Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 5

= July 5 =

Latin text
Some years ago, I took GCSE Latin and I remember studying a text called (I think) Tres Feminas. It contained descriptions of three women, two of whom I barely remember. One of them was an old lady (perhaps the writer's grandmother or aunt?) who was a patron of the arts and very much the 'wild rich old lady' stereotype, in a positive way. I think the text was in the form of a letter. Can anyone help find this text, or more information on it? I've searched the title as I remember it, but I'm not having any luck. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming the title is "Tres Feminae", is it this letter by Pliny? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you! Clearly my poor grammar was holding me back :) Exactly the text. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do animals and insects ponder existence?
My guess is no. Perhaps this shows the futility and meaningless pursuit of trying to figure it out at all. Because if we think we've discovered the whole ball of wax (math, how the universe began, studying consciousness, etc.), it may turn out that we're no more incisive than a gnat!--Sam Science (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is that if too many of them insects I mean, do food sharing and trading, honey bees, termites they may develop groups that find themselves with free time to ponder. What then? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering Samscience, how we would know if an animal pondered existence. We may be the only species that analyses and records stuff and put it outside of our own brains, but we can't say for sure that we are the only ones pondering – but then we are an arrogant species... Julia Rossi (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we can make educated assumptions based on how complicated their brains are and how the insects themselves behave, for example. Insect brains are pretty small and simple, and they never show any signs of sapience, consciousness or metacognition, for example -- all of which, I think it's safe to say, are pretty much prerequisites for pondering one's existence. The fact that we have no reason to believe that any insect could grasp, even on the simplest conceptual level, this very conversation indicates that they wouldn't have the capability to ponder existence. Or, to put it differently, if they are more intelligent than we think, they're not only hiding it really well, but managing it in some way we have seen no indications of, because it's certainly not happening in their brains.


 * But that's insects. Some animals, notably chimpanzees, are a hell of a lot smarter than, oh, crickets. Do they really ponder their existence in any advanced sense? Well, probably not. It's a pretty complicated concept, really. But chimps and other great apes have displayed good cognitive skills, including the ability to learn to communicate abstract concepts with humans -- which may sound simple, but it's really leaps and bounds beyond what the cats and dogs -- or insects -- can do. Oh, and dolphins are also intriguingly intelligent, but that's apparently a topic we're still not very knowledgeable about. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Insects ARE animals. So are humans. Therefore, animals have indeed pondered existence, because humans have and they are animals. ScienceApe (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, semantics! What a wonderful way to answer a question without actually providing any of the information requested. Well done! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. ScienceApe (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler condemned as war criminal?
Could Hitler been condemned as war criminal? If he was not condemned, is it right to suppose he could be inocent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.92.109 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Hitler was condemned as a war criminal, repeatedly. He was certainly not innocent.-- Neo  Nerd  11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because Hitler was not brought to trial at the Nuremberg Trials it is not right to suppose he was innocent. However it is difficult to disprove that he was not an 'unwitting dupe' in the whole affair/thing; though I imagine that most people would not take such an idea seriously given his track record ie anti-semitic speaches etc..87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that Hitler could be innocent. However, if we take the presumption of innocente to its extreme (not condemned by a tribunal = innocent), is it right to suppose he could be innocent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.92.109 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Presumption of innocence is a pretty basic legal concept, and one that the Nüremberg Trials followed, to the best of my knowledge. However, you should bear in mind that just because someone is not proved to be guilty, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent, or even considered to be innocent by the rest of the world. A pretty famous example of this is O.J. Simpson, who was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend in criminal court -- and he was still found guilty of the act in a civil case, and many people think he did it and shouldn't have been released.


 * Interrupting to make a correction: the judgement in the civil case was that Simpson was liable for the crime. Only in a criminal case could he be found guilty. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, July 6, 2008.


 * Thanks for the interruption, I guess. I realize that there's a legal distinction, but the point is that the judgment indicated that OJ was not just some guy who had nothing to do with the crime. The judge couldn't find OJ guilty of the murder, since that wasn't what the trial was about, and in any case he had already been found not guilty of the murder earlier, so what with double jeopardy and all, he was off the hook -- and yet the judgment was that he was liable. In essence, the court was saying that it believed that OJ killed them. This was pretty much the exact opposite of what the murder trial decided. Anyway, my original response continues below... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what the murder trial decided was that he had not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "We believe he did it" is not the opposite of that.   --Anon, 22:21 UTC, July 7.


