Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 14

= January 14 =

Is there any artifact that prove Prophet Daniel's existence?
Are there artifacts that prove the biblical Prophet Daniel was real? I know there are tombs of Daniel. But I want to know if there were any Old Persian and Babylonian writings about him. Can you provide me with some web links?173.32.117.240 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, and it is almost certain that he did not exist. The scholarly consensus on the Book of Daniel is that it was written during the Maccabean period; see  for a discussion of the evidence.  --Bowlhover (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There might have been some person upon whom the (later-written-down) stories were based, but he was certainly less important in Babylonian history than in later Hebrew tradition. For an alternative viewpoint, see Bible History or Vision Media.    D b f i r s   07:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the pre-Hellenistic period, there are few artifacts referring to Israelites/Jews mentioned in the Bible by name, except for a few references to kings of Israel and Kings of Judah, and Baruch son of Neriah... -- 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

driver license U.S. Supeme Court V. Michigan supeme court
what is right the U.S. Supeme Court or the Michigan supeme court on the right to drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.170.125 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the case you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are talking about Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz. Or maybe something along the lines of Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel. And please, it's supreme not supeme. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that, it should be pointed out to the OP that there is no "right to drive" on public roads. It's a privilege granted by the individual states, which is granted and/or revoked based on the laws of any given state. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is certainly true under current law. However, I have to wonder, if we were as dependent on cars when the Constitution was written as we are now, if the right to drive might have been enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I expect that this right could be taken away, with due process, just as property can be.  However, just declaring that some class of people can't drive, like illegal immigrants, would then be prohibited. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Or under 16 years of age, as an excluded group? In the days the Constitution was written, the term "driving" referring to leading (or actually "pushing") a horse or a team of horses (hence the term "teamster", later applied to truck drivers). Be it horses or horseless carriages, driving is not a natural "right", it's a skill that has to be learned and mastered. I don't know that carriage drivers were "licensed". But once the states got in the business of spending lots of tax money on roads, they had to pay for it, hence the justification for drivers licenses and gasoline taxes, among other things - and restrictions on just who can drive, as a matter of public safety. To incorporate the addressing of such details into the Constitution would run counter to its purpose. It's much more broadly covered by the rule that you can't be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. "Liberty" would include freedom to move from one place to another, which could include driving, but not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the right to vote is included in the Constitution/Amendments, yet there's no problem denying that right to minors. Presumably the language would be something like "The right of a person over 18 to drive a motor vehicle shall not be denied, without due process of law, including the right to appeal".


 * BTW, I wonder if minorities were denied the right to drive (perhaps with exceptions for chauffeurs) in the bad old days of segregation, much as they were denied the right to vote. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dunno. But the constitutional equivalent would be something like the right to drive shall not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. I'm still not convinced that the Constitution would not have much to say about driving. I don't think there's one word in there about horses, for example. And the case's complaint wasn't about any alleged "right to drive", it was about whether the Fourth Amendment applies to unannounced checkpoints looking for drunken drivers. I doubt very much that the Constitution would have said that any such right to drive shall not be denied on grounds of the driver's level of inebriation. The court decided that public safety is the overriding factor. Now, if you have a piece of property with a private road on it, that's a different story. You can drive totally drunk and/or without a license, as long as you don't break any other laws in the process (e.g. disturbing the peace). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason there was no need for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to drive horses was there was very little attempt to take it away, back then. With driving now, though, we have all sorts of reasons proposed to take it away, that have nothing to do with safe roads, like failure to make child support payments.


