child would know the required answer to, then it automatically follows that that is the answer you’ll get.

#145 Athon: I guess for many years I also directed my aggression and emotion at people who followed superstition with such terrible results, feeling honestly that they were indeed ignorant or stupid.

#146 A WHOLE POST WITH MY, DANN’S, DEFINITION OF “STUPID”.

#147 dann: And will their aversion to listening to clever skeptics be due to stupidity, ignorance or the actual knowledge that in the situation they find themselves in it won't do them any good?
#147 dann: These people don’t go to quacks because they are stupid.

#148 articulett: My feelings towards the credulous (who are more often women like me) is more one of sympathy--I feel like their trust is so readily abused. And children too. And it has nothing at all to do with stupidity.
#148 articulett: And there isn't a single person on that video you'd call stupid.

#170 Slimething: I understand that you are quickly distancing yourself from that idiotic posit because it's so stupid but you did put it out there.

#193 Slimething: Really a stupid, simplistic worldview, dann.

#225 articulett: To me it sounds like "I'm skeptical of the skeptics...I'm just a victim here, and articulett et. al. are over-reacting...I'm clever and noble because I'm not calling the people stupid; I'm just calling them liars." No one else called them stupid either--or liars.
#225 articulett: If you don't get that, then maybe you are the "stupid" one.

#227 articulett: Are you following. Because if not. You CAN'T get it. It's not because others are mean or stupid or wrong or heartless--it's actually because you have a bit of those traits, and you are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.

That seems to be all the cases of the words stupid and stupidity in this thread. And even when articulett calls you a “simpleton”, she says that you are ”being” on, and not that you are one. About me, however, she doesn’t seem to be very squamish:

Dann revealed himself to be the fool when he went and posted his foolishness on the skeptoid thread

Go flame yourself, articulett!

I would like to add that when I say that "These people (the terminally ill who are let down by the health care system) don’t go to quacks because they are stupid", I would still call it stupid to go to a quack, i.e. the behaviour. The behaviour of politicians who save on health care, thus making cancer patients resort to quacks, is much worse than stupid.

 

[dann]

I have not read this entire thread, but I would haughtily admonish everyone to watch out for cause and effect.

How do you know that this is the cause and effect situation?

Just for my clarification, Paul: Would the following quote be an example of the kind of ”simplistic recipe” that you think ”is naive through and through”? And would you feel the need to admonish the poster for not watching "out for cause and effect"?

This thread is about poor people who have kicked their kids out for being "witches". Although poverty is a likely factor in this situation, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the cause. The direct cause is "superstition"--as Randi said, and the article said, and Dann is tantruming about.

(And how can articulett be so sure that people will agree with her? – and so upset when they aren’t?)

 

[dann]

I didn't make it sound so sarcastic or condescending, did I?

I don't know, Paul. You used the words, "I'm sure you agree that such a simplistic recipe is naive through and through."
It is possible that they sound more sarcastic and condescending when I reuse them and say: "So the complex recipe, the one that isn't naive through and through, is to tell the poor and (?) the superstitious to get an education, grow up and get a job?"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just for my clarification, Paul: Would the following quote be an example of the kind of ”simplistic recipe” that you think ”is naive through and through”? And would you feel the need to admonish the poster for not watching "out for cause and effect"?

This thread is about poor people who have kicked their kids out for being "witches". Although poverty is a likely factor in this situation, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the cause. The direct cause is "superstition"--as Randi said, and the article said, and Dann is tantruming about.

Remember, I was saying that the cure "eliminate poverty" was naive, not that the cause "poverty" was naive. That said, any hypothesis of a single-point cause is surely oversimplified, as I think you agree.

I don't know, Paul. You used the words, "I'm sure you agree that such a simplistic recipe is naive through and through."
It is possible that they sound more sarcastic and condescending when I reuse them and say: "So the complex recipe, the one that isn't naive through and through, is to tell the poor and (?) the superstitious to get an education, grow up and get a job?"

I was not saying that your statement was condescending to me. I was saying that it sounded sarcastic and condescending with respect to the poor and superstitious, whereas my statement "One way to help with poverty is to get people working, and that requires education." was not so sarcastic. I didn't say "grow up" or "get a job."