 * Yeah, okay. Do you perhaps disagree with the basic point I'm making here, that OJ is an example of someone being found not guilty of a crime and yet made to pay for that crime elsewhere, or do you just want to argue the semantics? If it's the latter, hey, you win. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a correction, not an argument. I have no argument with what you intended to say, but what you did say was wrong. (And could be construed as libelous.) --Anon, 06:20 UTC, July 9.


 * That's fair enough. (As for libel, hey, he's welcome to sue my ass.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I have no doubt that Hitler would have been found guilty, not only because of overwhelming evidence but because there's no way he could have been found not guilty. I think it's pretty much inconceivable that the Allies could have had the man in charge of Germany at the time on trial and not convict him. The man was pretty much the whole Nazi Reich personified; he would have to be guilty, no matter what, for reasons of politics, image, credibility and satisfaction, and at least some sense of justice -- even (and perhaps especially) if it was completely illusionary. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the massive and overwhelming presumption of his guilt, Hitler and his lawyers would probably have argued that there was no way he would be getting a fair trial, either in Nuremberg or anywhere else in the world, ever, so they may as well release him and let him get on with his memoirs. The judges would probably have said "You know what, you're dead right, it isn't a fair trial.  But we're still going to try you, find you guilty, and sentence you to death."  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I think the "can't get a fair trial here" concept only relates to jury trials. Judges are supposed to be capable of the kind of reasoning where they can set aside the prejudicial factors and deliver a fair decision based only on the evidence presented.  There would surely have been massive amounts of evidence available against Hitler if he had lived to face the courts.  --Anonymous, 05:15 UTC, July 6, 2008.


 * This is, of course, why jury trials are not popular in many parts of the world. Our article on them puts it rather well: "it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen." (I'm not arguing for or against jury trials, I should probably stress.) In any case, arguments like this were raised at the time as well, as our article on the Nuremberg Trials details -- that since the judges were chosen by the victors, no one could get an impartial trial. A fairly solid counter-argument appeared in Juridicial Review, 1946:


 * "Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.'"


 * There were numerous other problems with the trials, many felt, chief among them that, essentially, the entire situation was blatantly biased, what with the creation of ex post facto laws and the dismissal of tu quoque defenses and the judges generally making shit up as they went along. In retrospect, I think a lot of those arguments were pretty solid: I think the Allies definitely set up the trials in the jolly spirit of getting some goddamn payback, no matter how they dressed them up; the political pressure to convict these people was tremendous, and I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the judges were immune to that, even if they did their very best to be as fair as anyone could be. It's not a good basis for a fair trial. On the other hand, if anyone had it coming, those guys did. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to yesterday´s news report, he has been decapitated shortly after 10 AM CET in Berlin. The heinous act of vandalism (maybe an oxymoron in this context) has been lauded even by the Berlin police.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone else is as confused by that last comment as I was, it apparently refers to a wax dummy of Hitler being decapitated yesterday. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Misotheism etc.
OK, I've read the misotheism article and it doesn't answer my question, so here it is: is there a name for a theory/doctrine that God is good in His intent, but incompetent in His actions? Or to put it another way, that He's bitten off more than He can chew? And are there any notable proponents of such a view? - Hence Piano (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gnosticism would be one possibility, being a philosophy which argues, at least, that creation / reality has a few bugs which are inherent in the gap between the perfect idea and the imperfect physical framework of the implementation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gnosticism is classically associated with the idea of the Demiourgos, or a creator of the world who is actually quite different from the true high God. The Demiourgos can be misguided or malevolent, but I'm not sure about incompetent... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Process Theology teaches that God is constantly developing, and thus does not have sovereignty over the universe. You might also view different theories of the Atonement... the notion that Christ died out of love (taught by men such as Peter Abelard) sometimes plays out in doubting the deity of Christ or the goodness of God in letting it happen.  Liberal theology has much to offer in this area. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Milner Bailey, 2nd Baronet
What was the cause of death of Sir John Milner Bailey, 2nd Baronet? He was a former son-in-law of Sir Winston Churchill and his father was Sir Abe Bailey. I see on Wikipedia that Sir John was 46 when he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.200.130 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some more information on him at Bailey Baronets, but I can't trace a cause of death. He died in Cape Town. If you really need the cause of death, your most reliable source would be to get hold of a copy of his death certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths in the South African Department of Home Affairs, see here. Xn4  ( talk ) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

two question involve, about aesthetics and thinking
1.while we are touched by a beatiful scene(for example, the sky's blue after long term cloudy days) or touched by a rymthm of blue music, what make us "touched" inside our brain? what's the phisical or chemical reaction inside our body, what make us delighted by these?

