Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 6

= February 6 =

Greek protests targeting inequity of austerity?
Does anyone here read (modern) Greek? What I have read in English about the domestic impact of the Greek crisis includes the following: 1) Stringent austerity is being imposed on the Greeks through the cutting of public services, and this is having a disproportionate impact on less well-off Greeks. 2) Tax evasion is widespread among affluent Greeks, and the government efforts to end tax evasion have been ineffective. 3) Greeks have been mounting massive protests against the austerity. What I have not seen anywhere is that Greeks are protesting their government's failure to impose the burden of austerity fairly by forcing the affluent to hand over revenue, revenue that might allow for less stringent cuts.  Do the Greek protests include this element, or are less affluent Greeks complacent about this issue?  Thanks.  Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anything that suggests that increasing income rates beyond what was proposed would make a material difference. This is being attacked pretty much from the standpoint of writing off a good part of their sovereign debt.  I think for the Greeks it is us against the world, so to speak, they do not seem greatly concerned with internal dissensions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a question of raising tax rates but of enforcing tax rates. I'm just wondering if the equity issue comes up in the Greek discourse. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that squeezing money out of the rich is notoriously difficult. They can hide assets, hire teams of lawyers, and even move, with their money, to someplace with no extradition treaty. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not always that difficult. In Italy and Greece, Google Maps are proving very effective to prove that many wealthy people have huge unregistered real estates. They can't move their villas to Monaco, even if they want to. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They can sell them and move the proceeds. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument that if we tax the rich, they and/or their money will leave our jurisdiction is open to many objections. The rich can't live in one place and keep their money in another without exposing that money to taxation when they bring the money in, in the form of income, or when they use that money to buy a residence or other assets, which become taxable property.  The government has the right to audit, and a government committed to combating tax evasion would do so and would target wealthy individuals to reap the maximum advantage from audits.  Then there is the argument that the rich will pick up and leave entirely and, if necessary, renounce their citizenship. First, this may be true, but probably only for a limited number of individuals.  People, including rich people, do not typically choose the country where they live based on their exposure to tax.  If this were true, there would be no rich people in France.  (Yes, I am aware that a few rich French people have moved to Switzerland or elsewhere.)  Rich people choose to live in France, or the United States, regardless of taxes, because of the amenities of the place, cultural affinities such as language, and family ties.  There is nowhere else in the world like Paris, Manhattan, or Nantucket, and these places will always attract rich people as long as tax rates are not extortionate. Similarly, most rich Greeks are unlikely to leave the posh neighborhoods and suburbs of Athens or their villas on exclusive islands for some other country if the Greek state starts forcing them to pay taxes. Leaving the country would force them to live in a foreign country, with an unfamiliar, language, climate, and culture, and far from friends and relatives who do not make the same choice. Most rich people would rather pay their taxes and postpone the purchase of a second yacht or whatever rather than go into exile. Second, as for those rich people who would rather go into exile than pay their fair share, I think it is rational for citizens of a country to say to them "Good riddance".  Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, the rich would be good targets, and the Greek tax system should be overhauled. Collecting more legally owed taxes would have a positive kind of Balanced budget multiplier effect. But Greece's problem is not really the debt or inequity, but the fact that it is in the Eurozone. The Euro is an economic suicide pact, designed during the nadir of a dark age of economics, and as originally envisioned MUST destroy the economies of all its members, including Germany, whose Euro hoarding, unemployment exporting "reform" policies of underpaying its workers and lowering German demand are at the heart of the immediate problem. Austerity is a burden which should not be shared, but rather, not imposed at all. The modus operandi of the ECB, the Eurocrats who are torturing a continent, is to only support the bonds of members who embark on suicidal Robin Hood in reverse, take from the poor to give to the rich austerity policies that create massive unemployment. Greece could go it alone by simply jumping off the Euro, or by the halfway measure of saying that its bonds are redeemable for tax payments, which would immediately lower rates.  But the problem is that increasing inequity, the destruction of Europe's productive and efficient welfare states and social programs which are great benefits to their economies, not costs, is the desired goal of many European elites, not an unfortunate side effect.  And they don't care how many they impoverish and kill, how much the European economies are wrecked if they can be the overlords of these degenerating economies. If tax evasion or corruption, bad in themselves, accelerate the departure of Greece from the Euro, they could be doing a lot of good.John Z (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite an extreme minority view. It's self-evident to just about everyone but you that spending more than you make and borrowing to fill in the gap is unsustainable and will eventually lead to major problems, regardless of whether Greece is alone or in the Euro.  The cure is to stop doing that and pay back what you borrowed, AKA, "austerity". StuRat (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing I said would have been outrageous or surprising to anyone who studied economics before 1970-80. Around then, the flawed but basically sound "Keynesian" consensus, (preceded in the USA by the similar, dominant Institutional economics ) was replaced by a succession of nonsenses. Simultaneously the "leading" departments stopped teaching courses on the history of economics, finance and accounting. I took the phrase "dark age of (macro)economics" referring to the present from Paul Krugman. It is the function of government to spend more than it taxes ("makes"), and this has necessarily been the case since the birth of monetary economies. Wynne Godley's prescient 1992 warning of the problems which would arise under the astoundingly bad design of the Euro is here. Government deficits are infinitely sustainable. Surpluses and practically speaking, even balanced budgets are not. In a normal country like the USA, government debt is really just a form of money. (Base) money (reserves, currency) is government debt. Everybody used to understand this. "Government credit and government currency are really one and the same thing" FDR's 2nd Fireside chat. If every actor in an economy spends less money than it "makes", then where on earth could this money come from in the first place? Somebody has to print the money, print the bonds, mint the coins.
 * The ECB prevents Greece from paying back what it borrowed, by artificially, for political purposes, creating a scarcity of Euros in Greece & hence mass unemployment and depression. A growing Greek economy would be much more able to pay off its debts, even denominated in Euros. The ECB even enforces haircuts on banks holding Greek debt, who are basically its relatively innocent victims too. But when Eurocrat apparatchiks replace elected leaders, suddenly the ECB becomes more generous, even though the apparatchiks make the debts less payable. It's exactly what the IMF did for decades to third world countries. Intentional infliction of misery & endless debt peonage.John Z (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Access to source needed! The mutiny on the Meermin / (2003) Alexander, Andrew
The mutiny on the Meermin / (2003) Alexander, Andrew; Thesis (Hons. (History))--University of Cape Town

