Has anyone seen...

[Puggy]

a documentary/story about a primitive tribe, which one of its members, i would guess the witch, would move straw without, supposedly, any tricks, and that spirits made them move.

After reading a thread in this forum about a supposed psychic which could move stuff with his mind, which Randi found out he did it by blowing at the objects, i would guess this would be the most plausible method the witch would use.

The thing is i have a theist-gullible friend who insists that there were no tricks done. And that the tribe was so primitive that they couldn't know of such trick (does anyone have a bridge to sell?). And he says that THAT story made him believe that spirits did exist.

Well, has anyone seen this documentary/story? My friend doesn't remember on which channel it was, maybe discovery channel? he says it was about 4 years ago.

Thanks!

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Puggy
The thing is i have a theist-gullible friend who insists that there were no tricks done. And that the tribe was so primitive that they couldn't know of such trick (does anyone have a bridge to sell?). And he says that THAT story made him believe that spirits did exist.
A tribe so primitive they don't know that when you blow on straw it moves?
How on earth could anyone with a functioning brain say such a thing?
Even chimpanzees understand trickery and deception.

If your friend is prepared to ignore the entire history of science on the basis of one ludicrous story from a documentary he can't even remember, then my suggestion is... change your phone number.
Friends like that are only going to make you feel sad.

[Azrael 5]

Puggy could you be a bit more vague please,I almost understand your post.;)

[supercorgi]

Originally posted by Puggy
The thing is i have a theist-gullible friend who insists that there were no tricks done. And that the tribe was so primitive that they couldn't know of such trick (does anyone have a bridge to sell?).
I just love how people equate "primitive" with "stupid!" Primitive and/or ancient cultures are far more clever and inventive than modern, "civilized" people give them credit for. And next to prostitution, I would say that chicanery is one of the oldest professions. No, correct that, chicanery is probably far older than sex for money.:D

http://my.voyager.net/~farrago/MyIcons/BrposeR.gif

[Puggy]

Originally posted by Ashles
A tribe so primitive they don't know that when you blow on straw it moves?
How on earth could anyone with a functioning brain say such a thing?
Even chimpanzees understand trickery and deception.


Actually, my friend emphasises that there were NO tricks done. Because the people that made the documentary say so. The checked for strings, and other stuff that could be used to move the straw.

I guess they didn't bother to put a cloth over the witchs mouth.


[B]
If your friend is prepared to ignore the entire history of science on the basis of one ludicrous story from a documentary he can't even remember, then my suggestion is... change your phone number.
Friends like that are only going to make you feel sad.


:D

He's just a theist friend from an mexican atheist group i frequent.

I always get good laughs from his messages, so I don't want to lose him.

Thanks for your responses. I always learn a lot from you.

[Puggy]

Originally posted by supercorgi
I just love how people equate "primitive" with "stupid!" Primitive and/or ancient cultures are far more clever and inventive than modern, "civilized" people give them credit for. And next to prostitution, I would say that chicanery is one of the oldest professions. No, correct that, chicanery is probably far older than sex for money.:D


That's exactly what i thought. If you could get somebody to thing very low of you, he wouldn't except you pulling any tricks. Brilliant.

Yesterday I saw the James Randi lecture from Princeton. He explains how we as humans presuppose lots of things. Which is what my friend was doing when watching the video.

Thanks for your response.

[Puggy]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Puggy could you be a bit more vague please,I almost understand your post.;)

I wish i could, hehe. Actually I was very aprehensive about posting my question.

The stuff I posted was all the info I could get out of my friend. And I was hoping that someone here would remember a lot more than my friend does.

Cheers!

[Ashles]

Oh and welcome to the forum!

[Puggy]

Originally posted by Ashles
Oh and welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the welcome. Actually I was a lurker for a long time before registering on october of last year.

I really enjoy this forum. It has some of the greatest discussions I've ever read.