Be that as it may, I simply don't understand how you propose to eliminate poverty. Surely you agree that you don't just "give the poor people money."

~~ Paul

 

[dann]

Remember, I was saying that the cure "eliminate poverty" was naive, not that the cause "poverty" was naive. That said, any hypothesis of a single-point cause is surely oversimplified, as I think you agree.

I agree. Like I have said several times, I agree with James Randi when he says that believers need to believe, i.e. they need to believe in never-never land, in something beyond reality, a delusion that enables them to live with the real world without recognizing it as such. This need is by no means natural. The need to feel comfortable and secure probably is, but trying to achieve this state by manipulating your mind, by changing your notions of reality, instead of changing reality itself, isn’t.

Whatever may induce you to want (or need) to achieve this state of imaginary harmony with the world, instead of real harmony (to the extent that it can be achieved), is what breeds superstition: fear of dying, yearning for something unattainable (unrequited love?), the loss of a loved one (the need to be with them does not die with their death) or ….. poverty, insecure living conditions etc.
Of those the mourning of a loved one and the pain of unrequited love are usually temporary – and if they aren’t, there’s nothing to do about it anyway. Death sucks, and there is definitely nothing to do about that (ultimately) either, but even the fear of dying is worsened if life sucks and makes you long for a condition that would compensate you for the terrible ordeal that life is for some people: Pie in the sky!

This is the reason why you cannot expect to do eradicate or even reduce superstition to any significant degree without stamping out poverty. To attempt to do so is similar to telling a dying believer that death is final, that there is no chance in hell of postponing it and that there is no afterlife. Why would they want to listen? What would they gain from this knowledge?
I’ll get back to this point in another post.

I was not saying that your statement was condescending to me. I was saying that it sounded sarcastic and condescending with respect to the poor and superstitious, whereas my statement "One way to help with poverty is to get people working, and that requires education." was not so sarcastic. I didn't say "grow up" or "get a job."

No, you are right. That was my addition to the sarcastic paraphrasing. Sorry.

Be that as it may, I simply don't understand how you propose to eliminate poverty.

I haven't proposed anything yet, but the first step, of course, would be to find out what causes poverty.

Surely you agree that you don't just "give the poor people money."

I haven’t got the money to give, so that kind of eliminates that idea anyway, and I have already tried to convince articulett, who has involved herself in an imaginary competition about moral superiority, that I am not here to point at myself as a paragon of virtue, but she doesn’t seem to get that:

I already consider my maturity, morality, and priorities superior to yours. Moreover, I imagine that everyone you have insulted is probably more charitable than you.

You bet!
"The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde

Randi certainly is.

I'm absolutely certain that he is! Did I claim otherwise? However, I don't really think that you do him justice. He would probably take offence at the guru worship you exhibit here.

 

[Slimething]

Like I have said several times, I agree with James Randi when he says that believers need to believe, i.e. they need to believe in never-never land, in something beyond reality, a delusion that enables them to live with the real world without recognizing it as such. This need is by no means natural. The need to feel comfortable and secure probably is, but trying to achieve this state by manipulating your mind, by changing your notions of reality, instead of changing reality itself, isn’t.

Making stuff up to explain phenomena one doesn't understand is perfectly natural. Every human being synthesizes a conceptual model of reality. That is, a human constructs a working understanding of their environment based on their perception of reality. Every human does it. You did once as well. Just because you say it doesn't happen doesn't mean it didn't.

Whatever may induce you to want (or need) to achieve this state of imaginary harmony with the world, instead of real harmony (to the extent that it can be achieved), is what breeds superstition: fear of dying, yearning for something unattainable (unrequited love?), the loss of a loved one (the need to be with them does not die with their death) or ….. poverty, insecure living conditions etc.
Of those the mourning of a loved one and the pain of unrequited love are usually temporary – and if they aren’t, there’s nothing to do about it anyway. Death sucks, and there is definitely nothing to do about that (ultimately) either, but even the fear of dying is worsened if life sucks and makes you long for a condition that would compensate you for the terrible ordeal that life is for some people: Pie in the sky!

