From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:29:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.063209.27499@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>In article 13722@cfctech.cfc.com, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Nevertheless, the intent of these laws is to
>>>ensure that the kid gets his meals paid for, etc. 
>>
>>That may be their _intent_, but I suspect that the current laws are 
>>encouraging the production of illegitimate children, and therefore RAISING, 
>>rather than lowering, the chances of children starving, etc. If so, then the 
>>reforms being proposed can be justified not only on the grounds that the
>>_status quo_ is blatantly unfair to men, from the standpoint of established 
>>principles of legal liability, but on economic grounds as well.
>
>In debate class, this is called a baseless assertion, without any 
>supporting evidence.  If you can get the assertion accepted, then you 
>can make any number of conclusions, none of which are valid.

No, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work.

It is not a baseless assertion (what's this--catch phrase of the week
or something?), it is a hypothesis (see scientific method), based, in
part, on one man's perceptions of the world.  There IS, indeed,
supporting evidence to this effect.  1).  More children than ever before
in this country are raised by single parents.  In part this is due to an
increase in population.  What is more significant is that greater and
greater percentages of children live with a single parent.  85% of these
single parents are MOM.  2).  More children than ever are living in
poverty, according to recent reports.  In part, this is due to an
increase in population.  What is more significant is that greater and
greater percentages of children are living in poverty.  In Cleveland,
which is a fairly large city, the percentage of black children living in
abject poverty is over 50%.  I posted those figures several months ago.

What the courts of America have done--routinely--is place children of
divorce primarily with the parent making the LEAST amount of money, and
giving that parent near absolute authority over the children, then
TRYING to FORCE the other parent to fork over the cash necessary to
support those children, yet not enforcing that paying parent's rights
to access to those same children.  This often creates an extremely
hostile, volatile environment.  The custodial parent is allowed to
disregard the rights of the other parent to access, but the
non-custodial parent can suffer greatly if he or she refuses to pay
support for those children that he or she cannot even see.

Also, the government created a system for economic relief for single
parents--providing that a father for the child was NOT NAMED or was NOT
PRESENT in the same house as the mother and children.  This system,
known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), or "welfare,"
created an environment in which the ONLY way that this single parent
could receive financial aid from the government was by ensuring that
the father of these children was NOT INVOLVED in any way, shape or form
with these children.  There was no FATHER in their definition of
FAMILY.  Therefore, even though initially the need for economic relief
might have been slight and temporary had a more constructive system
which did not tear one parent out of the family picture been in place,
single mothers get LOCKED into this system because there is no way to
get out.  There is no relief of the father of the children--no job
training to enable that father to eventually support his family in
toto, there is little adequate means for this single mother to have
enough free time to get training for herself, so that she might support
these children.  No, once you go on AFDC, many times, you are stuck on
AFDC for years.  And children raised in these government sponsored
FAMILIES turn out disproportionately worse off than their cohorts whose
parents were not caught up in this government system of perpetual
relief and need for relief.

No, the assertion was a hypothesis.  Let me explain how this stuff
works.  When a problem is perceived, it needs to be stated clearly and
accurately.  If we do a good job at stating the problem, we are often
well on our way to finding a solution.  And, the way we go about
finding a solution is to brainstorm a series of possible solutions.
These are "hypothetical" solutions--solutions in waiting.  Then, we
look at these hypotheses, and intuitively and deductively try to
discern which of these are more likely to be THE solution.  Then, we
test these hypotheses first.  We have to design tests that accurately
reflect the variables, and it is also necessary to test a subset of
test subjects were these variables are controlled.  Basically, to these
subjects, we don't apply the variables which we think MAY be the
solution.  Then, we compare the results to the expected or hypothetical
solution and to the controlled subject group.  If we get good results,
we further pursue this hypothesis and put it to further tests.  If not,
then we try other hypotheses.

Now, this method works quite well for "scientific" subjects, but it is
rarely consciously employed for human, societal and intellectual
concerns.  Yet, it can work just as well, as long as we understand what
we are trying to do.  Too often, we try to resolve human, societal and
intellectual problems through intuition or blindly guessing or stabbing
at the problem, then blindly applying simplistic, and often caustic
attempts at solutions to these problems.  We ignore the fundamental
method for achieving real solutions to real problems.  There is often
little follow-up work done to ensure that the proposed solution is
actually achieving the intended results, and often the negative
consequences of these attempted solutions are ignored.  People get
their egos, their reputations and a great deal of money involved in the
process.  All these serve only to impede real progress.

So, if someone asserts that they percieve a problem, that is simply a
statement of their perceptions, nothing more.  Their statements cannot
be whitewashed or ignored by simply bandying that the problem statement
is baseless.  You need to attempt to prove that the assertion is
baseless.  You can't just say it and make it so or not so.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
From: cdoyle@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Candace Doyle)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:16:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Needing help greeting 30!!
Organization: Precision Risc Organization