English is not my natural language, so please bear with my awful grammar.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by supercorgi
I just love how people equate "primitive" with "stupid!" Primitive and/or ancient cultures are far more clever and inventive than modern, "civilized" people give them credit for. And next to prostitution, I would say that chicanery is one of the oldest professions. No, correct that, chicanery is probably far older than sex for money.:D

http://my.voyager.net/~farrago/MyIcons/BrposeR.gif

Quite right, so called primitive societies are in many way, more complex than their more technical counterparts. Remember that machines are designed to make production of goods, physical movement and transfer of information *easier.* Less technical societies did (and still do) everything that our vaunted “civilization� can do (with the possible exception of some transportation modes.) They just don’t do it as fast and that includes things like mass deception and mass killing.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Quite right, so called primitive societies are in many way, more complex than their more technical counterparts.
To be fair I'm not sure there is any way we can really honestly say that.

Certainly "primitive" should not be equated with "stupid" but primitive societies are, without exception, much simpler overall than our modern societies by definition.

Our systems, communication, economies, defensive and protective systems, nationalised and private organisations, medical systems etc. are all massively more complex.

[Metullus]

There is "technologically primative" and there is "socially primative".

One does not necessarily equate with the other. These tribes are certainly technologically primative, but are probably sociologically complex. Socrates was to us a technological primative, but ...

[jmercer]

Welcome to the forum, Puggy!

I have a suggestion for everyone to consider... instead of using "technologically primitive", why not use "technologically ignorant"? This way it applies to many people regardless of how sophisticated their society is.

And believe me, I know a lot of otherwise sophisticated people that view technology in the same way they view magic. Inexplicable, unknowable, and taken on faith...

[Metullus]

I still can't program my VCR so where does that put me?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Metullus
There is "technologically primative" and there is "socially primative".

One does not necessarily equate with the other. These tribes are certainly technologically primative, but are probably sociologically complex. Socrates was to us a technological primative, but ...
And I wouldn't describe Socrates as living in a primitive society.

I can't think of a single 'primitive' tribe or society that could feasibly be described as more complex in any way than current modern societies, which was what you were saying.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by Ashles
To be fair I'm not sure there is any way we can really honestly say that.

Certainly "primitive" should not be equated with "stupid" but primitive societies are, without exception, much simpler overall than our modern societies by definition.

Our systems, communication, economies, defensive and protective systems, nationalised and private organisations, medical systems etc. are all massively more complex.

Naa, I don’t agree. Some of the folks who’ve lived with them do say that

There is no physical reason why one culture developed aircraft while the other kept using blowguns. It all has to do with societal underpinnings and upbringing. I don’t think a person could come out of the rainforest and learn enough engineering to develop a new atomic power plant. But raise one in our society and he/she would have no problem.

You may be equating a complex system with a complex person and I think that’s an unfair assumption. Most people I work with don’t understand much of the very complex systems they are a part of. In fact I might venture to say that the skill set of a so-called “average� primitive person might even be greater than the skill set of an average “first world person.� It’s a question best left to cultural anthropologists to be sure, (I’m not one but I’ve talked at length to a couple about this subject.)

Of course my opinion is biased by watching too many episodes of “Survivor.� ;)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Odd Emperor:

There is no physical reason why one culture developed aircraft while the other kept using blowguns

Guns, Germs, and Steel ?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Metullus
I still can't program my VCR so where does that put me?

About average, I'd say. ;) And my psychic powers tell me that you're not under the age of 15 years old... not because you don't know how to program a VCR, but because you even know what one is. If you were a teenie, you'd have posted something about recording and authoring mpegs. :D

[jmercer]

I guess that on a more serious basis, you can describe a society as technologically primitive. But I do think it's a misnomer when applied to individuals, as The Odd Emperor basically said.

Arthur C. Clarke stated "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". If I encounter a technology that is beyond my understanding, do I consider myself technologically primitive or technologically ignorant?

Maybe it's just semantics. If so, I apologize for the use of bandwidth over a nit.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by Garrette
Guns, Germs, and Steel ?

Ahhh…
Atomic blowguns!

[supercorgi]

deleted -- posted in confusion

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Metullus
I still can't program my VCR so where does that put me?

Missing out on new episodes of Battlestar Galactica?