We're trying to work The Meermin slave mutiny up; I know I've seen this (or at least parts of it) online, can;t for the life of me remember how / where. Can anyone get this for us? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pesky, you'd probably have better luck asking the folks at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. :P -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added to Nortonius' request there. The theses library at University of Cape Town would have it, if anyone has any contacts there? Pesky   ( talk  …stalk!) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a relationship between continental philosophy and the intelligent design movement?
I don't know, but the two Wiki articles I've read (more like briefly scanned) use freakishly similar wording!

Continental Philosophy: "First, continental philosophers generally reject scientism, the view that the natural sciences are the only or most accurate way of understanding phenomena."

Neo-creationism: "Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe."

Simply put, is neo-creationism another name for continental philosophy, or simply uses the words from continental philosophy to rationalize creationism? 164.107.190.123 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they most emphatically do not. Do not scan. Read. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not much of an answer, is it? Perhaps you could explain to me and the OP, since it seems so obvious to you, why the OP's quote about continental philosophers rejecting scientism places them so far apart from creationists.  --Viennese Waltz 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I had it typed out, but then I realized I was merely repeating what was already in the article if the OP would read beyond the first sentence of the first bullet. Since snarkiness is the mood of the day though, here's my attempt at a summary of the article just for you and in memory of the Baker. Note that I'm no philosopher, and couldn't tell Kant from Kierkegaard from Klingon, but I'll karry on nonetheless.


 * Continental philosphy defines a philosophical tradition in continental Europe that tend to focus on the less quantifiable problems in philosophy (e.g. sociology, spirit, political thought, thought, ethics, art, freedom, the human experience, etc., subjects that would fit under the "Humanities" subject in uni I guess) and are contrasted from analytic philosophers prevalent in English-speaking countries in the same time period who use natural sciences (e.g. mathematics and formal logic) to deal with philosophical problems.


 * The obvious differences first - ID is late 20th century American, continental philosophy is 19th to early 20th century continental Europe. The former is a specific group working together under one religion and one dogma, the latter is a loose collective of various thinkers bound by trend rather than a strict code and encompassed ideas as far apart from each other as Absurdism and Marxism.