 * As for sobriety check lanes, they would seem to run afoul of the "unreasonable search and seizure" clause, as searching everyone just in case they are hiding something is not reasonable (imagine the police searching every home, at will, just to see what they could find). In this case, they are searching for alcohol, with no reasonable cause to suspect it.  I've often thought that an exception should exist for patrons driving away from a bar.  In that case, there does indeed seem to be reason to suspect they might be drunk, in my opinion.  I'd have no problem with cops checking everyone who tries to drive away from a bar. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have often heard that argument, and I'm not totally unsympathetic to it, but the high court ruled otherwise. I say again, though, that there is no "right to drive" a horse or a car or any other vehicle on a publicly-owned road. The public (via the legislature) builds the roads, and sets the rules for the use of those roads. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * driving is not a natural "right", it's a skill that has to be learned and mastered - I don't think that dichotomy works. In the US constitution context, I'd say that keeping and bearing arms also requires reasonable skill that needs to be learned. And on a more global level, "speech" is something that needs to be learned (although the cynic in me would claim that most never master it ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that the OP's premise is flawed - there is no such thing as a "right to drive". The constitutional issue was whether the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. And the high court said no, it is in fact a "reasonable" search. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a different point, and one I easily agree with. My point was that the argument "It's a learned skill, therefore it's not a natural right" does not hold (without prejudice even to the conclusion, which may or may not be correct based on other arguments). I'm undecided on the conclusion, but I think a good argument for a right to drive in a society where driving is ubiquitous and widely perceived as necessary for most life styles can be made. Of course in that case it's not an absolute right, but then neither are life (in the US) or liberty, to name two of the more important ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property in the US without due process of law. As regards driving, as a practical matter, it's pretty easy to get a license, and you have to do something severe to lose that privilege. All kinds of things are "licensed" in America. Being a doctor or lawyer, for example. Using the "right to drive" logic, anyone has the "right" to become a doctor or lawyer, for example - but they have to meet certain qualifications first, and that "right" can be revoked if they do something severely wrong. In the given case, the drivers were arguing that random checkpoints are unconstitutional. The court held that safety is the more important factor. If someone is pulled over just because they're a minority, for example, that's another matter altogether. (I don't recall if the high court has heard a case about that yet.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I really reject the concept of the "natural right" entirely. The rights we have are those we've forced the government to grant us, no more and no less.  Thus, if we force them to consider driving to be a right, then it is.  Since we haven't yet done this, it currently isn't a "right".


 * There also seems to be more of a common law approach to rights. For example, most people would argue that adults should have the right to drink alcohol, so long as they do so responsibly.  Prohibition ran afoul of this "common law right", and thus was widely ignored.  Should the government declare cars illegal, I'd expect about the same level of compliance as Prohibition had.  That is, people feel they have the right to drive, regardless of what the government tells them they can and can not do. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as I recall, there were a number of 19th century Supreme Court cases on the rights of drivers and passengers of stagecoaches and the like to be not searched, and they tended to be more protective of individual rights than the modern ones of the age of the automobile.John Z (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The major difference between drinking and driving being that it's a lot easier to do the first in private than the second. Conversely, the problem is that the law against doing both at once is also widely ignored.  Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not so widely ignored in countries where random breath test units can be encountered almost anywhere, almost any time. They really do act as a deterrent.  In Victoria, where I live, we've just had our lowest road death toll since about 1926, and RBTs played a part in that outcome.  To my knowledge, nobody here has ever seriously expressed anything like the civil liberties concerns that the US Supreme Court took to heart in their decision outlawing them over there.  We hold civil liberties in very high regard here, but we also hold human life in high regard and believe that if you've done nothing wrong re drink-driving or other drug-driving, you've got no reason to be afraid of a little random scrutiny that delays the progress of your very important life by about 30 seconds.  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A question of logic (and language?)
