Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 7

= December 7 =

Gay stereotypes
To what extent are gay stereotypes true? The one I'm most familiar with is that gays are effeminate. In China's underground youth culture, there's a surprisingly positive stereotype of gays as smart and handsome. How accurate are these, and if they're not accurate, why did they appear in the first place? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the effeminate stereotype is because effeminate men stick out like sore thumbs, while you never notice masculine gay men. I think the stereotypes of gay men being more into the arts and more affluent might have some truth to them.  The additional affluence might just be the result of a gay couple with two working men and no children ending up wealthier because they have two incomes, at the higher incomes of men, and fewer expenses. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That particular way that gay men seem to talk in the movies isn't true to life, for one. Nor are many of the classic "quirks" that they're given in the movies, or particular artists a gay person is supposed to like, etc. I've heard people say gay men are usually shy, and others that they are flamboyant, so clearly neither can be too true since they're contradictory! Stereotypes are an interesting thing. They stem from "many of the [x] I've met are like this", and become viewed as the norm. At this point it's possible for them to work in reverse, for a gay man to become more effeminate because it's expected of him. Anecdotally, I often got a "but you can't be lesbian because you have long hair/ you're wearing a dress". (I'm bi, but the same people who stereotype "lesbian= short hair" are the ones who class "attracted to women = lesbian"). Recently, I decided I wanted a new look, and cut my hair and modified my dress style slightly. Not only have the questions stopped, but I've had a lot more girls approach me since, showing stereotypes even have an impact on those within the group itself. sonia ♫ 05:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In short: every group of people is far more diverse than you think. In every group, some people conform closely to stereotypes about that group (see Camp Gay on TV Tropes) sometimes leading others to say Stop Being Stereotypical, some defy it entirely (in many different ways; see Straight Gay), and many are in the middle. Some people who conform to the stereotypes are not members of the group (see CampStraight). Some stereotypes are statistically more frequent than others in the population (I'm not aware of any studies on this), but there is usually great variation in these statistics between locations and subgroups. In fact, some men frequently have sex with men and still are not gay! See men who have sex with men, Down-low (sexual slang). And many gay men have had sex with women. There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is. Dcoetzee 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To the OP: Get out of your cave and meet some, and make your own mind about them. Seriously, they won't hurt you. --Lgriot (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of gay friends, thank you very much. However, if I make judgments about a whole group of people based on the relatively few people I know, I'd be just as guilty of confirmation bias as the creators and propagators of harmful stereotypes.  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And you think anonymous people on the internet don't have any bias ? --85.119.27.27 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At least, not unless you're into that and ask them to! ;) In my experience, there's something of a bell curve among gay men along the butch<->femme spectrum. A few gay men are so "butch" even the most finely tuned gaydar would never guess they weren't straight, and a few gay men are such flaming queens you can burn your retinas just looking at them, but most of us fall in between: "gay-acting" enough that you can tell they're gay, but still basically "guy-ish". The trouble is that TV and movies have trouble finding that happy medium where most of us live, and portray us as being on the extremes of the spectrum instead (basically, either Will or Jack). Pais (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you mentioned gaydar, Pais. This is not just some latter-day Hollywood-created myth, but a real feature of human communication, which same-sex attracted people have been using for millennia to help identify possible sexual partners, long before it ever had a name.  I agree with Dcoetzee's "There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is" (my highlighting), but gaydar is very often the next best thing.  Sometimes the cues and clues are extremely subtle, but a well-tuned gaydar will still pick up on them.