 * The more subtle differences - What continental philosophy rejects is not science (as in the hard sciences and specifically evolution like neo-creationism does), but the assertion that the "truth" can be arrived at through empirical approaches. But like analytic philosophy, science, and indeed "true" religion, continental philosophy also seeks a/the truth.


 * Neo-creationists and ID, on the other hand, do not seek anything. They have already found it, a truth that nothing can dissuade them from. Their pretense at philosophy/science are merely the misrepresentation, rearranging, and various confabulations of "evidence" so that it fits into that inviolable conclusion. The true motives of neocreationism is not the revival of non-empirical approaches to philosophy, rather it is a far more mundane goal - the reinstitution of [specifically Christian] creationism as a valid subject to be taught in public schools.


 * One is sincere, the other is a liar. It's almost insulting to compare the two. --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why creationists want the "reinstitution of [specifically Christian] creationism as a valid subject to be taught in public schools" so badly? What is the point? Why do they want to achieve this goal? I've read about the Wedge document on Wikipedia, but I am still clueless. The document talks about the 5-year plan and 25-year plan about changing society and reversing the so-called disastrous effects on Western culture without really going into detail what exactly are the very bad effects that evolution has on society. 164.107.190.2 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And ID uses "scientific" terminology to sound more respectable than they really are. There's probably a guidebook somewhere forbidding them to use philosophical/religious terminology in case it breaks the illusion they're desperately trying to build.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think a case could be made for a connection. The intelligent design movement is largely a U.S. phenomenon, and I think it counts on the exposure of Americans who have attended college or university since about 1985 to continental philosophy or to discourses influenced by continental philosophy.  In particular, the rejection by these discourses of much of the project of the Enlightenment and in particular of positivism created an opening for intellectual movements such as intelligent design that reject the scientific method as a definitive way of finding truth.  Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that again ID does not reject science. It pretends to be one.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, that means that Godel and Russell and Wittgenstein are supporting intelligent design because they demonstrated the limits of crude empirical approaches to truth!!! OH NOES. Zizek is really the anti-pope!!!!  Fifelfoo (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question, though, no, neo-creationism is not another name for continental philosophy. Continental philosophy would be just as sceptical, if not more sceptical, of epistemological appeals to supernatural causes as it is of the scientific construction of knowledge.  Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is scientism a real word? If so, what does it mean?HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you know this site happens to be an encyclopedia? Cool, huh... --Mr.98 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are simple examples of what each of these believe. A continental philosopher might contend that a purely empirical or scientific understanding is not going to tell you what "power" is really about. They might argue that there are aspects to it that cannot be quantified, or can only be understood through deep historical and literary immersion. They might also argue that there are aspects to it which might defy a strictly empirical understanding: that looking at how people act or asking them what they think or measuring their brain waves or whatever is not really going to tell you much about the underlying ontology of power.
 * An intelligent design proponent of the sort described there (that is, one which criticizes the scientific method as narrow, in the manner of Phillip E. Johnson) would say that the scientific enterprise as currently exists explicitly rules out the possibility of supernatural intervention — there is simply no place in an equation for "God does something unrepeatable and special," like creating something out of nothing (which the laws of thermodynamics say are not possible). Therefore scientists will warp their understanding of the world through a lens which lacks these sorts of forces. The IDer then argues that there is no a priori reason to expect the world to be wholly "naturalistic" — that this is an arbitrary methodological assumption that has nothing to do with strict reason. They then argue that a more "inclusionist" scientific method might include "a miracle goes here" in their outlook and/or equations or observations, and orient itself around searching out for those little miracles. (ID is not, strictly speaking, fundamentalist Creationism. They are not looking to validate Genesis word-for-word. They are looking for gaps in a purely naturalistic account of evolution. Plenty of Creationists like the quasi-scientific sounds of ID, and see it as a "wedge" by which to inject Creationism into school curricula and the like, but it's not quite the same thing. ID is more sophisticated than garden variety Young Earth Creationism, but that doesn't make it correct.)
 * Agree or disagree with either of them (I'm cautious about the former, rejecting of the latter), but they aren't the same thing at all, as I think the above examples make clear. They are not even really united in rejecting scientific explanation. The former wants to claim that scientific explanation is just another way of knowing and is not privileged; the latter wants to expand scientific methodology to include supernatural explanations. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You could probably draw a link between continental philosophy and the Intelligent Design movement, but such a link would be a twisted and warped misrepresentation of the two. Continental philosophy was a movement which, loosely, believed that truth could be established from non-scientific sources. They were often proponents of a priori reasoning: discovering truths from reason and logic alone, without having to test anything - in the way mathematics can make sense without doing any tests. They also often believed in some sort of metaphysical reality - that is a reality beyond just the natural world (perhaps encompassing the supernatural, the divine, etc). They did not reject science, nor did they attempt to alter or affect science; rather, they didn't believe that science is enough. They accepted that science can provide truth, but argued that truth can be found in other places as well.