WTF? You must be paid by the word!

This is the reason why you cannot expect to do eradicate or even reduce superstition to any significant degree without stamping out poverty.

Perhaps your ramblings would make more sense if you defined poverty. FYI, poverty will always be around because it is defined as a quartile of the income spread of a community. Remember, Gaussian distributions, dann? Probably not but trust me, they exist.

So, again you are arguing a causal relationship between poverty and superstition, something I and a few others challenge you on and then you softened it to "poverty implies superstition". So, again I ask you to be straightforward: does poverty cause superstition? If not, how do you feel about usurping a moralistic viewpoint condeming skeptics as uncaring monsters for criticizing a horrific expression of ignorance?

To attempt to do so is similar to telling a dying believer that death is final, that there is no chance in hell of postponing it and that there is no afterlife. Why would they want to listen? What would they gain from this knowledge?
I’ll get back to this point in another post.

Don't bother. You're melting.

I haven't proposed anything yet, but the first step, of course, would be to find out what causes poverty.

Define "poverty" and we'll all help you out. You seem to think that "poverty" as you describe it is the root of all ills. If that is so, then what can't you blame on poverty?

...and I have already tried to convince articulett, who has involved herself in an imaginary competition about moral superiority, that I am not here to point at myself as a paragon of virtue, but she doesn’t seem to get that:

Quite the contrary. Anyone who wants unquestionable evidence that you set yourself up as a judgemental pinhead merely has to reread your original post. Therein, you lambaste all skeptics because they dare to criticize the ostracism of kids based on their allegedly being witches. As I wrote before, you are doing a quick shuffle and trying to distance yourself from that post but it won't wash.

A few examples:

Post 1:

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”
If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!
“Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense.”

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!) And I find it truly amazing that skeptics seem to think that the victims of this calamity are not simply the starving children, but primarily the sentiments of skeptics who cannot stand to ”see truth and logic being assaulted.” Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?

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? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

Post 81:

My point has been to show the actual link between poverty and abandoning children. The excuses for doing so are fairly uninteresting to anybody but skeptics and Christians. How many times do I have to post this for you to get the point?

Post 107:

And isn't it time skeptics in particular to grow up and move beyond smug complacency when dealing with superstition? If it is true that the superstitious not only want to, but actually need to believe, like James Randi always says, isn't it about time to move beyond this realization to the question: Why do they need to believe?
So far most skeptics seem to be quite content expressing their despair at the childishness of the masses who just won't listen to them and grow up.

The abject poverty, the best guarantee that the uneducated, superstitious masses remain superstitious, just doesn't seem to concern the Shermers of this world. And why should it? They seem to not only want to, but to actually need to despair at the woowoos that just won’t listen to the brights, which is why they don’t appear to find it very hard to tolerate poverty and hunger, but won’t tolerate dangerous nonsense. Remember, we are not merely talking about abandoned, starving children (and starving adults, for that matter), it is much, much worse than that: They are actually being denied ”the tool of reason”, and if there is one thing we can’t stand it’s when “we see truth and logic being assaulted”

Somehow it’s all very logical, isn’t it?

 

[athon]

Oh, I'm pessimistic along with you. The problem is that you can't just "eliminate poverty." I'm sure you agree that such a simplistic recipe is naive through and through. One way to help with poverty is to get people working, and that requires education.

~~ Paul

Oh it's definitely one of those catch 22 situations, where empowerment requires resources, resources require work, work requires education requires funding, funding requires resources...

The point I've been making all along is in many nations such as Africa, rural Indigenous Australia, Pacific Island etc., the social structure impedes education of a critical kind. Poverty reinforces this form of social interaction further, as anti-critical behaviour is useful in this environment.

As to the overall statement 'superstition is to blame for antisocial actions', I think it's far too simplistic to comment on as a blanket comment. There is a whole lot more to the decisions made in impoverished societies than superstition or poverty alone can account for.

Athon

 

[articulett]

Oh it's definitely one of those catch 22 situations, where empowerment requires resources, resources require work, work requires education requires funding, funding requires resources...