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading your comments correctly, someone who is "obviously gay" will be obvious to pretty much everyone. Carson Kressley comes to mind - he seems more girlish than the average girl. Those who are much less flamboyant, or not flamboyant at all, might well be overlooked by straight folks. Some of Kressley's colleagues on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy come to mind. And Rock Hudson. However, if I read you correctly, other gays would likely be able to identify all 5 of the Queer Eye regulars as such. (And Rock Hudson). Is that correct? Also, someone mentioned Will and Jack. As I recall, even Jack's character was much more subtle than the Hollywood stereotype is. It was his dialogue that "gave him away." Some of his pals were closer to the stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard with actors because mostly our experience of them is when they're on screen, playing a role, and not being themselves. I'd like to have met Rock Hudson when he wasn't "on".  I only ever saw Queer Eye once or twice so I can't comment.  Carson Kressley took on a life of his own, though.  He even became an essential element of the hype around the Melbourne Cup for about 5 years in a row - no idea exactly why he was needed so badly for that event.  Jack (Sean Hayes) of Will and Grace was closer to the other end of the flamboyance spectrum, but there are still lots of cues with him.  He has a sort of understated flamboyance which he can't really hide, and in that role he's not required to.  Will (Eric McCormack), on the other hand, tries valiantly to portray a gay character but fails because it's all an act, there's nothing real about it.  It was not a surprise to me when I first looked him up and read he was happily married to a woman.  Gale Harold (Brian Kinney on Queer as Folk (2000 TV series)) was another whose on-screen behaviour and personal sexuality don't seem to line up.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The only other characteristic that gay people used to have (thinking about the older generation) was that the ones who were "out" were more likely to have been persecuted by others, and/or stressed for a long period. This might be noticeable. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A gay stereotype can only exist in a cultural representation of a gay person. "Stereotype" does not apply except in that artificial presentation. There is something called "artistic license" which allows for wide variability in the representation of gay people as well as in the representation of anything else. Styles in artistic representation evolve with time, so whatever stereotype would apply today would unlikely apply tomorrow or in the past. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal republicanism
Are there any members of royal families (or extant lines of pretenders, such as Charles Napoleon) who espouse republicanism? --130.216.172.44 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? (At least officially, while Prime Minister of Bulgaria.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Michael Abney-Hastings? 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do they have to be alive today? I hope Charles Joseph Bonaparte was a republican.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1990 Canterbury vs Wellington
Some time  in  1990,  Canterbury  hosted  Wellington  in  a  Shell  Trophy match  at  Lancaster  Park. My brother  in law  was  there,  as  he  told  us  at  the  time,  but  not  able to  ask  him  about  it,  as  I  have no  way  to  contact  him  easily,  I  understand  there  was  some  controversy  about  the  game  which  gained world  notoriety  and  criticism,  but  after  all  these  years  I  cannot  recall  the  exact  details.

All I  recall  is  that  some  of  the  Wellington  bowlers  were  instructed  to  deliberately  bowl  no  balls  at  our  heroic  Canterbury  batsmen,  but  I  cannot  get  why. I also understand  that  the  scorers  could  not  keep  up,  as  the  Cantabs  were  smacking  these  badly  bowled  balls  all  over  the  park.

Now I  also  understand  that  due  to  this  the  scoreboard  at  the  ground -  the  old  one  they  used  to  have  at  the  southern  end  before  we  got  the  electronic  one,  could  not  keep  up  with  the  exact  score  in  real  time,  and  it  turns  out  the  last  ball  was  bowled  when  time  ran  out,  that  is,  the  required  number  of  overs,  and  this  last  ball  was  just  fended  off.

Later it  turned  out,  that  if  it  had  been  hit  for  four,  Canterbury  would have  won  the  Shell  Trophy  for  that  year,  since  those  four  runs,  after  all  the  no  balls  and  runs  hit  were  finally  added  up,  would  have  given  us  victory,  but  when  Wellington  went  on  the  next  week  to  get  enough  points  against  Central  Districts,  they  won  the  competition  instead. It seems  for  want  of  only  four  runs  is  what  Canterbury  Cricket  had  in  common  with  Don  Bradman.

