Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 21

= July 21 =

the skeptical-empirical postclassical school of medicine in the eastern mediterranean
In the book Antifragile the author mentions the skeptical-empirical postclassical school of medicine in the Eastern Mediterranean rediscovered by the French a century ago. Can anyone identify this school at all? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This means (roughly) the Empiric school. See also Sextus Empiricus though for the issues of dividing skepticism as it relates to medicine from the empirical school and defining the Methodic school.  Really, I think the author wants to generally refer to (some) ancient skepticism, since his point is not about medicine in particular. I'm not sure which Frenchmen were responsible for rediscovering it.  Charles Victor Daremberg translated a lot of ancient medical texts, including Galen, and Galen is a major source for knowledge of the Empirical school.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * THanks. It seems odd the author made this sound like an esoteric and recent discovery in the English speaking world. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences between Spock and Data
In one of the Star Trek movies Mr. Spock and Cmdr. Data meet, and they notice various differences between them, and list them. Does anyone have that list? Could they enumerate them here? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is also posted at WP:RD/E. And is being responded to there.  Dismas |(talk) 04:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

On Serving People !
I have always had this doubt - Why is that people become social entrepreneurs and why do donors support them? What is the whole point ?
 * You may wish to define "social entrepreneurs", my guess is that you are referring to non-profits or non-government organizations (NGOs) in which case a passion for that area and charity may motivate many, however it would assist our answers if you gave some specifics. Thanks.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   05:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes NGOs / Non -Profits would fall under the category of social entrepreneurs.


 * I too am having trouble understanding the question. My answer to what I currently guess is the meaning is that some people like to help others. Is that a mystery? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many people find that the act of helping other people is very rewarding in itself, plus (some might say, looking at it rather cynically) it can increase your standing with the rest of society. Some people see it as a religious duty, but I suspect most do it for pleasure. Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See altruism for some scientific and religious explanations of why we help others. I do it mostly because I think it's the right thing to do. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dang, I thought that this was going to be about a different topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You may find this page useful in answering some of the questions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Science in Europe
It's no secret that per capita, the US has far more scientists, more funding of science, and more scientific research/industry positions than the first-world countries of western Europe. Why is this the case? Naively, it seems that Europe has a longer scientific tradition, better average education level, and higher public perception of science. Yet despite rare exceptions like Planck or the LHC in cosmology/physics respectively, every scientific field is dominated by the US. I'm certainly not complaining, but I'm curious to know why this is the case. --50.125.164.23 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that true on raw numbers or on percentage of the population? Remember that the U.S. has a population of 316ish million; it is the third most populous country in the world.  In western Europe (which is your stipulation) the most populous country is Germany at 80ish million.  So, just on raw numbers, the U.S. would have approximately 4 times as many scientists as Germany even if Germany and the U.S. had the exact same proportion of scientists among their general population.  So, make sure you're making apples-to-apples comparisons.  It would be helpful, before we try to answer your question, where you are getting your data from.  Link us to a study we can critique or find rationales for, otherwise we've got nothing to work with.  -- Jayron  32  22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The premise is indeed flawed. Four pieces of evidence against:
 * According to this study of scientific innovation, the US is sixth in the world in R&D investment after one western European nation (Switzerland) and two other European nations (Sweden and Finland). (Also after Israel and Japan.) In terms of scientists per capita, the US came seventh, after Finland, Sweden, Japan, Singapore, Denmark and Norway. The US was top only in patents per capita.
 * According to the World Bank's tally of Researchers in R&D per million people, (and going back to 2007, the last year there is US data for), the US has fewer researchers per capita than all five Scandanavian countries, plus Singapore and Japan.
 * Switzerland leads on scientific publications and citations per capita, according to Thomson-Reuters data, followed by Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, the UK and finally the US in seventh. (The US leads on sheer number of papers, due to its much larger overall population.)