The point I've been making all along is in many nations such as Africa, rural Indigenous Australia, Pacific Island etc., the social structure impedes education of a critical kind. Poverty reinforces this form of social interaction further, as anti-critical behaviour is useful in this environment.

As to the overall statement 'superstition is to blame for antisocial actions', I think it's far too simplistic to comment on as a blanket comment. There is a whole lot more to the decisions made in impoverished societies than superstition or poverty alone can account for.

Athon

Nobody said "superstition is to blame for antisocial actions." Here is what James Randi said in the newsletter that made DANN go berserk.

"We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted."

I agree enthusiastically, Sandra. Another example from Africa:

In Zimbabwe, John Munkombwe, 29, has been charged with having sex three times with an under-age girl, and impregnating her. He offered the court the explanation that the girl had in fact slept with goblins. Munkombwe has denied the charge of statutory rape. He told the court":

"I have been tried before in the chief's court but I have maintained my innocence, and I still deny the charges. I have heard it said that she was impregnated by goblins. I certainly don't know her."

What makes this of interest to us, is that Zimbabwe is a country steeped in supernatural beliefs. As evidence, consider that the country just recently changed their old colonial law to now recognize the existence of witchcraft. Folks, this is no way to join the community of international nations. This is not only standing still, it’s moving backward – rapidly.


The country is moving backwards--they have help from multiple religious institutions according the the Christian Science Article. The just changed their colonial laws to "now recognize the institution of witchcraft". Get it? That's going backwards instead of going forward ("growing up")-- not the people...but the system.

I don't know why you'd rephrase what people have said--but the claim was that superstition is to blame for the accusations of witchcraft. Antisocial behavior and "witchcraft" are not the same. It's not that poverty doesn't play a role...it's not that skeptics don't care about the people...it's just that the system needs and overhaul... the religious charities are a band aid at best. I suspect they do more harm than good in the long run. Not only is the bible responsible for many witch accusations...but religions have much to learn in the way of fostering critical thinking, and family planning options.

 

[dann]

Perhaps your ramblings would make more sense if you defined poverty. FYI, poverty will always be around because it is defined as a quartile of the income spread of a community. Remember, Gaussian distributions, dann? Probably not but trust me, they exist.

Poverty
Extreme poverty
Starvation
Social exclusion
Pauperism
Poverty Threshold
Poverty in the United States
Causes of poverty in the USA
Poverty in the UK

I guess Slimething must be thinking in terms of Income inequality metrics in order to need his Gaussian distribution, which does not really explain poverty at all – or even define it.
This one does, however, but these definitely aren’t bad either.

 

[dann]

Only of interest to the Scandinavians – or the very few others who, for some reason, are able to read Danish – the article Socialforskerne sveder over Fattigdomsbegrebet about the weird way that poverty is sometimes defined: ”I Tyskland har regeringen udforsket den fattigdom, som den regerer over, eller rettere: Man har målt fattigdom i stedet for at forklare den relation, som den er.” Tidsskriftet Social Kritik nr. 102 (Fås på alle velassorterede folkebiblioteker.)

Und da der Artikel ursprünglich auf Deutsch erschienen ist, ist er auch in dieser Sprache erhältlich:
Die Regierung lässt die Armut erforschen über die sie regiert: Wissenschaftler ringen um den „Armutsbegriff“:
„Das Forschungsergebnis – die Reichen werden immer reicher, die Armen immer ärmer – ist wirklich nichts Neues und wird auch von keiner Seite ernsthaft bestritten. Im Gegenteil: Löhne runter und Profite rauf ist das erklärte Kampfprogramm, mit dem die regierenden Sachverständigen für Wirtschaft den Standort an die Weltspitze führen wollen. Nach 4 Jahren Studium und 370 Seiten landen die regierungsunabhängigen Sachverständigen für Armut bei haargenau der gleichen Therapie. Fragt sich nur, wie?“
- aber leider nicht online, so viel ich weiss.

 

[Slimething]

[snipped a bunch of other people's definition of poverty as I asked for dann's but he doesn't seem to have one.]