If anyone  can  give  me  the  exact  reasons  for  why  this  game  was  so  strange,  and  or  also  a  link   to  see  if  there  is  any  site  for  Cricket  controversies,  this  would  be  good. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  05:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It might have been helpful if you had mentioned that you were talking about New Zealand, and mentioned that you were talking about cricket. Yes, we can easily work it out, but you are the one asking for help! --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know practically nothing about cricket, but here's an article about the match. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything at Category:Cricket controversies, but if there's enough coverage, it may be worthwhile to write an article at Wikipedia about it. -- Jayron  32  06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd example of what (these days) commonly takes place earlier in a match - known as declaration bowling (I'll address that redlink asap). Odd because this wasn't trying to prompt a side to declare, but to make them try to win a match they could previously only lose or draw - and thefore make them less conservative... and in turn more likely to lose. A bit Byzantine, perhaps. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I had exactly the same thought. The linked article says that Wellington won the championship in the end not through the result of this match but because of "a couple of other very fortuitous results".  With two overs to go and eight wickets down, most fielding captains would just go for the most aggressive bowling and fielding possible – and they could reasonably expect to win from that position.  In this case, though, it sounds like the batsmen were pretty well entrenched.  A complete gamble, though – and very hard to decide when to stop chucking runs at the batsmen and when they would feel that they were sufficiently close to a victory to start becoming wayward.  Also, the article doesn't address this point, but presumably Canterbury had nothing to gain by winning, so they might have just not risen to the bait. (EDIT: Oh sorry, I've just re-read the OP's post which says that Canterbury would have won the title as well if they'd won the match.  The article doesn't mention that aspect, though, so I'm not 100% convinced it's the case.) --Viennese Waltz 11:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly to  Colin  Fine  I  must  apologise,  since  I  made  the  assumption  that  people  from  NZ  and  Australia  would  know  what  I  was  talking  about,  and  my  question  was  primarily  addressed  to  those  in  the  cricketing  world. I realise  now  that  everyone  is  paying  attention,  and  even  though  I  would  not  expect  most  people  from  countries  outside  of  Cricket  to  be  able  to  answer  this,  I  should  at  least  make  the  exact  nature  of  the  question  clear,  so  that  they  might  ( or  might  not )  realise  that  they  need  not  concern  themselves  about  such  a  question.

To those  who  did  answer,  thank  you  so  much,  and  now  the  situation  has  been  made  very  clear  to  me,  and  surprises  me,  since  even  without  this  knowledge  I  might  not  have  thought  any  bowling  team  would want  to  give  away  precious  runs -  even  when  leading  by  94,  I  believe  the  article  said  it  was,  when  this  began,  since  if  they  are  only  bowling  no  balls  the  whole  time,  the  only  way  Germon  and  his  partner  could  be  out  is  by  leaving  their  crease.Chris the Russian  Christopher Lilly  04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When is consent given to be governed?
For a person in the United States, at what point in time is consent to be governed considered given? Is it when that person is born, when that person is issued a social security number, or is it when that person becomes of the age of majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.153.142 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it ever given? The discussion on "types of consent" in Consent of the governed may make things a little clearer, though it's not a comprehensive article.  The answer certainly depends on your definition of consent, which is a nebulous concept (e.g. the distinction between overt or tacit consent; and it's not clear whether voting is equal to consent).  It's not clear whether adult Americans actually give consent to be ruled, and most Americans don't believe the government has the people's consent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is considered implicit in the sense that freedom of travel is granted (if you don't like it, go somewhere else) and the ability to change the form of government (through the tortuous locutions of representative democracy) is granted. But other than those there is no formal consent, and there is no way to decline to be governed other than going somewhere else (and in most cases, being governed by someone else). If you explicitly refuse to be governed, without leaving, you'll run into difficulties very quickly (and the ultimately coercive nature of all government will become pretty clear). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could live in a self-sufficient way, isolated from the rest of society and won´t be payint taxes or serving the army (if you are in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" doesn't really apply to United States though, since IRS will collect taxes from you even if you leave the country. In fact if you disavow your citizenship IRS will still collect taxes from you for another 10 years. "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" applies to around 192 countries in the world, just not the US. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The IRS does impose a filing requirement for citizens living abroad, but the US "expatriation tax" upon renunciation of citizenship is only imposed under certain circumstances. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, if I renounce my US citizenship, and move to Canada, how would the US government have any ability whatsoever to enforce what I do outside of the US? If I'm not a citizen, and I am not within a country, that country has no right to enforce anything against me (other than International Crimes, I guess).  Why would I, after having declared that I have cut off all ties with the US, even bother even opening a letter that the IRS sends me? Falconus p  t   c 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you move to Canada then the US collection agency will transfer your debt to their Canadian counterpart, and the Canadian collection agency will sue for wage garnishments. If you are within Canada then Canadian laws apply to you, regardless of your citizenship status. Canadian laws allows for wage garnishments. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always extradition, the feasibility of which in tax cases is discussed extensively here. Past that, it is more about the matter hanging over your head should you ever wish to return to the US (even to visit), or to receive income from a US entity, etc. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The are some issues with the presumptions in your question. "The governed" consists of every American from the founding to today. So we aren't talking about a census-like activity of getting people's consent individually. In principle, the consent of the governed occurs with a 50%+1 vote to authorize a committee or officer to do something. If that committee or officer appoints other officers or committees, THOSE committees and officers are considered to be duly authorized with the consent of the governed. AND IF THOSE committees or officers appoint....etcetera. The exact phrase from the Rights of Man is "DERIVED from the consent of the governed." So what matters is that a genealogy (of sorts) can be traced back to some event where the people gave their consent.Greg Bard (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be noted that if you are really trying to trace the consent back that far, universal suffrage has only been possible in the U.S. since the early 20th century, and even then it was not uniformly enforced/guaranteed until the late 20th century. It's not a minor point that for the majority of US history, far less than 50% of all American citizens were able to participate in political life. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. There are all kinds of holes to be poked into the theory that the US government has the consent of the governed. Even today, the voter turnout is pathetic, but we interpret the election as an opportunity to give consent, which was passed on --therefore consent is given. There are all kinds of interpretations of things. The members of congress presently were elected, and therefore their authority is derived from the consent of the governed --even if that genealogy I mentioned is somehow invalidated by something in history long ago. The members of congress could always introduce legislation to change the form of government if they thought that it wasn't derived from the consent of the governed. (It appears that they will stick with it, however.)Greg Bard (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The key thorn is all of this is that of course it is the currently elected who make the rules and system for all future elections, and are often pretty structurally required to perpetuate whatever the existing system is, however unrepresentative it might be. (Campaign finance reform comes to mind.) There is no "none of the above" option, there is no even viable third party option. When the choices are just apples and oranges, it's impossible to tell if people actually would prefer strawberries. I think there are probably quite a lot of people at the moment — heck, I know there are, of all different political stripes, for different reasons — who doubt the legitimacy of the current American government and doubt the ability of the elections to actually establish true consent. (And voter turnout rates are significant. If far less than a majority of eligible voters can be stirred to actually participate in elections, how legitimate are the elections as sign of popular will?) Anyway as you can tell I find it to be quite a flimsy idea. I would perhaps qualify it as enough consent of the governed that they don't chop your head off in frustration but that's a low bar. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding if you think there's universal suffrage today amongst the governed. Do children and teenagers get to vote?  How about permanent residents of the United States?  How about criminals?  In what ways are these groups of people not "governed" by the United States, and in what ways have they consented to a government that they had no role in creating?  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The hidden question no one is asking is whether universal, permanent, and irrevocable consent to be governed is a good thing. What I mean by that is whether it would be good for society if every person was allowed complete and total freedom to do whatever they want, without bounds, from birth to death.  Does that mean I have the freedom to kill another person without cause and without reprocussions?  If I kill another person, and if that person didn't consent to being killed, am I not taking from them the very freedom I claim I have a right to?  If am not allowed to kill you, then my freedom is not total.  If I am allowed to kill you, then your freedom is not total.  So what decision do we make as a society in allowing consent to be governed?  Freedom is a good, but is it a complete and universal good?  How much of a good thing is too much?  Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a lot to say on this topic, see social contract.  -- Jayron  32  03:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * None of this have anything to do with universal suffrage. How is allowing everyone to vote the same as allowing "complete and total freedom to do whatever they want"?  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Teenagers can vote, provided they've reached the age of 18. Those under 18 cannot vote. But that's a decision made by consent of the governed, not by a dictator. Currently the US is engaged in a protracted discussion to determine our next leader. That leader will be chosen by consent. Compare that with a place like Libya or Syria, where the only way to get "consent" is by violent overthrow of the current leader. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's a decision made by the consent of some of the governed, excluding those under 18. In the same way, blacks and women were excluded from the vote by the consent of some of the governed, namely white males, often using the same reasons that justify excluding teens: namely, irrationality/immaturity of blacks/women/teens.  It's amazing how, the moment people start declaring "universal rights", they start making exceptions--a process that continues to this day.  