Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 12

= August 12 =

Faith
According to Wikipedia's own article faith is:

For a period of several years I called myself an Atheist, saying words like logic and reason a lot. Because of my liberal political leanings I was disgusted with the state of The Earth and how Man has been destroying it. It came to pass that I noticed the growth in intensity and frequency of Natural Disasters was in line with Bible Prophecy. On top of that disbelief in God in general would be a sign of The Last Days.

Before I picked up a Bible, though, I thought about what I thought. I pondered, 'why do I accept so easily what a man who went to school for a long time says?'

So, in a round-about way, I have arrived at the question... How much faith (keeping in mind the definition from this project) does it take to trust science? Is science becoming a religion? And, for bonus points, what is truth? schyler (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cop out alert: Take a look at Truth which, the article tells us, "can have a variety of meanings". My bonus points, please? Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, but there are criteria to receive bonus points (answer the other questions). schyler (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are asking specifically about trusting your science professors, well, they know more than you, that's why they're the professors. If it is also your goal to be a professional scientist, then you too will someday know a lot more and can teach others who don't know as much yet. You may also discover new things and challenge the older research of the people who taught you. That's the fun part about science. It's not that something is true because your teachers say so, and you don't have to trust them, you can go do your own research and see if they're right. But at certain levels of education it's just easier to teach things as if they are absolutely true; the class isn't directed specifically at you and not every student may go on to become a professional scientist, but those who do will eventually understand their subject in greater detail and with greater subtlety. And if you're just a student taking a class for fun or to fulfill credit requirements, then yes, you do sort of have to take your professors at their word, assuming you want to get good grades. Hopefully that makes sense. Basically, you easily accept things that are taught to you because, well, what do you know? You don't know anything. But before you go pick up your Bible again, shouldn't you also ask why you would so easily accept anything it says. With science, you may not know anything, but you could if you spent enough time learning. Is that true for the Bible? Is it true that natural disasters are increasing? If so, what does that mean? Is this the only time in history that has happened? Why would the Bible prophecy refer specifically to disasters happening now and not at some other time, past or future? Is disbelief in God really any greater now than at any other time? How do you know that prophecy refers to this period of time? And so forth...if you didn't believe your physics professors' descriptions of the shape of an atom, for example, you could go do your own experiments to see if they are right. If you think these are the Last Days, how could you possibly test that, aside from waiting for your whole life? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as you haven't done any of the research yourself, you must trust the scientist to have done their jobs reasonably well. That requires a certain amount of faith. To me, the difference between religion and science is that, with enough effort, you can perform the experiments in science to see for yourself (which is what the scientific method is.) With religion, you can't do the same thing, and faith is required. I support religion, too, but the type and degree of faith required is different. Aaronite (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And, I will add, I have come to the opposite conclusion as you: I think life is better now than it has ever been for most of the world. Life expectancy is longer, indicating better health overall. That's just one example I can think of.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronite (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Schyler, as we have already explored, faith cannot be fully reasoned to, (in question: how did Jesus convince....). Faith must indeed stand up to scrutiny but cannot be fully reasoned to.  The prophets of the Bible, warn about putting ones trust in man.  That should be in God alone, as He will not disappoint.   Theology is the study that explores faith and studies its logic in so far as this allows.  We are urged by God to study the "sign of the times".  However, we do know that having a clear conscience is a good starting point to explore personal faith.  Being a person of "good will" would be an important starting point.  MacOfJesus (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In science, assuming you are not a scientist yourself, you put your trust in the community of practitioners. (And even if you are a scientist, you usually can only "confirm" things within a pretty narrow field of study.) You put your trust in a system — "this must be true, because if it wasn't true, there would be lots of people happy to say so." Now, it is a system of human beings. It is naturally going to make mistakes and suffer from all of the logical fallacies that humans suffer from — groupthink, Matthew effect, popularity contests, etc. But it is a system which has three nice things going for it: 1. it is dynamic and does change over time (even if it is sometimes slow); 2. there are practical fruits of its being reasonably correct (if quantum mechanics were not a pretty good description of how the world works, your USB drives would not work); and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, 3. it is a system that recognizes explicitly the only likelihood of its being wrong.