I guess Slimething must be thinking in terms of Income inequality metrics in order to need his Gaussian distribution, which does not really explain poverty at all – or even define it.
This one does, however, but these definitely aren’t bad either.

Funny how you know more about defining poverty than economists but you can't give us YOUR definition. The reason I asked you dann is that, in your prior response to the moderator, you started going off on a tangent about happiness, dann's allowed kind and some false kind. So, I says to myself, I says, maybe this idiot is writing about poverty of the spirit, maybe.

But no, it turns out to be every kind of poverty, or economic poverty defined as denial of wealth. So, an educated person who is denied wealth becomes superstitious? Is that your causality?

But what metric do you apply to that? What makes a person poor in Copenhagen or the Congo? From what you write, poverty begets ignorance but you can't define poverty? Where does poverty end and affluence begin in your book? If I were telling someone like you, who admittedly has no money, to grow up, get off the net and get a job instead of posting stupidities, that would make me an unfeeling skeptic?

I really wanted to plumb the depths of your knowledge of which you speak and the bob just came back dry, bozo.

 

[athon]

The country is moving backwards--they have help from multiple religious institutions according the the Christian Science Article. The just changed their colonial laws to "now recognize the institution of witchcraft". Get it? That's going backwards instead of going forward ("growing up")-- not the people...but the system.

Then we each perceived a different slant. I did not get the feeling that the title indicated that the society should grow up, but rather the people expressing the superstitious beliefs. Without asking Randi what he meant, we can only speculate.

Personally, I wasn't upset by it (and certainly don't feel angered by it to the extent of a lot of the emotions expressed in this thread), but I did feel the title did not reflect my sentiments on the issue, that it was a matter of immaturity.

I don't know why you'd rephrase what people have said--but the claim was that superstition is to blame for the accusations of witchcraft. Antisocial behavior and "witchcraft" are not the same.

No. But the act of expelling your children from the home is antisocial, and in this case it is the deplorable act. Superstition itself is harmless unless it impacts on one's life, and in this case, on another's.

It's not that poverty doesn't play a role...it's not that skeptics don't care about the people...it's just that the system needs and overhaul... the religious charities are a band aid at best. I suspect they do more harm than good in the long run. Not only is the bible responsible for many witch accusations...but religions have much to learn in the way of fostering critical thinking, and family planning options.

True, they don't help with that. Yet the fostering of critical thinking cannot begin until the social group has the values which will accept it.

Athon

 

[dann]

[/IGNORE]

Funny how you know more about defining poverty than economists but you can't give us YOUR definition. The reason I asked you dann is that, in your prior response to the moderator, you started going off on a tangent about happiness, dann's allowed kind and some false kind. So, I says to myself, I says, maybe this idiot is writing about poverty of the spirit, maybe.

‘So I says to myself, this idiot’s only competence is ad homs, so why bother?' That nobody but this bozo is going off on tangents all the time, does not seem to concern him either. (I preferred his John Wayne impersonation, by the way, but I guess it's my own fault for complaining about it ...

But no, it turns out to be every kind of poverty, or economic poverty defined as denial of wealth. So, an educated person who is denied wealth becomes superstitious? Is that your causality?

Since Slimething has one (!) definition of poverty, there can be only the one!

FYI, poverty will always be around because it is defined as a quartile of the income spread of a community. Remember, Gaussian distributions, dann?

That definitions of poverty are rather uninteresting when people are denied food, well, let's talk about Gaussian distributions instead: 'There will always be poverty! It's a question of metrics!'

But what metric do you apply to that? What makes a person poor in Copenhagen or the Congo? From what you write, poverty begets ignorance but you can't define poverty? Where does poverty end and affluence begin in your book? If I were telling someone like you, who admittedly has no money, to grow up, get off the net and get a job instead of posting stupidities, that would make me an unfeeling skeptic?

It would primarily make him somebody who doesn’t know what he is talking about, but who cares. Maybe he can get a job teaching starving Africans his definition of poverty, Gaussian distributions.

I really wanted to plumb the depths of your knowledge of which you speak and the bob just came back dry, bozo.