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True about the minorities, but it's not a fair comparison. Those who are under 18 are normally considered legally incompetent for lots of things, only one of which is voting. Maybe the voting age will be lowered again someday (it used to be 21), for example maybe to 17 or 16, but that's not a decision to be made lightly. Parents are responsible for their children's behavior, which is why typically juvenile criminals are treated less harshly than if they were adults. It's a two-edged sword. For example, if you lowered the voting age to 12, you would also require sending a 12 year old to prison for shoplifting, as one example. With rights come responsibilities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering. If a child breaks a window, his parents are responsible. Wouldn't it be logical that if a child has "grown up" responsibilities, even though his parents are the ones who will have to pay for the window, that a child also gets the "grown up" rights, where the parents get to vote extra on their behalf? (Not that I would like such a thing to be implemented, I happen to dislike democracy already and it would get even worse) Joepnl (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always assumed that consent was implicitly granted through not rioting or revolting (or, I suppose, engaging in more minor forms of civil disobedience). If the governed (as a whole - it's not an individual thing) withdraw their consent to being governed by a particular government, then they simply stop doing what that government tells them to do (and either don't do what anyone tells them, which is a riot, or start doing what someone else tells them, which is a revolution). The concept that a government can only govern with the consent of the governed arises because there is no way to force an entire population to do what you want if they object strongly enough to it (as several dictators have recently learned the hard way). --Tango (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is through elections (and through employing the bill of rights) that we express our consent. We Americans have a peaceful "revolution" every couple of years in November, and we express our displeasure in the interim, if necessary. The people of Libya and Syria have had no such option. There choice was "obey or die". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How does there being an election indicate that people give consent? I don't see the connection. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tango. Let's assume Facebook, having a population slighty bigger than Europe and more than twice the US, would let people vote on one of their four brand new, easy and cheap pay-per-like plans. They even didn't lie before the elections and implemented the new payment policy exactly according to the outcome. There would be no consent at all by people who didn't vote, even if they knew they had the right to vote. Even the users voting for the least evil option of the four provided by Facebook could have done so because the other three were even worse (and getting all friends to switch to MySpace wasn't really an option). IANAL, but I guess that by law, the questionnaire should have the option "Forget about me and my creditcard details immediately" and that all non-voters should be counted as having chosen that option. Every organisation has to let people opt-in, not opt-out if they don't want to do business with them. Organisations that don't even have an immediate opt-out option are usually considered mafia. The only reason Facebook has to abide by these rules is that they don't have the police force the US has. If Facebook had that, everyone would be "consenting" every four years to having Facebook phasing out incandescent light bulbs. Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you need faith to live?
I don't mean, religious faith in some after life or divinity, but faith that things work in a certain predictable way. In the most extreme case, you need faith in the sun going up and down, in nobody starting a nuclear war, and no terrorist bombing you, and so on. You could also claim that from previous experience, these things are non-existent or extreme uncommon. But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us. Your partner could have a STD and have lied, she could be a gold-digger, your bank could go bankrupt and you could lose your job. Wouldn´t we, without faith in some kind of order, get nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The most important thing you need to have faith in is your own senses and your own perceptions. There is no way to ultimately prove to yourself that your entire experience is not an elaborate hallucination, or that your perceptions match reality.  You need to operate under the assumption that they do, because it isn't possible to operate in the world without first proving that the world exists to yourself.  That requires faith, perhaps the biggest leap of faith of all.  For people who have that faith, but whose life really is an elaborate hallucination, they've got scizophrenia.  In many ways, that level of faith, which operates at such a base level, is the most important thing you have.  -- Jayron  32  18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us."
 * This is precisely the type of faith that prevents people from preparing adequately for common tragedies. If you didn't have faith that you're somehow immune from tragedy, you would use protection when having sex, examine your partner's personality before committing to a relationship, get deposit insurance, and get employment insurance, respectively, to protect against the tragedies you mentioned.  --128.112.203.94 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about using knowledge, logic and rational thought instead of faith? The first three tell me that the chances of nuclear war or terrorist bombing where I live are very low. It would tell me that I can take inexpensive precautions in relationships. It tells me that the sun will come up tomorrow. No faith is required. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you know, for certain, that you are typing stuff in Wikipedia right now, and not in a hospital bed, drooling on yourself, and just imagining that you are? Logic and reason are absolutely necessary to operate constructively in the world, but what good is logic to a hallucination?  At some point, you have to accept that your very knowledge of the world rests on your brain's interpretation of it, and you have to have faith that your brain works right.  You don't experience reality, ever.  You experience a perception of reality, and you can only take on faith that your perception matches reality well enough to allow you to interact reliably with that reality.  -- Jayron  32  19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem of induction may be relevant in this context. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * HiLo, I contend that faith absolutely is required, even for mundane (or solane) things like the Sun rising every morning. Sure, it's risen a billion times before, but does that mean it will necessarily rise again tomorrow with 100% certainty, no possible shadow of doubt?  