 * In our article List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita, looking at the section for science prizes only, the US ranks after many countries, including the Western European countries Iceland, the UK, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Money. You answered your own question. There is a brain drain from the rest of the the world to the U.S. Sleigh (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Except there isn't. See above.  -- Jayron  32  00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If the answer is not in the article "Science and technology in Europe", then possibly it can be put there if and when it is found. If the premise of the question is false, then the same applies to the correct version of that premise and to facts that necessarily follow from it.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like my premise is indeed flawed. To answer Jayron, my impression (and it was never more than that) came from my familiarity with astrophysics and relative lack of familiarity with other fields.  My classmates, previous alumni of my university, and I all had a lot of trouble finding good study abroad opportunities--there was nothing comparable to the best Ivy League astronomy/astrophysics programs in the US.  In aerospace, NASA has a $17 billion budget, compared to the ESA's $5.5 billion; consequently new developments in space exploration and planetary science are dominated by NASA.  In hindsight, I see plenty of reasons why my experiences in astronomy don't generalize well, least of which are the Space Race and the fact that I don't know any European language other than French.  Thanks 174.88.9.124, your links are very interesting and enlightening!  --208.80.154.75 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Even in astrophysics, there are good programs and plenty of research in Europe. The Ivy Legues are, as a rule, very good (although, e.g. Cambridge, ETH Zuerich, Edinburgh, to name a few, are right up there, and many European universities are better than second-tier US institutions). European universities also often have a different approach than US universities - there is more freedom in choosing your lectures, and the degree structure is somewhat different. In particular, PhD programs are often structured very differently from undergraduate degrees, involving free study and scientific work with your adviser and a research group, not coursework and seminars. And often, research institutes like the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research are only informally associated with a university, while still contributing research and employment opportunities to students and staff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Games/Sports/Fraternisation During Wartime
I think most people know about the Christmas truce of 1914, where British and German soldiers played football together in no-man's land all across the front. Are there any other instances of similar things happening in other wars? Instances of this in any war of any era is of interest to me here. Cheers! KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an article titled "Wartime Truces in History" by Lito Apostolakou at a blacklisted site (Suite 101). Don't know how accurate it is, but it looks plausible. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fraternisation was a lot more common than often thought (and certainly wasn't confined to Christmas 1914). Meetings in No-Man's Land: Christmas 1914 and Fraternization in the Great War (2007) discusses fraternisation in general in WWI, and is worthwhile reading; it discusses both the Western and Eastern fronts. I think there may be a general historic introduction with some further pointers, but I can't find my copy immediately to check. This sort of fraternisation evolved from tacit trucing behaviour, which was widespread in some areas/periods; Tony Ashworth's book on the live and let-live system (published as Trench Warfare 1914-1918) is very informative on this. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly happened in the US Civil War. I should be able to access a book tomorrow which describes pickets on either side of a river establishing a local truce and each side sending soldier across to the other side to swap things (liquor, tobacco, pocket knives), to talk, and to exchange names and addresses. In some cases, those contacts proved useful when someone was in a POW camp and after the war. They agreed that when officers came around and ordered them to start shooting, the first shots would be high as warning shots before they fired with lethal intent. Edison (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I know of a number of stories of Germans on the Eastern Front in WW2 exchanging rations for coffee and other goods with the Russians (Stalingrad springs to mind, as well as numerous occasions in Poland) - apparently a regular thing. Both sides would fire off artillery behind the enemy lines as a warning that they were having an inspection and would be expected to shoot at the enemy trenches, so it was basically 'keep your heads down'. The top brass would see this, and think they are doing their jobs. I've heard of some stories of the ACW where troops from both sides helped each other, and even kept in contact after the war, as well as the American War of Independence, where British and Colonials became friends, but these are individual contacts (or, at most, on a small unit level). My cousin was in the 1 KINGS stationed in Basra in the Iraq War, and played football against the Iraqi Army and some civilians (and lost 9-2!), but this was after GWB got his flight jacket on and a big banner saying "Mission Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier. However, is there anything as 'unprecedented' as the Christmas Truce of 1914 (per percentage of troops involved, and not numbers, because hundreds of thousands of troops does not make sense in a more historical context)? Any information would be very welcome.   KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ashworth makes a case (IIRC) that trench or position warfare is more likely to lead to fraternisation because it has the same people in very close contact day after day, as opposed to more fluid campaigns where units are moving around and those bonds don't have time to form. So you wouldn't expect to find it as much before or after the period when position warfare of large armies was most common, which means the ACW and WWI are most likely. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that there was a time when enemy officers were considered to be "under protection". This means that targeting enemy officers was off-limits, and also that they could fraternize with the enemy, while common soldiers were not given the same rights.  I just saw a documentary on Fort Niagara which discussed the officers continuing a common dinner together after war was declared, and a separate occasion where an officer sent to ask for a surrender was also invited to join them for dinner.  The officers tended to think of themselves as closer to enemy officers than to their own common soldiers, at the time, due to class differences. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How about enemy pilots ,shot down in both World Wars being given dinner in the officers mess? Hotclaws (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-Sunday Catholic masses
Catholic churches with Saturday evening Masses are quite common in the Great Lakes region of the USA, and I'd guess that they're common elsewhere in the country and perhaps elsewhere in the world — but I can't remember seeing any signs mentioning Masses on other days, except for the occasional church with Masses every day. Why Saturday but not other non-Sunday days? One would think that the presence of a Saturday Mass means that they're not doctrinally tied to Sundays as most Protestants are. If you go to Mass on Saturday so you have more time on Sunday, it would seem that you'd also be interested in Mass after work so that you can fulfill your religious obligations and have a completely free weekend. N.B. I'm a Protestant and not intimately familiar with contemporary Catholic practices, so maybe there's some reason that's well known to your average Mass-hearer in the pew. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Vigil masses are fine, see also . My father says the notion is based on the Sabbath lasting from sundown the prior day till sundown Sunday. Jesus is cool like that. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here in Ireland I'm told the Saturday evening masses are quite popular. If you are going to be busy on Sunday, you can go to mass on Saturday so that you don't miss out. I believe that many churches hold masses at varying times throughout the week. For instance, the Archdiocese of Dublin website has a 'mass finder' - for nearly every time and day combination you can pick there is a church with mass at that time. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can have Mass every day, technically. (Although only once per day). It is only absolutely necessary on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but the only day it can't be celebrated is Good Friday. If you go on some other day during the week, that does not free you from your obligation to go on Sunday (except for the Saturday night Mass, since that counts as Sunday, as mentioned). See our own Mass (Catholic Church). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Adam, I do believe the "once per day" refers to taking Communion. There's no problem with simply attending multiple Masses on a single day, because Communion is always an optional part of the ritual for any member of the congregation.  I know a lady who is a very close friend of a stack of priests (they regularly dine at her place) and who attends Mass once a day and twice on Sundays.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about Saturday masses; it's about fulfilling the obligation to attend mass on Sunday by attending on the previous day; similarly a Catholic can fulfill the obligation to attend a Christmas mass by attending on Christmas eve (and similarly for other holy days of obligation). I think in the '60s after the Second Vatican Council, the pope decided to delegate to bishops the question of whether to allow this, and most of them in turn delegated it to parish priests, and they in turn let their congregations vote on it. So the rules may vary with the locality. That obligatory public worship has been on Sundays rather than, for example, Wednesdays, has never been considered infallible dogma in the Catholic church, but rather is a rule of discipline subject to mutation by church authorities. There is a neighborhood in Minneapolis, about four miles from where I live, where _five_ Catholic churches are within about three blocks of each other, and I think two of those are eastern-rite churches. One of those last is a Maronite church, meaning it's largely for Arab Catholics. That means it's not subject to the local archdiocese, but ultimately reports to the Maronite patriarch in Lebanon, and follows "eastern" disciplines that, for example, allow ordination of married men to the priesthood. And while riding my bike around that neighborhood a few weeks ago, I observed that a liturgy was just ending, and people leaving the building, on a Saturday evening. Since they follow rules issued from Lebanon, I have to think that this is not just local. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Catholic church is not a democracy. Parishioners do not vote on doctrine. Nricardo (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note what was said above: apparently the weekly date of Mass etc. isn't considered doctrinal, and if the Church gets to decide something, it's probably legal by canon law for the Pope to delegate the right to make the decision, for the delegates to sub-delegate, etc. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How would the UK choose a President?
''At the outset, let me make it clear that this isn't intended as advocacy either of a monarchist or a republican stance. Responses simply advocating either one without approaching an answer to my question are not welcome. It is a hypothetical question – please don't bother answering with "constitutionally that couldn't happen" answers either. The assumption in the question is that it has happened.''