If I were, say, the Southern Poverty Law Center and I defined Anglicanophobia as the "dread or hatred of the Church of England and therefore, fear and dislike of all Anglicans", would I be guilty of any sort of error in logic? I mean, can't a person dread or hate the C of E without extending those emotions to individual Anglicans or even Anglicans in general? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the extent of your prejudices. Hating any given organization does not necessarily imply hating individuals in or subject to that organization. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To me it seems a logical fallacy to say "Bugs hates the Anglican Church or Anglican Christianity, therefore Bugs hates Henry Tudor, an Anglican, and all other Anglicans as well". It does not compute.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. So what are you leading up to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be patient, O long-eared, long-toothed one. Let's wait for some more input from others.  (They tell me there is no deadline.)  I appreciate your prompt response.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the statement may be a logical fallacy, but that fallacy can be corrected this way: "So-and-so hates Frisbeetarianism, therefore he might hate George Carlin, but then again he might not." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be a logical fallacy. Outside of textbook examples, classifying fallacies is often tricky, and one statement can be engaging in several fallacies. At first I thought your example would exhibit the Fallacy_of_composition, but that would be more appropriate for "He loves Anglicans, therefore he loves all English people." Instead of leaping from the part to the whole, here the statement is erroneously leaping from an organization to individuals. Check out list of logical fallacies and see what you can come up with. On a related note of rhetorical figures, I think that you want something more like metonymy, and less like synechdoche. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note this is somewhat up to interpretation. Is it possible to love a car, but not love wheels? Reasonable people can disagree on how (or if) relations are inherited across classes and types. If you are truly interested in logical fallacies, try to come up with an example that doesn't have anything to do with human sentiment ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth pointing out the distinction between mere hatred (or fear) and a phobia. Phobias imply irrational fear/hatred - or at least fear or hatred that extends beyond normal rational levels. So while I would not expect someone who simply hated the Church of England to hate/fear a particular person just because they're an Anglican, it would not be unreasonable for someone who had Anglicanophobia to have an (irrational) fear/hatred of individuals simply for being Anglican. The issue with the definition quoted above, if there is one, is ambiguity in the meaning of "therefore". I'm guessing the intent is not to use it to mean "logically equivalent to", but rather to mean "as a (non-logically required) consequence of which". -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is another fallacy at work here, namely the etymological fallacy. And possibly there also is a problem of symbol grounding at work. But for the concrete sentence, the interpretation depends on context and hidden but often understood assumptions. "I hate the Anglican Church for perfectly rational reasons that any good people would share. Anglicans voluntarily give support (at least moral) to this dreaded organization, therefore they are not good people. Whoever is not good is bad. I hate bad people, therefore I hate Anglicans." is a stupid but perfectly cromulent argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See, what you've introduced in your discussion is the etymological fallacy, which is a new fallacy that we didn't have till you brought it up. What the etymological fallacy says, in simplest terms is that words can ONLY mean what either a) their parts mean or b what they meant at some time in the past in distant history in another context. In simpler terms than that even: history is not usage. While the etymology of "-phobia" is from the ancient Greek "fear", the usage of the term in this context is "hatred". While interesting in a scholarly sense what the term comes from, historically, it is more important to understand words how they are used rather than where they evolved from. In a sense, it's like trying to understand modern human behavior by solely looking at how Australopithecines behaved. Yes, modern humans evolved from a such creatures, but humans have traits which are different than them. Likewise, the words we use today evolved from earlier words, and thus, while connected by history, change over time. -- Jayron  32  16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If we assume for the purposes of discussion that a "church" is exactly the collection of its members, then this example is illustrating the Fallacy_of_division. If we assume that a "church" is a set of ideas, then this example is still exhibiting the general problem of Faulty_generalization. Again, if your true interest is logical fallacies, this could be better discussed from an example that uses less nebulous terms. If you can't find a phrasing that uses e.g. cats or cars, and still captures the problem in your mind, then I posit that the problem has more to do with definitions and semantics of phobias, churches, and hatred, than it does with classical logical fallacies. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue, SemanticMantis, that if we assume for the purposes of discussion that a "church" is exactly the collection of its members, then the example isn't fallacious at all; in fact it's probably the only case where it isn't fallacious.  It may be tautological, but not fallacious.  I did read the Fallacy of division (thank you!) and its 747 and jet engines example, but I don't think it fits because a 747 has lots of different parts; our church only has members, i.e., lots of the same part.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter if the parts are the same or not. Consider:
 * A collection (C) of 1000 bricks will sink my rowboat.
 * Brick A is part of the collection C.
 * Therefore, Brick A will sink my rowboat.