No, it doesn't.  It is possible that it won't rise tomorrow.  No scientist worthy of the name could ever dispute that.  (Likely?  That's a different question entirely.)  Hence, for you to operate in the belief that it will rise tomorrow, you need faith.  We all exercise faith a thousand times a day without ever giving it any conscious thought.  Every time you sit in a chair, you have faith that it will support you and not have you sprawling all over the floor.  Every time you turn on a tap, you have faith that water will come out.  And so on ad nauseam. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, one puts faith in people daily - who are not bound by the laws of physics in a relevant sense. Faith not to have poisoned your lunch, faith to stop at the crossing. Sure, those things might be unlikely, but people do not think - oh, it's probably not poisoned - they do not consider the possibility. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Faith" is a problematic term. If you mean that humans must make a number of inductive and deductive conclusions based on sparse evidence and the testimony of others, then yes, that's the case. Neither form of inferences are perfect, but they're not the same thing as "blind faith." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I fly, I have faith that the mechanics and the flight crew know what they're doing and will get the plane to its destination safely. My faith could be misplaced, but it does serve the purpose of my not worrying, i.e. of not being afraid to fly. Faith is also based on experience. The more things happen routinely, the greater faith you will have that they will continue to happen routinely. When they don't, of course, that's where "news" can come from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Faith - 1) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


 * When you get on a commercial flight, you don't "have faith" in the pilot, you "trust" the pilot, the flight crew, and the airline company based on how many times it has flown safely in the past. When you go out every morning to watch the sunrise, that is trust based on the number of times the sun has rose in the past at that specific time, the fact that the Earth rotates, and that it orbits the Sun.


 * When you get on a rickety plane that has not flown for 50 years with your 90-year old grandmother on the cockpit (whose only vehicle-related experience is with a bike), that is having faith. When you go out in the middle of the night to watch a sunrise because your neighborhood witch-doctor told you there would be one at 12:00 AM, that is having faith on the witch-doctor.


 * Trust is earned, faith is given.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference between trust and faith is just semantic. Both cannot be reached from axioms + deductions + induction, so, both are somehow irrational (in the sense of not rational, not in the sense of crazy). 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Faith" doesn't seem to be the right word to describe my feelings about the sun rising tomorrow, or water coming out of a tap. Rather, I just "assume" it will, based on experience plus knowledge plus logic plus..... Its a linguistic thing, I guess. (Maybe this thread should be at the Language Ref Desk.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And not a single reference was provided! --Cerlomin (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes their meanings overlap in colloquial usage and faith is technically a kind of trust. But it's a kind of trust that does not require prior evidence in its most predominant use. As we grow up, we learn that the world works in certain ways, it follows logical patterns barring unforeseen events, and that there are some things we can expect based on certain precursors. You don't go around trying to hug lions for instance. Bertrand Russell from our article on faith: ""Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."


 * The only way you can live entirely on faith is when you stop making decisions altogether. Everytime you come across a choice, you pick one at random or from a predetermined approach without considering the current circumstances (e.g. always pick the left path, always choose the red one). I don't exactly call that living.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And @ Cerlomin, oh ye of little faith. :P A few of us have linked articles, which have references. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is not living with faith alone, but with living without faith at all, in a pure rational way. Apparently, you'll always have a weak point in your system, when being rational it's too much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then yes. Every now and then you do make a "leap of faith", I guess. But certainly not in the examples others have given above. I will never board a plane based on faith alone.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between the sunrise and the plane flight is that the sun always rises in the east, whereas planes do crash sometimes. When I board a plane, I have faith that it won't crash this time. There is an element of fact involved, i.e. that crashes are rare, especially in large commercial aircraft. But unlike with driving a car (where the probability of an accident is higher), I have no control over the mechanics and the flight crew. I have put my faith (or trust, or belief, or whatever) in their hands. By doing so, I have no fear of flying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://mlbible.com/hebrews/11-1.htm.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * have anyone checked the credentials of a doctor before an operation? Or of the pilot? Sometimes if things go wrong it's too late to learn, so why trust/faith/whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking direct proof for proof. How many times have you flown with an unlicensed pilot in a commercial airline? How many times have you been treated by an unlicensed doctor in a respectable hospital?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know because I don't check such things. I have faith that it won't happen to me, LOL. On the other hand, I'm sure that some taxi driver was drunk as he drove me around, however. Anyway, your argument still does not excludes Jayron's scenario: what if everything is just an illusion? What if I'm just still connected to the matrix? 88.8.76.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Nobody can deny the possibility that everything is just an illusion. It's irrational to believe, with 100% certainty, that the world is not an illusion, and certainly irrational to have "faith" in that belief.