 * It's pretty hard for me to find a religious system that does any of those three things, and they seem pretty important, a priori to any system of knowledge creation that does not involve simply believing that truth was written down perfectly some many thousands of years ago and hasn't changed since then. With science, the "faith" you are putting is in something that has little faith in itself in the long term. With religion, the "faith" you are putting in is with something that is utterly confident of its need to be correct.
 * Now this is an exaggeration of both science and religion, to be sure. You will have your dogmatists and your skeptics in both. (Those who do not believe there are skeptics in religion should hang out with more Unitarians!) But it is, I think, a good framework for thinking about what knowledge systems make sense to put one's faith in, and what you get out of each. Scientists certainly overstep the boundaries of what they really know all of the time — they love to extrapolate, and some certainly do get a lot out of being a "new priesthood." One must retain one's skepticism with them, to be sure. I find most evolutionary psychology to be pretty unlikely, for example — 1950s cultural values dressed up in Darwinian language. But that doesn't mean I don't find natural selection as a whole to be a far more compelling model than instances of special creation.
 * I certainly don't think it is very logical to put your faith in matching up events to the descriptions of the End Times, which has been a losing game for two thousand years, and is a clear example of a pattern recognition error. Everybody always thinks that their current time matches up with the End Times. It's the oldest trick in the book, religion-wise — vague prophecies that fit just about anything in a world where there are lots of natural disasters. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr 98, While point #3 is unique to science, point 1 also occurs in religion. Are you telling me that Christianity has not changed in 2000 years?  I suggest you compare a Southern Baptist with a Catholic and a Greek Orthodox and then tell me that that religion is not dynamic.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point 3 isn't unique to science, and Mr 98 never said any of the points were. He said he was exaggerating both science and religion. I mean, we can play the game with any of the points: one of the complaints that Evangelicals often have of Catholicism, for example, is that it doesn't offer enough certainty. I don't know what they think of Anglicans! And ask a Catholic who was practicing both before and after Vatican II whether their religion changes. You could even fudge about with the phrase 'practical fruits of being reasonably correct' to discuss societal and personal affects of living by certain rules. But that doesn't invalidate what Mr 98 is saying, which is a general point about the general characters of science and religion. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do thank you Wikipedians for your participation. schyler (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * no one gets to click this because no one got bonus points schyler (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientism may be of interest. It has a section "Relevance to the science and religion debate", but I want to voice some caution about that. The article opens by mentioning Popper and Hayek, who were both interested in the misapplication of natural science to the social sciences, that is to say, they were interested in opposing Hegel: they were interested in a diverse society where knowledge can grow, as opposed to tyrannies, mightiness, historical inevitability, etc., which something that looks like science (and incorrectly views people like machines) can be used to advocate for. So far so good; and now we have Dawkins and Dennett, who want (rightly if you ask me) to break "the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry". My point is that this is not at all the same thing as the Hegelism debate; it's not the same thing as social sciences versus natural sciences. Quite a lot of The God Delusion addresses the question of whether science can be applied to religion. For instance there is a section of chapter 2 titled "NOMA", which is an acronym coined by Stephen Jay Gould for "non-overlapping magesteria", meaning that science can't question religion. Dawkins says: "This sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought. What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?" ... in the case of Popper's objection to, say, historicism, he's not opposed to rationality, but rather to thinking of things which are not machines (that is, people) as if they were machines. I think this criticism of the ideology of science is meaningful, but the concept of "NOMA" is vacuous. Sorry for being longwinded. 213.122.51.251 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed The Selfish Gene but found The God Delusion irritating and couldn't even make it to the awesomely named chapter, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute the basic premise, namely that there are any more natural disasters than there ever were in the past. The earth is "alive", in a sense, and always has been. We're just better at keeping records now. I expect when Mount Mazama blew its top thousands of years ago, the Native not-yet-Americans might have thought the world was coming to an end. And what about the similar incident at Santorini that probably gave rise to the Atlantis legend? Or the volcanoes of Italy smothering Roman cities? Those were significant events, hence they stayed in historical memory. Less significant events would have been considered "not notable". Religionists often fall into the "recentism" trap. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) This relates to the evolution debate also. Strict-constructionist religionists will argue that evolution as science thinks of it could not possibly have happened "by accident". Certainly it couldn't have in just six thousand years. But it could certainly happen in millions of years, which is a quantity we really cannot comprehend. But if there's anything God has plenty of, it's time. We might be in a rush, but He's not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And as regards "truth", there are two kinds: what you think it is, and what it really is. Say there was an auto accident. Two witnesses might see it differently, so there are two different "truths" right there. But there was only one reality. That's where security cameras come in. But even security cameras could be misleading. So the tricky part about "truth" is that there is in reality only one "truth", but that doesn't mean we know, or even can know, what that truth actually is. Science and religion both seek "the truth". It's fair to say that their methods for doing so are quite different. But they do have one thing in common: Once they think they've got it figured out, they stick with it, often despite any new and contradictory evidence. That's where science and religion become hard to distinguish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * science - excuse me, science done well - limits itself to things that can be systematically observed. There's always an element of faith in it, as in all human thought - induction is essentially faith that observed regularities will continue to be regularities - but the entire raison d'etre of scientific investigation is to insist that belief-claims about the universe are substantiated by replicable empirical evidence.  the two mistakes that people always make with science are (1) to assume that science has some authority beyond its ability to back up a claim with empirical evidence (it doesn't), and (2) to assume that science is just mere beliefs, when in fact science produces beliefs that can be practically demonstrated (and that last phrase makes all the difference: one would be a fool to believe that unicorns exist unless someone trotted one out on a leash, in which case one who be a fool to believe they don't exist).  -- Ludwigs 2  18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To go back to the original question: about truth.  Where do you find it?  I refer you to the words of Jesus to Pilate:  "...to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice."  Pilate: "Truth what is that?"  (John Ch 18 vrs: 33-40).  I therefore give you the words of Jesus, the truth. Read them with an open mind and heart.     (P.S. I don't look for Brownie points).     MacOfJesus (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Err... that was the bonus question.   but as someone once said: truth is beauty that speaks to the mind rather than the soul.  and I don't think you'd find a physicist or a mathematician who'd disagree.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's someone's personal, poetic opinion of what "truth" is. I insist that "truth" equates to "reality", and that at least part of our lives is a quest to try and figure out what that reality is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * except 'reality' is just a synonym for 'perceptual truth', and so that definition is entirely circular. really, poetry may be the only functional approach to ontology.   -- Ludwigs 2  20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking factual reality. As with the car accident, two people might see it in different ways, but it only has one reality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and which reality is that? the one described by an interaction of particles at the quantum level?  no, wait, that probabilistic...  I understand the urge to cast the world as having 'one reality', and I don't even disagree with it, but it is about as tangible as a reference to god.  we have no access to that.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Except that the observers will never agree about what actually, factually happened, and there is no Final Arbiter. Facts are things about which there is general agreement.  That general agreement does not necessarily mean those things are actually true; we can never know what is actually true in the world external to ourselves, all we have is our perceptions.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We can't always know "the truth", but we can strive to try and figure out what the truth might be, and once we think we've got it figured out and stop exploring, then we're in trouble. It happened to Einstein, it can happen to anyone. Another example that comes to mind is "the Perfect game that wasn't", a few months ago. The primary "witness", the umpire, called the batter-runner "safe" at first base. Others thought he should have been called "out". Replay showed he should have been called out, and even the umpire admitted it. So, the reality appears to be that the pitcher caught the ball and stepped on the base before the batter-runner's foot hit the base. Without any kind of recording devices, there would be no way to know. That doesn't mean the recording devices are perfect either. But they are more consistent than eyewitness accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ... I'd like to hear some more from y'all about science requiring faith. schyler (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just give you the words of Jesus. "I am the way, the truth and the life..."  All these other things will fall into place then.      MacOfJesus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and those who believe that are Christians, and those that don't, aren't. Just because He said it, don't make it so - except to those who believe it. Unfortunately (or perhaps conveniently) there were no instant replay cameras around in Jesus' time, so all we have are variant eyewitness accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When you speak of truth as physical reality and mention a car accident/tragedy; consider, The Father asked His Son to take up the cross and die the death he did at age 33 for us!  MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark 6:11


