Humanities desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 4[edit]

Steven Runciman and Bonar Law, whom no one knew[edit]

Our article Bonar Law says that Steven Runciman "is reported to have said that he had known all British Prime Ministers in his lifetime, except Bonar Law whom no one knew". I have been unable to find a source for the saying, which has been marked as needing a citation since 2016. Can anyone help? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A book review in The Economist of the biography Outlandish Knight: the Byzantine life of Steven Runciman contains this sentence:

He could claim in 1991 to have known every 20th-century prime minister except Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who died when he was a toddler, and Bonar Law, “'whom nobody knew'”.

The pronoun "he" presumably refers to Runciman, and the quoted statement is likely based on the book, where the nested quote suggests the book is quoting Runciman. Unfortunately, the book review is behind a paywall, and neither Google Books nor Amazon afford a preview of the book. However, the statement is also reported in the 2007 book The Secret Castle; specifically in the form:

In 1991 he claimed to have known every Prime Minister of the century except Campbell Bannerman, who died when he was three, and Bonar Law, “whom nobody knew.”

This should make the statement sourceable. Runciman's 1991 claim is likely to be found in his book A Traveller's Alphabet: Partial Memoirs, which again has no preview, but if this can be verified, we can forego the "is reported to" and replace the statement in the article by a more direct 'In a memoir, Sir Steven Runciman claimed that he had known all British Prime Ministers in his lifetime, except Bonar Law, "whom nobody knew".<ref>{{cite book|author=Steven Runciman|...}}</ref>'. --Lambiam 09:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement also occurs in this obituary, said to be from The Times – which does not even allow one to search their archives without creating an account. --Lambiam 08:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused[edit]

I feel like I, metaprotégé, might be a fairly important figure in literary sociopolitical history, even in the context of the humanities at large. but my first personal user page was deleted? like, it wasn't even a question. no, "hey, can you please revise this," nothing. I was erased. It was so humiliating, and it wasn't like I'm not used to being "HUMBLE"[ED], like KENDRICK LAMAR, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his work DAMN, a recording released on April 14, 2017--"a virtuosic song collection unified by its vernacular authenticity and rhythmic dynamism that offers affecting vignettes capturing the complexity of modern African-American life" (google it: damn kendrick lamar pulitzer).

It's just, after a while, you start to wonder,

for how long will they attempt to erase my history? like we don't know how to keep it? like the spiritual epigenetics behind call and response, trickling down to hip hop, can't be recorded on wax and sold for millions upon millions of dollars?

I am very confused. how would I go about being respected on these wikimedia commons? can you explain it to me like I'm 5?

with the kindest of regards, bill gates'metaprotégé. Metaprotege (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide more details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaprotege: This is apparently about the deletion (log) of commons:User:Metaprotege. The explanation in the deletion log has links to two Commons pages. I can only see deleted pages here at the English Wikipedia and not at Commons which is a separate wiki but it sounds like the content of your user page was out of scope. It is not a place to write whatever you want. Use your own website or maybe a social networking site or forum for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions were deleted as out of scope for Commons. There is no way to get your contributions to be respected there if you do not change what you intend to contribute. In fact, I have the impression that what you intend to contribute is not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. I suggest you find a blogging platform instead. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clearing that up for me. I sincerely appreciate the feedback, as it gives me a place to go from here.

Metaprotege (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophism and Santa Claus[edit]

Imagine a father (that dont believe at santa claus) say to his son "if you go to school everyday, santa claus will see you are a good kid and give you a new computer at christimas day" just to make him go to school (with lies).

Is this a example of a sophism?201.78.165.220 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way "sophism" is usually used in modern parlance. I see your point, but this is about a small boy versus his father, not adults engaged in debate, and it lacks cleverness, in my opinion, whether effective in some cases or not. Some articles: Paternalistic deception, Lie-to-children, and even Wittgenstein's ladder. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a lie if he doesn't get the promised computer at Christmas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. He said Santa would bring it. Even if you subscribe to the idea that Santa lives in everyone, the use of the name in that way has implications that someone omniscient is judging the child, which is untrue. Matt Deres (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered a sophism, an utterance most contain or imply an argument, leading from premises to a conclusion. There is no argument in the father's communication to his son. It is merely a statement. --Lambiam 07:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Our article is more about the original philosophical position rather than the modern usage, but it would seem that the constituent parts are that it's in the form of an argument, that it be misleading, and that the speaker at some level knows that their argument is fallacious (in the formal sense). In this example, it would be closer to sophistry if the father said, "Look, you want a computer at Christmas, right? Well, we can't afford one, but Santa might bring one to you if you always go to school. Keep in mind, he sees what you're doing, so there's no fooling him." Matt Deres (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Sluzzelin, this father son is just one example I used another example would be if at an small city with a rich spinach farmer this farmer paid the campaign of some mayor and this mayor during the campaign he said "Eating spinach as a child at least 5 times per week will make you a a teenager as strong as popeye. If I get elected you can be sure all schools will have spinach at their meals every day all schools will have this important meal" (while not believe the popeye story), or the owner of an arcade saying to a rich kid "do you know that if you win super street fighter 2 turbo with zangief 150 times in a row the game allow you and others to play as zangief" (the owner not believe at this theory).

To Baseball Bugs, this is a lie because the father thinks santa claus is not real, it would be a lie even if this was a christimas movie where santa claus is real and santa would really give this children this new computer.

To Matt Deres, you said "it would be closer to sophistry if the father said, "Look, you want a computer at Christmas, right? Well, we can't afford one, but Santa might bring one to you if you always go to school. Keep in mind, he sees what you're doing, so there's no fooling him."", yes this is the same thing/example/story I was talking about just worded at a different way.177.177.209.128 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the kid want a computer, or does he really just want verification of the existence of Santa? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a simpler example of a lie, take a quack who says, "My snake oil is a panacea against all ailments. If you buy a bottle and take a spoonful each day, your gout will be gone in a week." There is a simple argument hidden in here: (1) My medication cures all ailments; (2) gout is an ailment; (3) Therefore, my medication cures gout. The Popeye–spinach and Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo examples follow similar patterns, although their conclusions are not explicitly stated. Yet I do not consider this sophistry. In these examples, the deception is merely in using false premises. The logic leading from there to the (implied) conclusions is impeccable. In a hypothetical world in which the mayor is a truthteller, the audience is justified in drawing the conclusion that electing this mayor will result in strong teenagers. I would only call a flawed argument a sophism if there is a deceptively hidden flaw in the logic leading from the premises to the conclusion. --Lambiam 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]