So the bozo pretends that the problem is not poverty, is not starvation, but that he is a truthseeker …. With nothing left in his bag of profound insights but more ad hominems. Back to [IGNORE]

 

[articulett]

T

No. But the act of expelling your children from the home is antisocial, and in this case it is the deplorable act. Superstition itself is harmless unless it impacts on one's life, and in this case, on another's.

Athon

I agree. But that is what the title of the original article said too--it said that "superstition breeds homelessnes"s. Which you've just said as well. (Or perhaps you'd say that it breeds anti social behavior--but then you are getting further and further from causality). You have contradicted Dann's claim--that it's the poverty that makes people superstitious as( opposed to it being superstition which makes people toss their kids out via accusations of witchcraft).

We know that Poverty makes people less likely to be educated and more likely to be superstitious. We understand that growing poverty can make children and step-children burdensome. We'll even agree that this might be a subconscious or conscious factor in people booting their kids out of their homes--we also know that "crazy" behavior has often been attributed to the supernatural....witches are a Catholic creation from what I can tell. And kicking kids out because you fear they might be witches is tough on those kids--but I wouldn't say it's deplorable compared to other horrors in Africa.

In any case, "Had there been no cultural belief of witches, no children would have been abandoned with that excuse." That's causality. Poverty is only an indirect factor. A teeny percentage of "very poor" people accuse their kids of being witches...but nearly 100% of people who label their kids witches have the belief that their kid (or step-kid) could be one. I'm just talking basic logic here--I'm not talking about cures or what is more important or how to fix it. Just the facts. What the newsletter said was factual. It did not insult anybody. Dann did.

We already know that rich people can be very superstitious.
We know that money doesn't cure superstition. The only known remedy for that part of the problem (the most significant part in regards to causality) is education.

It's a semantic thing--read about cause versus correlation. It's not a moral position--but a fact. Anyone adept in law or logical fallacies will just point out that fact.

You know as well as anyone, that you could shower them with money--and the only people who would be prevented from getting rid of their kids in that particular way--would be the few that consciously looked for a reason to toss a kid out. If someone believes in witches--money doesn't make that belief go away. I think you and Dann and Gurdur have failed to see the big picture while presuming no one else understood the poverty problem. You guys saw this air of superiority in others, but it came from the original post, and never stopped.

I think Randi's last quote in the article is more than clear, plus I think his character is pretty damn exemplary. I've never seen him talk down to people the way Dann has throughout this post. Moreover, I've heard him admit when he's been mistaken.

 

[Checkmite]

I think you are, right, Joshua. But certain kinds of behaviour have been described with word several times:

I stand corrected.

 

[athon]

In any case, "Had there been no cultural belief of witches, no children would have been abandoned with that excuse." That's causality. Poverty is only an indirect factor. A teeny percentage of "very poor" people accuse their kids of being witches...but nearly 100% of people who label their kids witches have the belief that their kid (or step-kid) could be one. I'm just talking basic logic here--I'm not talking about cures or what is more important or how to fix it. Just the facts. What the newsletter said was factual. It did not insult anybody. Dann did.

I'm not accusing you of being insultive, but I do think that you've reacted rather explosively; indeed, one could always point fingers and say 'but he started it!', but I still feel that better discussion comes when people try not to get upset so easily. Still, the fact you've approached this with some amount of reason is why I'm still happy to chew on this topic with you.

It's the 'causation' I still have a problem with; superstition alone, IMO, cannot have accounted for the antisocial actions. It might contribute, it might even be the match which ignites the fire, but on its own I don't see it as a direct cause, no more than poverty on its own can be called a direct cause. Maybe I'm being pedantic about the term 'cause', preferring less certain terms such as 'influence' or 'contribution'.

The only way to address this problem is to ask if an otherwise affluent society which embraces superstitious beliefs would committ similar atrocities against their own community. Would removing poverty, but leaving the superstition, result in the same situation? We hear of various abuses in the name of religion or superstition in post-industrial societies, but disowning children is something fairly novel to impoverished societies, with rare exceptions.