 * What is the point of this question, anyway? If Schyler just wants to hear about science requiring faith, he is obviously not looking to be enlightened about anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe he/she, Schyler, is trying to enlighten us? However, I do not see the relevance of Mk 6:11 about the mission of the twevle?  I didn't place it in.   MacOfJesus (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought you'd know that bit. Jesus himself said that if you are preaching to people, and they don't listen or buy it, you're supposed to shake the dust off your feet and leave. You're not supposed to stick around, repeating yourself and trying to convince people who really aren't going to be convinced. Otherwise you're just making people think of christianity as annoying and repetitive. (That last sentence is my interpretation, not something Jesus actually said. Although it does make me think of the parable about the man who annoyed his neighbour into giving him bread.) 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack of Oz, you preceive truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself, this makes you leaning towards phenomenology. I lean towards existentialism, that states the only thing you know is that you are because you think!  Truth is more thought than things.  MacOfJesus (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is the reference desk, can we please stick to reference-providing? This is not a place for discussing your particular beliefs. --Lgriot (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I have to interject, here. MacOfJesus, you don't seem to understand the orthodox usage of philosophical terms. Existentialism does not hold that "only thing you know is that you are because you think" or that "Truth is more thought than things". The former proposition is a rationalist hypothesis first advanced by Descartes, undermined by initial existentialists (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky...), and demolished by Wittgenstein building on Moore and Heidegger. Phenomenology and existentialism are not necessarily divorcible - see, again Heidegger, and even Merleau-Ponty. Moreover, your conceptual analysis of truth bears no resemblance to an account found either in mainstream existentialist thinking or that of phenomenology. While I understand the general desire to express one's view at the Reference Desk, one should refrain from actually commenting on doctrines unless one knows what one is speaking of The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are taking what I've said out of context. This point I've made is relevant, as the OP asked about truth.  Jack of Oz sees truth as definite things and reality that is preceivable.  And so we will never be able to agree on truth if we define it differently.  This is relevant to the question posed.  All of what I've said is relevant to the questions asked.  I have given references where relevant.  MacOfJesus (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bible quotes aren't exactly references. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To understand, what, where, truth resides anything that is a definitive reference is a true citation as is with phenomenology and existentialism, whoes article pages I assume you have studied by now.  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. What does that mean? The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Schyler, your first question is somewhat addressed at http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh good gravy! If you're going to stick in a link to the creation wiki, then have a link to the talk origins archive. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not speak the name of gravy in vain. -- Ludwigs 2  23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to appear like a jerk, but please, all, do remember that the reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. There should be an expectation that information supplied at the reference desk is legitimate, and passing individual opinions about philosophy off as actual philosophy does not quite count. This whole debate is riddled with misuse of philosophical language, and will not serve anyone who is looking for an explanation of philosophical approaches to certain questions. (contrast inserting random equations in the math reference desk). The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When I spoke of two different forms of thought I simply meant to draw attention to the general thought of these studies rather than give a clinical definition of both. Often they can overlap and in some exponents of either study this has been expounded.  My main reason is not to give my opinion but to bring clarity in the discussion at the step reached, in a terse form.  The discussion is about faith and truth and how we define these, and how one interacts with the other.      MacOfJesus (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But you did not draw attention to the 'general thought' of either existentialism or phenomenology (neither of which is a "study", by the way - both are loose movements in thinking identifiable by certain primary concerns). You've suggested that the cogito, a Cartesian foray into epistemology, is at the heart of existentialism, which is simply, empirically wrong. Even at the most basic level, the basic precept of college-level Sartre-esque existentialism is that existence precedes essence. Existentialists rarely comment on epistemology while "being existentialist", but those who do (Kierkegaard on doubt; Heidegger on being-in-the-world) quite ferociously repudiated Cartesian concepts of doubt and certainty. You claim to be Christian and existentialist, but your views have nothing in common with Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky. You sound more like a classical Cartesian skeptic admitting the existence of God (the opposite of existentialism). You speak of "(perceiving) truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself" being phenomenology and direct someone to read that article. Truth as a reality of perception? What does that mean? It's a string of words without much in the way of content. Do you mean that truth is relation of perception between things that are independent of an individual and the individual? That sounds much more like naive realism coupled with a correspondence theory of truth. (In fact, that's exactly what Baseball Bugs is espousing, except he's not cloaking it in philosophical language). It has absolutely nothing to do with phenomenology.