My question is this: In the event of Elizabeth II of the UK abdicating and furthermore signing documents which irrevocably ended the UK's monarchy, how would the UK choose a President? Firstly who would be eligible for the position? Secondly (if it were down to a referendum) how would this work? Tonywalton Talk 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This can't be answered, since there is no legislation in place to elect a President. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming she were to end the monarchy, though, how might it work? How might the legislation look? Text voting on Britain's got President?Tonywalton Talk 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". You are asking for a prediction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair answer. Further answers would be interesting, though. Tonywalton Talk 23:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at presidential system? This should indicate some of the options as far as the role of a hypothetical president goes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead of Republicanism in the United Kingdom is unsourced but says what I would expect: "The method by which the head of state should be chosen is not agreed upon". And that's about the supporters of republicanism. I guess most opponents would refuse to even give an opinion, especially politicians as long as the monarchy is popular. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Tony Benn's 1991 Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Not that it ever got far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on past precedent (and the fact that precedents and traditions are important in the UK), I would say that whoever managed to have Elizabeth II's head chopped off would be eligible to become president. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably, after consulting with knowledgable American experts, she'd have a 2,000 page Affordble Presidentcare Act of 2014 written up, which you'd have to pass, so you could then read and find out what's in it. Unfortunately, UKIP already has a secret plan to squash all that. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * While this is an almost completely unanswerable question, we can consider two possible models of a presidency, with different approaches -
 * The monarchy is replaced by an equally figurehead president (think Germany). It is unlikely there would be a direct election for such a post - it would be appointed by the government of the day or otherwise selected in an indirect fashion. Politics would continue mostly as normal. It is possible that the president could be almost completely apolitical - if they are merely a figurehead, there is no reason they could not be selected by some external system.
 * The monarch is replaced by an active president in potential tension with an active Prime Minister (think France). It is likely they would be directly elected in some fashion. Politics would become more complex.
 * The third option, which seems less likely, is that the monarch is replaced by an active president who absorbs most of the powers of the existing Prime Minister (think the United States), and the post of chief member of parliament becomes much less significant - we are still left with one powerful leader not two. In this circumstance, either system might emerge; they could be directly elected (as in the US) or chosen by the leading parliamentary party. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the third option is probably most likely. You might want to read through the article Westminster system. It states that one of its features is a "a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or legal and constitutional holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing ceremonial functions. Examples include Queen Elizabeth II, the Governor-General in independent Commonwealth countries, or the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in republican federal systems." Lots of people are quite traditional in that way and despite the massive change a president would bring as head of state, many would still wish to keep the Westminster system (that so many are so proud of) intact. Since you mentioned Germany: I live in Germany and I am often struck by the similarites between the German and English systems. The German Bundespräsident is more or less a carbon copy of Queen Elizabeth when comparing their duties and actvities. This option would certainly involve the least upheaval. Cameron* 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the first option :-). The third option would be Germany with the President having all the powers of the Chancellor, and the Chancellor becoming something like the American "majority leader". Andrew Gray (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The country with a presidential Westminster system closest to the UK (geographically as well as politically) could be Ireland. Here the President (Uachtarán na hÉireann) is elected by the people, but once elected appears to act very much as the Queen does. The main difference appears to be the 14-year term limit (in two 7-year terms). One might speculate that, were the monarchy to be abolished, the Irish system would present the least upheaval of laws and customs, and therefore be attractive. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the Irish president acts like a queen? What happens when she's a female president? μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Queen has no power to terminate the Monarchy. If she abdicates, Charles becomes King automatically. The UK can only be changed from monarchy to republic by Parliament, so a law would be drafted that the Queen is no longer Queen, and a plan for how to run a presidential election. The UK also had to make special arrangements for referendums on alternative vote and Scottish independence. The name, United Kingdom, would also need a re-think. No-one with any influence worth respecting seriously expects anything other than the existing monarchy to continue for many, many decades, so the following point is moot: I think the UK would keep the parliamentary system. A president would be a ceremonial figurehead like, say, Germany and Israel. The French or American style presidential system would take far more constitutional upheaval than UK lawmakers can be bothered with. 92.17.0.133 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)