2.what's the physiological meaning for these kind of feeling? If we lost it(any possibillity on it?),what's the result.

remark, why i raise this question? it's to explore what influence the human activity, then the society activity.

aaadump 2008.07.06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadump (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some relevant articles may be neurochemistry, dopamine, neurotransmitter and associated links / references. Specific aspects of this question may be better answered on the science desk, WP:RD/S.  There is also user:Dr Dima, who is a researcher in cerebral functions and may be able to give you special references.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

handshakes
Is there ever a time when a handshake is inapprpriate. Why is the gesture used so widely and in a wide variation of scenarios. Clover345 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When my girlfriend greets me at the airport a handshake is totally inappropriate, but I suppose you mean greetings that are too formal for handshakes, not too casual...  Plasticup  T / C  21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of times when a handshake is inappropriate. For example, if you're on the toilet in a public bathroom and someone enters the next stall, sticking your hand under the partition for a handshake probably isn't going to go over very well -- though I suspect that's not what you're looking for here. It's a pretty convenient way to convey a basic degree of respect and friendliness to someone, and it conveys a willingness to communicate with someone and to let them into your personal space, if only for a moment... so there's a lot of pretty useful symbolism there.


 * It's by no means the only form of greeting out there, though. In the olden days, people used to tip their hats, military people still like their salutes, and bowing is popular in Japan and other Asian countries. Many Southern Europeans and Latin Americas kiss cheeks, and Maoris press their noses together. Eskimos do a similar thing. Verbal greetings are also very popular, as are dap greetings, which are really just another way to shake hands. All of these things can take the place of a handshake, either because the situation calls for more or less formality than a handshake would convey, or simply because it's not the local habit. Still, handshaking is a pretty universal gesture. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, some religious Muslims and Jews avoid touching members of the opposite sex to whom they aren't related. And there are mysophobes who avoid human contact. --D. Monack | talk 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In some cultures shaking hands with the left hand is considered offensive. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In many countries with monarchs it's probably inappropriate for an ordinary person to try and shake hands with the monarch or often even members of the monarch's family. In some countries, it may even be inappropriate to shake hands with the non-monarch head of state and/or head of government. Even if it's not necessarily inappropriate, it may be inappropriate for you to offer your hand (obviously you should accept a handshake if offered) except in some circumstances like if the monarch's going down a line shaking everyone's hand Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne beat me to it. Generally one ought to wait for the (British) monarch to prooffer her hand. Anything else could be onsidered rude. --Cameron* 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a part of the Tarahumara culture they avoid physical contact with others as much as possible, and do not shake hands in greeting. Most Tarahumara people, if offered a handshake by someone unfamiliar with their customs, will be polite enough to extend their hand in a curled fashion (imagine fingers curled and the thumb touching the curled index finger) and let you wrap your hand around yours to shake their hand.  They will not grasp your hand at all.  When greeting a Tarahumara, it would be polite to refrain from offering your hand.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some years ago, a friend of mine had a girlfriend of Serbian heritage. When they got engaged, I was invited to her parents' house for dinner, and when I was introduced to them I naturally extended my hand.  The father hesitated, then half-heartedly shook my hand.  The mother didn't seem to have a problem (she was German-born).  I asked my friend later what that was about, and he told me that in Serbian culture it's considered rude to initiate a handshake with a much older person (they were about 40 years older than me).  You wait for them to initiate it, and then reciprocate.  I said to him "thanks very much for letting me know in advance".  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I walked into a cocktail reception and upon greeting a circle of 4-5 people, and shaking each person's hand, I then gave a short wave to my boss, since I had already seen him several times during the day. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Until not long ago - I would estimate about 25 years - it was customary in Britain to shake hands with people only on first being introduced to them. The idea of shaking hands with people you already knew was (to me) one of those strange things that foreigners did. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If we ever found the answers to all the big questions...
What then? Imagine,- a world where we know ALL physical laws, what the afterlife is like, the purpose of existence, and know everyone and everything's past, present, and future. Would there be another level, or would we just freeze and/or cease to exist?THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that anyone could give a meaningful and/or even remotely factual answer to this question. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, I stumped the great Wiki!? And you guys aspire to gather all the world's knowledge... ;D  THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfft. There are plenty of things Wikipedia has no information on and never will. Like what your great great grandmother thought when she was was giving birth to your great grandmother, or where the hell did one of my socks go, because I could swear I put it in the washing machine earlier today, but it wasn't there when I took the laundry out of the damn thing. Where is it? I don't see the Reference Desk providing me with a solid answer on that one. The Reference Desk sucks, 'cause I want my goddamn sock! As for aspiring to gather all the world's knowledge, I think that's a kind of an unfortunate statement -- and then again, I think it's a worthy goal. You just shouldn't think it's a task that could ever be completed.