 * You remark that "Jack of Oz sees truth as definite things and reality that is preceivable. And so we will never be able to agree on truth if we define it differently.". The very fact that you can have this discussion at all indicates that you do substantially agree about truth (your usages of the word "truth" coincide in the vast majority of cases).


 * Your wish to bring clarity is commendable, but you've more or less done the opposite by throwing around technical language and (particularly) the names of specific movements in philosophy. What amounts to a philosophical discussion here should not be an opportunity for all to express their views on the topic at hand, because at the Humanities Reference Desk a random reader should have a reasonable expectation that answers given reflect the academic conception of philosophy, just as a reader at the Science desk should not be treated to someone's personal critique of special relativity. I don't object to this kind of debate - I just object to its presence here. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I have not said what you have said that I have said. I have spoken of "leaning towards".  Truth is a vast subject and cannot be seen as objective things outside oneself only.  This is the thought I reacted to.   MacOfJesus (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything I remarked on was a direct reply to a quote of yours. This statement - "Jack of Oz, you preceive truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself, this makes you leaning towards phenomenology. I lean towards existentialism, that states the only thing you know is that you are because you think!  Truth is more thought than things" - is philosophically gibberish. Existentialism and phenomenology have nothing to do with the thoughts of either you or Jack of Oz, as I noted above. He is not "leaning towards" phenomenology. He is a naive realist, as most people are, with a naive correspondence theory of truth, again, like most people. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * " Truth is a vast subject and cannot be seen as objective things outside oneself only. ". Let's look at this utterly unclear "thought". First, truth is a concept. "Seen as objective things outside oneself only"? That doesn't make sense in English, let alone the language of philosophy. Do you mean that truth cannot be seen as a relation between oneself and objective things outside oneself? Or that truth cannot be seen as an objective thing outside oneself? And, what, pray tell, does any of this have to do with either existentialism or phenomenology? You state above that "To understand, what, where, truth resides anything that is a definitive reference is a true citation as is with phenomenology and existentialism, whoes article pages I assume you have studied by now.". This also makes no sense in English. Please, do stop directing others to study philosophical topics at the Reference Desk when you clearly have no grasp of what they mean yourself. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have confused my position with that of another. The very thing you object to is what I have objected to. The concept of truth implies judgment and I was deliberatly not giving my opinion on it, as I am not now. I am also refraining from making personal judgements on others.   MacOfJesus (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it's impossible to tell, given the syntactic contortions. Nevertheless, your articulations of existentialism and phenomenology are clearly and grossly inaccurate. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Western attempts to "destabilise" USSR
Is there in evidence of any Western (US/UK or Nazi Germany) attempts to "destabilise" USSR during the reign of Stalin? Is there any article (here) that covers this topic? 180.149.48.245 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You could start at Truman Doctrine. schyler (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a two way street. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was, but that isn't what he's asking about. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. You have anything to add? Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. it's questionable if the Berlin war was a USSR attempt to destablise the west. In fact haven't we just established that the west was happy about the wall because it meant the USSR wasn't going to take Berlin and/or wouldn't use the loss of their citizens as a reason for war. It's also questionable how much the cuban missile crisis was an attempt to destablise the west. Arguably it was far more about the USSR wanting to protect themselves and what they regarded as their terroritory and equalise a fairly unlevel playing field created partially by the US installing nukes in their allies territories which were a similar distance to the USSR as the Cuban ones were to the US (but seemingly thinking it was okay for them, but not the USSR). The fact the US went nuts and nearly cause a war wasn't really the USSRs intention and was somewhat reflective of the fact leaders on both sides were a bunch of idiots but thankfully the ones in the USSR weren't stupid enough to accept the US's plans to go to war. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am interested whether there is any evidence to Western attempts during Stalin's reign; in particular anything before the Great Purge.180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and it started much earlier - the Soviet Union was in part the outcome of Germany destabilising Tsarist Russia by smuggling Lenin in. After the Soviet take-over, the Entente intervened in the Russian civil war. Stalin was a paranoid asshole, but the Russians had good reasons for being paranoid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am interested in evidences; declassified documents, etc. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as you know, during WWII the US and the USSR were Allies. The closest one finds there to "destabilization" from the US is in trying to edge out Stalin's postwar plans and to get US-UK superiority (e.g. by "keeping" the bomb from Stalin). During the interwar years I'm not sure the US had too much to do in trying to destabilize the USSR. From 1917 until 1933 the US basically had a total diplomatic blackout of the USSR. An odd exception to this was the US giving the USSR significant aid in 1921 as a result of a famine in the Volga region. At that point Roosevelt went out of his way to try and help the USSR pay back its war debts and normalize relations. And of course by that point you are starting to edge into WWII territory. (Source: Benjamin Rhodes, United States foreign policy in the interwar period, 1918-1941). As for the postwar and Cold War, there are all of the classic foreign policy gambits of the 1940s and early 1950s, though I don't think anyone in the US really thought these would do anything more than "contain" the Soviets at best. (But there are perhaps things I am not recalling.) I don't know about German attempts other than the obvious ones. We do have an article on Soviet–German relations before 1941. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Radio Free Europe started when Stalin was still around and broadcast propaganda into the USSR, presumably to destabilize it, or at least rattle its chain. --Sean 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the White movement lasted till the early days of Stalin's rule. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reinhard Gehlen and his Org, recruited by the CIA, conducted covert operations soon after the war.John Z (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany had quite a few ventures to destablize the USSR, parallel to the war effort itself. At Pan-Turkism we find the following: "At less official levels, emrigrants from Turkic groups in the Soviet Union, played a crucial role in some of the negotiations and contacts of Turkey and Germany. Among these were pan-Turkist activits such as Zeki Velidi Togan, Mammed Amin Rasulzade, Mirza Bala, Ahmet CafarOglu, Sayid Shamil and Ayaz Ishaki[29]. Several Tatars, organized military units of Turkic speakers in Turco-Tatar and Caucasian regions from the prisoner of wars and these joined the war against the USSR, generally fighting as guerillas[29]. Many of them imbued with hopes of independence and several of these units aspired for a pan-Turkic union[29]. The units which were continuously reinforced numbered several hundred thousands of people of Turkic origin[29]." --Soman (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