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Ashles
And I wouldn't describe Socrates as living in a primitive society.

My point exactly.

There certainly are what we might call technolgically primative societies that are not socially primative - civilizations and political communities are notable in their complexity, whether they be Mayans, Sumerians, Beduin, or Norse. The relative complexity of our circumstance is largely, I think, a matter of scale more than anything else. Interpersonal relationships are arguably less complex for us today than otherwise.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
About average, I'd say. ;) And my psychic powers tell me that you're not under the age of 15 years old... not because you don't know how to program a VCR, but because you even know what one is. If you were a teenie, you'd have posted something about recording and authoring mpegs. :D

Could be I'm a history buff. ;)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Ahhh…
Atomic blowguns!

Then it would be Gums, Germs, & Steel , nes pas?

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Missing out on new episodes of Battlestar Galactica?

New episodes! Wow, I better check out the ol' RCA...

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
I guess that on a more serious basis, you can describe a society as technologically primitive. But I do think it's a misnomer when applied to individuals, as The Odd Emperor basically said.

Arthur C. Clarke stated "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". If I encounter a technology that is beyond my understanding, do I consider myself technologically primitive or technologically ignorant?

Maybe it's just semantics. If so, I apologize for the use of bandwidth over a nit.

I suppose that for an individual the term is "technologically challenged"

99% of or discussions here are about "nits". The point is in the nits.

So, are the woos a technologically primative subculture, a mish-mash of semantically challenged individuals, or merely bereft of reasoning ability?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Metullus
So, are the woos a technologically primative subculture, a mish-mash of semantically challenged individuals, or merely bereft of reasoning ability?

How about semantically challenged individuals selectively bereft of reasoning ability who together form a primitive subculture because of their collected individual weakness?

They congregate to affirm one another's beliefs and protect themselves from the dangerous influence of precise, repeatable evidence that contradicts them everywhere they look.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Metullus

So, are the woos a technologically primative subculture, a mish-mash of semantically challenged individuals, or merely bereft of reasoning ability?

The latter, clearly.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
How about semantically challenged individuals selectively bereft of reasoning ability who together form a primitive subculture because of their collected individual weakness?

They congregate to affirm one another's beliefs and protect themselves from the dangerous influence of precise, repeatable evidence that contradicts them everywhere they look.

Now don't go all wishy-washy on us delphi_ote... Just tell us what you think.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
The latter, clearly.

Let this be a lesson to us both, art. As our friend delphi so aptly commented, none of the choices I posited were mutually exclusive. Indeed, all are, in some way, apropos in the examination of woo culture, and (to coin a phrase) psience.

[arthwollipot]

Psience. Now there's a good word.

Yes, delphi was right. I was vacillating towards your second option after I posted. I guess you just can't categorise people like that...

[The Mighty Thor]

I wonder if the tribe was the Azante. They certainly had a culture that believed heavily in witchcraft.

[Metullus]

I suppose I need to develop the psientific method...

1. Make a paranormal claim.
2. Ask around to see if anyone else thinks it is valid.
3. Agree with everyone who agrees with you.
4. Challenge the skepitical community to prove the claim invalid.
5. Explain in convoluted and disjointed language that psience is not subject to scientific testing.

Oh, (rule 8)!

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
How about semantically challenged individuals selectively bereft of reasoning ability who together form a primitive subculture because of their collected individual weakness?

They congregate to affirm one another's beliefs and protect themselves from the dangerous influence of precise, repeatable evidence that contradicts them everywhere they look.

Oh, you mean people who want to escape reality because they're not strong enough to face it? Gee, Why didn't you just say so? ;)

[Metullus]

Your cynicism is showing, JM.

[jmercer]

Oh, no - Rule (8)! I thought I had that removed by a psychic surgeon...

[arthwollipot]

Ummm.... Rule (8)?

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
Oh, no - Rule (8)! I thought I had that removed by a psychic surgeon...

Better check your chicken liver stash...

[Metullus]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
Ummm.... Rule (8)?

Number 8 of our Thou Shalt Nots:

Thou Shalt Not Use Foul or Offensive Language in The Forum.