 * The Intelligent Design movement, on the other hand, asserts that it is a science. It argues that there is evidence of design in the world and, therefore, God must have created the world. Generally, they also reject Darwinian evolution, believing it to be false or based on inaccuracies, often citing 'proof' of this. Almost all of what they teach is pseudoscience - it is based on false science. For example, much of their rejection on evolution is based on 'facts' which simply are not true, or facts which are true but are irrelevant. The idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is coherent, but could still be achieved through evolution. Most, if not all, of this is based on religious belief, which is what ultimately makes it unscientific. Though they claim to be scientific, they reject any valid piece of evidence which would oppose their view and construct an unfalsifiable theory.


 * So, the difference is quite fundamental. Continental philosophers accept the value of science, but believe that there could be more. The Intelligent Design movement uses poor, false science in an attempt to 'prove' what they already believe, and often have put a political spin on. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to defend ID, but calling it "unscientific" misses the point of the Johnson-style argument, which is that "scientific" is a form of specific methodological bias and not something (by itself) to be aspired to. It's a legitimate philosophical criticism, except for the fact that admission of miracles into science creates far more problems than it would ever solve. It's only a hop, skip, and a jump from Johnson's argument to methodological anarchism, since there isn't anything actually mooring miracles as a must-have methodology either (except faith, but that isn't sound methodology). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, and there are considerable theories in philosophy which suggest that science is not the only way to achieve knowledge. The problem with ID, however, is that is claims that is is scientific, when it is not. It would perhaps hold more weight if it presented itself as a religious or philosophical argument; its insistence that it is scientific is what has left it open to such criticism. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. The Johnson-style variation of ID, which I explain above, contains in it a methodological critique of what it means to be "scientific." Thus saying "it is not scientific" is not itself an actual rebuttal. It claims to be "scientific" only under a modified definition of "scientific," which includes certain types of miracles. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jumping the broom 1848
A fellow owned a slave and had a son by her. He gave that child to his legitimate daughter as a wedding present in 1846. She already had her own female slave. They jumped the broom in 1848. Would that be about right and how would they have jumped it? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See Jumping the broom - for those who, like me, did not have the faintest idea what Kitty's talking about. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, could you rephrase that? I can't tell who "they" refers to. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They refers to the slaves. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jumping the broom talks about this subject. Why do you think there is something odd about the situation you describe? --Tango (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if "they" refers to the slaves, it would be a little odd for a two-year-old to get married, wouldn't it? RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More than "a little odd" - more like "utterly impossible". So, back to square 1.  If it didn't include the 2-year-old boy, who were the "they" who jumped the broom?  Sorry Kitty, but you really need to give us more if you want us to help you.  Even the original question was incomprehensible until I found out for myself what "jumping the broom" meant.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not meaning to imply immediate chronology. The male slave married the female slave before jumping the broom. Equally the white female new owner and her fiance would both have been at least 18 & 20. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. So, antebellum, "most marriages between enslaved blacks were not legally recognized ...".  Hence, any marriage they did enter into was null and void.  Their way of publicly declaring their mutual commitment was to jump the broom.
 * "Would that be about right?" - it seems plausible to me.
 * "How would they have jumped it?" - "In some African-American communities, marrying couples will end their ceremony by jumping over a broomstick, either together or separately".
 * Does that answer your questions, Kitty? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So they probably remained slaves until 1863? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any information from the very limited you've provided to suggest when, if ever, they were freed from slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that the "child" was newborn in 1846, but that's an inference, not stated in the text you give us. Kate Middleton was also her father's child when he 'gave her away' last year but there were no press allegations of cradle snatching. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)