SAT vs ACT
Hi everyone. Firstofall I get that these are two totally unrelated tests (except for their very general content coverage) and any attempt to convert between them would only be a very rough estimate. I have recently taken the ACT. Assuming minimal guesswork/luck was involved, what is a rough estimate of what score the skills represented by composite score of 32-33 on the ACT (with a full score in writing) would equate to on the SAT? Thanks. 68.76.157.132 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Steph
 * Each of these tests should give a percentile "at or below" as well so you can compare those. We have a chart in our article: ACT (test). Rmhermen (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you Google "act to sat conversion", you'll get a number of results. The first is for the official ACT website, which lists a range of 1400-1480 (Sum of SAT Critical Reading and Mathematics Scores) for the score range of 32-33. A 36 in English/Writing, not surprisingly, corresponds to 800 for SAT Writing. If you need an SAT equivalent for a particular purpose (e.g. applying to scholarships), most who allow for conversions specify what conversion table to use. If they don't, you probably want to contact those in charge and ask. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

school
Do president's children go to public school or private school?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean the President of the United States:
 * In the immediate case, the children attend a private school.
 * In the general case, there is no requirement that they attend private school. Amy Carter, for instance, attended D.C. public schools. &mdash; Lomn 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes private schools could be more secure, I suppose. Chevy  monte  carlo  - alt 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that they are often smaller and are more likely to be boarding schools (so fewer people entering and leaving the school grounds on a regular basis), yes. I don't think there would be much difference between a large private day-school and a large public day-school, though. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

inception
would inception possible in the next 50 years? Has there any technology that allow we create the dream to people's head?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Inception of what, exactly? Edison (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Inception, presumably. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  We can't say what will be possible in 50 years.  Present-day technology, while capable of crudely altering dreams, does not approach the movie in any meaningful way. &mdash; Lomn 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean base on our technology right now. Could it be possible in the next 50 years?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the answer above. &mdash; Lomn 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK how about this question. Could we create the dream in people's head now?75.73.152.238 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there's only been fairly crude wiring to the brain's vision center, so a ways to go before your 3D HDTV glasses are replaced by a brain implant. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The simple answer to the OP's question is that we might be able to, but then again we might not. If the technology existed now, we would already be doing it! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not a lot of reason to suspect, based on current technology, that we'll be able to do this, I don't think. But making guesses about future technology is a rube's game — you can't win. If you are successful, it is dismissed as obvious. If you are wrong, you are laughed at for your efforts. Our understanding of the brain (or dreams) is nowhere near being able to insert ourselves into people's dreams. But understanding can change pretty rapidly, so who knows, in 50 years. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of a "rube's game" before, and we have no article on it. Is unwinnability the essence of the phrase, or does it mean something more than that?  Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A rube is a fool, and connotes somebody who's easily taken advantage of. So a "rube's game" would be unwinnable and foolish to play (I've never heard the phrase either). Staecker (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rubes" and "marks" are carny terms for suckers, more or less. I'm probably mixing up my terms as usual, though. The term seems to have been pretty rarely used which probably means that I (and others) are mixing up our idioms somewhere. More common is a "fool's game," though I do like the carny overtones. But yes, the point is that it is unwinnable, rigged. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rube" or "ruben" is also a country bumpkin, someone ignorant of the ways of "city slickers". The term "jay" was also once used that way, and survives in the term "jaywalking". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To this one need only add that 50 years is a lot more than 20.--Rallette (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, predicting it will be here in 50 years is safe, since most of us won't be here in 50 years, and even if we are, who's going to remember what we wrote in wikipedia 50 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The philosophy of Inception is largely incoherent - while very slick, the subconscious, etc. simply don't operate as filmed. That being said, it's not in principle impossible to manipulate the content of another's dreams or thoughts. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

difference between medieval SURCOAT AND TABARD?
Despite reading wikipedia pages about it and checking in wordbooks, I am still unsure sometimes what can be called a tabard and what can be called a surcoat, as these garments seem to vary a little. Am I right if i say a surcoat is what we usually saw a knight templar wear, the white one with the red cross, like seen on the picture of the templar? I've tried to upload a few pictures to make it easier. I'd appreciate if someone could help me understand what is what.

thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This says the difference is that the tabard has sleeves. The book Medieval Heraldry seems to agree, forsooth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather better described as flaps over the arms (like this) rather than sleeves in the usual sense. The tabard has a broad front without an opening, whereas a surcoat is a big cloak that opens at the front. Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sleeves are separate garment pieces.--Wetman (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)