Superstitious belief plays a substantial role in the ability for these people to committ such atrocities, but there are numerous other influences which contribute as well.

Athon

 

[Slimething]

Time for dann to grow up!

So, in summation, dann, what have we got here? Evasiveness. Recanting/softening of initial statements. Refusal to define terms. Refusal to apply simple metrics to basis phenomena. I've seen this before and it's too easy to recognize:
Dann, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Dann's original post had two parts:
A. Poverty "breeds" superstiion.
B. Criticizing poor superstitious people indicates that skeptics have no concern for poor people.
So, let's take them apart shall we?

Poverty breeds superstition
Wrong. dann's been challenged to explain how poverty is the cause of superstition many times and have evaded the question. He cannot reconcile many historical events caused by superstition which involved agents who were not poor. dann and assorted sockpuppets tried to argue that the verb "breeds" does not mean the same as "cause" but they are wrong as consulting even the most rudimentary dictionary states that "breeds" means to beget directly. Perhaps dann meant "implies" but even that would be so nebulous as to be laughable.

So, let's get rid of this one right now because it's not worth the time of day. This is a fallacious argument. More so as dann cannot define "poverty". The one quantized definition of poverty used by economists, he dismisses. I must point out to dann that the situation he originally addressed was not poverty per se, it was starvation caused by poverty. Starvation and poverty are not synonymous. They are often found together but starvation can have other causes.


Skeptics are unfeeling because they criticize superstitious poor people
Again, wrong. First, in the article that dann took offense to, Randi did not do this. But let's say for the sake of argument, he had. Randi is one skeptic, not all skeptics so, even here, dann has made an error in logic. But, say all skeptics got together and signed a denunciation of poor starving people calling their kids witches. Would that be wrong? No. Labeling anyone a witch is wrong (unless you believe in witches). The only issue being discussed is the labeling of other people as witches. That's called reductionism and we owe it more than it owes us.

The other part of dann's hypothesis is that skeptics are not concerned about the less fortunate. dann can't justify this statement and he hasn't. Not in any of the magazine clippings that dann so loves to post have I found any indication that this is so. I have no doubt that dann would be able to find a few skeptics that couldn't care less about the poor because, like all human subpopulations, skeptics comprise all manner of people except the superstitious kind.


About dann
So, now my favorite part. I want to discuss what dann's motivation was for posting this calumny. What in Randi's article set dann off? Here is what has been established:
1. dann will not defend his own statements. When pressed, dann will post a variety of other people's work that he believes supports his original post. Why? Frankly, because he knows that reading all that text will cause his challengers to give up from boredom or just because they don't have the time for such foolishness.
2. dann will only selectively reply to challenging posts. Many, many excellent indictments of his operating hypothesis have been posted only to lay ignored. In academic circles, dann would be laughed out of the room for this.
3. dann believes poverty can be stamped out. No, it can't be. Poverty is defined by a certain income level vs the cost of living. That's the scalar that is used by economists and no amount of argumentation against it will change that. Hunger itself is a much easier target but, even there, obliterating it would be daunting because it has so many causes.
4. dann does not acknowledge that his opening salvo was an ad hominem attack. dann does not like ad hominems against himself but he feels no compunction in deriding skeptics in general and John Wayne, for some reason. dann even picked on poor Shermer although the unfortunate figured in the discussion not at all until that point. dann has a lot of insecurities.
5. dann thinks in nebulous generalities. He rails at any attempt to apply metrics to his "grand notions" so that his conclusions cannot be tested. Skeptics especially cannot abide this practice so it doesn't take too much imagination to deduce that skeptics or even non-skeptics who don't like sloppy reasoning have given him a difficult time in the past.
6. dann has no money. This, in itself is not a fault except it does reveal a lot about dann and, I believe, answers the question as to why dann reacted so fiercely to Randi's article. dann boasts of seeing poverty first hand because he's been to Cuba! (Apparently, poverty does not exist in dann's country, LaLaLand.) So, how does dann survive, let alone travel? It is fairly obvious that dann is living off others. dann did not like Randi's article because it placed responsibility on people with no money. I figure that dann has been told to grow up and get a job himself several times too many too suit him. So, he lands squarely against anyone who uses that phraseology. Lacking the resources to counter his own benefactors, he decided to rail against skeptcs, whom he obviously does not like.

In conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time on this imbecile any longer. This is my final post in this thread and I delightedly give dann the floor ad infinitum. Small people love having the last word.

 

[dann]

How to draw conclusions: The World According to Slimething!

What's the simple recipe? It's certainly not "just give everybody money." So what would it be?

I didn't say "grow up" or "get a job."
(...)
Be that as it may, I simply don't understand how you propose to eliminate poverty. Surely you agree that you don't just "give the poor people money."

I haven’t got the money to give, so that kind of eliminates that idea anyway, and I have already tried to convince articulett, who has involved herself in an imaginary competition about moral superiority, that I am not here to point at myself as a paragon of virtue, but she doesn’t seem to get that:

If I were telling someone like you, who admittedly has no money, to grow up, get off the net and get a job instead of posting stupidities, that would make me an unfeeling skeptic?

6. dann has no money. This, in itself is not a fault except it does reveal a lot about dann and, I believe, answers the question as to why dann reacted so fiercely to Randi's article. dann boasts of seeing poverty first hand because he's been to Cuba! (Apparently, poverty does not exist in dann's country, LaLaLand.) So, how does dann survive, let alone travel? It is fairly obvious that dann is living off others. dann did not like Randi's article because it placed responsibility on people with no money. I figure that dann has been told to grow up and get a job himself several times too many too suit him. So, he lands squarely against anyone who uses that phraseology. Lacking the resources to counter his own benefactors, he decided to rail against skeptcs, whom he obviously does not like.

1. In answer to a question from Paul I say that, no, I cannot abolish poverty or starvation by giving money to the starving Africans. (I know that Paul does not mean me, personally, when he uses the word “you”, but that is besides the point.)
2. Slimething believes that he has found my weak spot: I must be poor and unemployed,
3. and since I don’t correct his mistake, he thinks that he has finally gotten to me.
4. Since he already knows that I have been to Cuba (something which I don’t ‘boast’ about, but mentioned as part of an argument), he concludes that I am not only unemployed and therefore penniless, but also a parasite: I cannot provide for myself, much less pay my own tickets.
5. Thus everything I’ve said so far is a question of ‘railing against sceptics’ instead of against my “own benefactors”.
Slimething can rest his case, exit Slimething:

In conclusion, I'm not going to waste my time on this imbecile any longer. This is my final post in this thread and I delightedly give dann the floor ad infinitum. Small people love having the last word.

I hope that this is one promise that he can keep.

Primarily for those of you who are unemployed and/or poor: The arrogance of people like Slimething should not prevent you from presenting your arguments in this forum – or any other. The king of ad hominems has been looking – and in vain – for a weakness, not in my arguments, but in my personal circumstances, and his final triumph, his grand finale is this pathetic outburst. I might have refuted his allegations about my being poor and unemployed, instead of giving him enough rope to hang himself, but I think that it was much more educational to let him carry on in this way.
I have actually had a full-time job for almost 25 years, I was never unemployed, I never received social benefits of any kind and my trips to Cuba and other parts of the world were always paid out of my own pocket, except for a few trips to other European countries as part of my job. So far I have been very lucky in this respect.
Does it make my arguments any better or would it have disqualified them if I had never done a day’s work in my life - whatever the reason might be? No, of course not.

 

[Gurdur]

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

Meh, I replied to your exact words fairly. The problem was with your fallacy, not anything else, and it was not misread -- which you seem to accept anyway later in your post, so I don't know why you bother twisting and turning here.

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

Oh puh-leeeze.
Is there something about the definition of "X breeds Y" in ordinary usual metaphorical English to imply that "X is the only cause of Y"?
No. Not at all.
But that was the implication you took for granted and flamed upon, even though it is not a usual implication at all in standard English for that metaphorical phase.

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

Uh huh.

Enough of all that nonsubstantive derail; dann asked me some substantive questions which I would like to answer, to get back on substantive issues rather than these empty derails.