 * Also, the number of times that passengers failed to take basic precautions because they had faith that their car/plane won't crash, and paid for that mistake with their lives, is hard to count. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A race car driver pushing the limits of man and machine does not have faith per se, I don't think, unless we are going to call faith in self a form of faith for the purposes of addressing the topic here. A race car driver doesn't have the time or the leisure to have faith because he is in control of a situation that could spin out of control at any minute. Faith, in such a scenario, is replaced by caution, judgement, and the will to perform at a high level. So, the answer to the section heading for this thread ("Do you need faith to live?") is: yes, sometimes you need faith to live, or sometimes you can and probably will employ faith in the course of daily living, but no, you do not always need or employ faith in life. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To address an earlier distinction: trust can, and usually is, be based on induction. The problem is that induction is itself limited. I trust my morning cereal won't kill me because it hasn't in the past, not because I believe it is infallible. Of course, I might get the bad batch tomorrow — past experience does not guarantee future outcomes. That's the problem of induction in a nutshell. It's not the same thing as blind faith, faith in the absence of evidence. I would suggest that most of our experiences as described above are less cases of faith than they are induction — they are based on experience (and perception of experience), not belief. There's an important difference there. Nobody is saying that this is entirely logical — it's not, and there is plenty of room for logical fallacy (induction is itself a form of logical fallacy, but a useful one) and errors in perception. But it's not the same thing as faith. One doesn't have complete trust in any of these things outside of experience, and when experience (or, again, perception) argues against it, people stop trusting pretty quickly. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think "blind faith" is really what the OP is asking about. And it's not exactly the same as how we colloquially define trust or faith.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In some respects, people who suffer from 'proper' OCD (not someone who likes to keep their CDs in alphabetical order, but someone with the real condition that can devastate lives) suffer from a lack of faith. The regular population enjoys many faiths that OCD sufferers may not: faith in oneself, faith that disease and contamination isn't rampant, faith that others will behave predictably, faith that terrible accidents don't occur without certain knowledge, and, a metaphorical phrase I once heard, faith that there's no monster living under the stairs (because you can't prove there isn't one). Without these faiths, life can be anything from difficult to tragically intolerable. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably, a symptom of OCD could be frequent hand-washing. In such a case, the person has to have faith that the water and the soap are not contaminated. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - but many (almost all?) OCD sufferers have an unwarranted faith in some ritual to help. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Handwashers don't necessarily have faith in handwashing - it's typical that they'll continue washing for a very long time and/or repeat the ritual within moments because they lack faith that it's done the job. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So, summarizing: we have the induction problem (pointed by Mr.98) related to trust and the 'is everything an illusion' of Jayron? But is there any additional problem to have a world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.16.11 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't have a "world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts". Are there not explorers in this world? People try to do things in which they are anything but assured of success. We are adventurers on some level or another. In the midst of an "adventure", can you pause to recalculate all metrics that might be applicable? If you define your "world view" narrowly, this might be possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Logic, reason, and facts are all part of an inductive approach to the world. They aren't incompatible. The problem it that there is always a loophole of the unknown, and the fact that prior experience doesn't guarantee future experience. But for practical purposes an inductive worldview works pretty well if it is truly always taking in new information, trying to process it, and aware of its own biases. There's always going to be problem that you're not omniscient, so having an air-tight understanding of the world is never going to be possible. It's not necessarily even desirable. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it faith we use to get by? Or is it rough-and-ready risk assessment? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "rough-and-ready risk assessment" you mean, "inductive logic" (that is, judgments about the present and future based on experience with the past), that's what I've been arguing. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, and moreover I think people use the key questions of formal risk assessment: how likely is it to happen, how bad would it be if it did happen. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To use one of the OP's examples, I don't have faith that no-one will start a nuclear war tomorrow. I have concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the probability of someone starting a nuclear war tomorrow is sufficiently low and the harm from me making plans to have lunch tomorrow rather than planning to build a bunker sufficiently low (particularly given that really, whatever preparations I make, if a nuclear war does kick off I'm screwed anyway) that I don't need to take it into account when planning my day. "Faith" doesn't come into it, it's just a standard risk assessment of the type everyone makes all the time (I crossed a road in order to get to work this morning - I concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the chance of me getting hit by a car was sufficiently low that the harm from missing work outweighed the possible harm from getting run over). --Tango (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)