 * But to be a little more serious here, it's a kind of a silly question. You might as well ask what's the last day of the last human being in existence going to be like, or what's the last living thing to expire before the universe is completely devoid of life, or who's going to be elected the president of the United States fifty years from now. You can get a lot of speculation, sure, but you're not going to get any actual answers to your question. And it's not really what the Reference Desk is here for. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but I notice a lot of intellectual discussion on these boards that doesn't have any solid answers, just theory. If I wanted solid facts, that's what the regular entries are for, so I try to ask questions that are unlikely to have a page about them. They key phrase for me here is "intellectual discussion", so I sincerely hope it's okay to ask outside the box questions around here. BTW, I like some of the mock questions you asked in your response. There's a reason I call myself- THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you can ask, sure. Just don't count on getting sensible answers. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is, how would we ever know that we've discovered the last thing it's possible to know? Where is the list of things that we'd tick off and know for certain we'd got to the end?  Every discovery made by science seems to create a zillion new questions and areas of research that previously hadn't even been dreamt of.  In a way, we're getting further and further behind the 8-ball, not getting closer at all, as our knowledge of what there is to know expands at an increasing rate.  That may not be particularly meaningful, but I hope it's sensible.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made it clear you are looking for discussion, not answers. This is a "reference desk."  Just in case you don't know what a reference desk is... This is a place to ask for references and answers to factual questions - not requests for opinions or discussions.  If you want opinions and discussions, use one of the millions (if not billions) of message boards and discussion forums on the Internet.  Do not attempt to ruin this reference desk by turning it into a discussion forum simply because you lack the ability to use a proper website. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not trying to "ruin" your website. I'm clearly not the only one that asks these kinds of questions, so I find that insulting (maybe I'm just in a bad mood). There probabably is an answer to this question, just not a solid one. There are all kinds of theoretical physicists, and professional guessers out there for the big questions and some of them discusss the unanswerable right here. Jack of Oz, for example, gave an insiteful response for which I am grateful. THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll be interested in reductionism.--Wetman (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also read Epistemology and Philosophy of science. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote: It's 'illogical' for the universe to exist, and continuing is utterly futile, yet you have absolutely no choice but to do so..
 * Was that the sort of 'big answer' you were looking for..?87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we will not get to a point where we freeze and cease to exist, not by that route anyway. People are good at learning; it's what we do. We will carry on being curious and learning more stuff. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Were we to know everything, we would be the gods themselves. Well, it sounds poetic... Steewi (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we will not get to a point where we freeze and cease to exist, not by that route anyway. People are good at learning; it's what we do. We will carry on being curious and learning more stuff. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Were we to know everything, we would be the gods themselves. Well, it sounds poetic... Steewi (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all beside the point. Everyone in the world wants to live a good life without worrying about where the next meal is coming from, how they're ever going to get out of debt or how they're going to escape the violence that's killing people in their region. This world needs a whole lot that has nothing to do with finding stuff out. We already have enough answers to turn things around. Not knowing stuff isn't the problem. -LambaJan (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Farming College
Is there a college that specializes in traditional farming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Traditional"? Organic, unmechanised, etc. ? Fribbler (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just mean traditional techniques like using oxen or horses instead of tractors and using manure instead of fertilizer. I don't really want to say "organic" because that brings up so many new modern techniques also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a college but Tillers International has classes on such skills. Rmhermen ( talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many local organisations which provide small courses of that nature, but it's hard to direct you to specific ones without even knowing which country you live in, Tyler.  Try investigating local heavy horse clubs, organic co-operatives; check out the magazines on offer for smallholders/small farmers/lifestyle farmers/hobby farmers (terms even vary from place to place!) as they are often interested in  alternative methods.  Also worth investigating is WWOOF (Willing Workers on Organic Farms) which have a number of farms where you can work for a period in exchange for bed, board and tuition/experience; this would give you hands-on experience with heavy horses, manuring fields and so forth.  Gwinva (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Picture in History
What is the oldest still image ever produced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.153.148 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cave paintings in Chauvet Cave have been dated to around 30,000 BP. There may be some artifacts going back to Neanderthalians which are somewhat older. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean the oldest photograph, check the captioned image at the top of that article. --Sean 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or this from Sluzzelin's user page (and elsewhere I'm sure). -hydnjo talk 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)