 * See the problem? The point is that the properties of a collection are not necessarily the properties of constituent parts. This is why I think you'll be better off getting away from hatred and religion. From a formal logic perspective, the structure and validity of an argument does not depend upon the symbols (i.e. words in this case), but rather on the sequence of logical connectives, the truth value of the antecedents, and the truth value of the consequent. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, who would define any of the world's great religions so narrowly? In addition to members, they also have Writings, Traditions, Creeds, Saints and Sages, Buildings, Music, Liturgies, a History, often a Hierarchy, etc., etc. etc.  I do appreciate your input, SM; it has helped me think about the issue.  (I'm still reading all the blue links you've kindly provided).   --71.178.50.222 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, my point is to avoid discussing "what is a church?" That is perhaps an interesting question, but it has little to do with logic, and is rather an issue of culture, sociology, theology, etc. In this case, I think it muddies the water. Whenever we analyze the the logical validity of a statement (which is essentially what you asked us to do), it helps to formalize the language, e.g. in terms of predicates. Doing so for something as complicated as the Anglican church, (and membership in said church) is rather difficult, and there is no one "right" way to do so. For example:
 * "A hates the C of E": could be formalized with a "hate" predicate H: H(A, CoE)
 * "X is a member of C of E": could be formalized with a "member" predicate M: M(X,CoE)
 * "A hates X": H(A,X)
 * As written, we cannot logically conclude that the consequent 3 follows from the premises 1 and 2. -- and in this framing, the argument is invalid (not all invalid arguments fit cleanly into a named logical fallacy, but many do). However, someone else could characterize the statement differently, say by including formulations on how H and M relate to eachother, and that could conceivably validate the argument. Personally, I think the essence of the issue is that membership in a group does not mean that members inherit all the properties of the group. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And finally, a simpler example to illustrate what I claim is the fallacy:
 * The sports team X won the game
 * A is a member of team X
 * Therefore A won the game.
 * Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One last question, SM. User:IP 160.129... says above "The issue with the definition quoted above, if there is one, is ambiguity in the meaning of 'therefore'."  Do you find "therefore" ambiguous in the original definition of Anglicanophobia?  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. When discussing logic (and "logic" is in the header), I always assume "therefore" is natural language for entailment, a.k.a. a "logical implication". In some contexts, "therefore" might mean a material conditional, but the arcane distinctions between those two concepts don't really matter much for this discussion. However, even though the ambiguity did not occur to me, 160.129's comment is apt. Some people probably do use "therefore" without any logical baggage attached, and a psychological consequence need not be a formal logical consequence. For example, suppose it were true that everyone who had arachnophobia also had acrophobia. Then 1. "A has arachnophobia" therefore 2. "A has acrophobia", would be TRUE set of statements, but it would not be a logically valid inference (as written). The use of "therefore" in this case, should not be read as entailment, but rather as some other type of consequence, as the IP says above. This is all rather difficult to write about carefully, as you can see :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate all your help here, SemanticMantis. Thank you!  I still have a bunch of your blue links to read.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all who took time here. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What is this flag?
The illustration legend says «Teaching the negro recruits the use of the Minie rifle» Can you identify the flag, which looks like the present Japan flag? Thank you. Dhatier (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it's the regimental flag. The closest I can find is this one, though that's a Confederate regiment. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A Japanese flag of any kind would be out of place in the US Civil War. My inexpert guess would be that the colored dot on the white field is a warning flag signifying a firing range.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, could be a signal flag. See Signal Corps in the American Civil War. This photo depicts a signal station with a soldier holding a large white flag with a darker square or circle in the centre. Unfortunately it's hanging down, so it's difficult to see clearly. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * After a little more looking, I found I Corps (Union Army) which used a red ball in a double black border on white field as its badge. Its 1st and 3rd Divisions also used a red or blue ball on white.  Also see (you better have good eyes!): Civil War flags poster, showing I Corps 1st and 3rd Div flags but not red ball in black border for all of I Corps.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a place called Briarcliff(e) in Pennsylvania near Philadelphia?
It can be a city, township, CDP, borough... and if someone know, can you please tell me what it is and in which county it is located? —  Poison  Whiskey  16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The number one Google hit for Briarcliff PA or Briarcliffe PA is our article Glenolden, Pennsylvania. The name Briarcliffe is not mentioned in the article, but is listed as an unincorporated community in the Delaware County template.  It also appears associated with Darby Township, which appears to be split into two pieces by the borough of Glenolden.  Most Google hits seem to prefer Briarcliffe with an E, though there are other sources listing Briarcliff, no E, as a place in Delaware County.  Neither spelling appears to be recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau.  Most sources call it a "neighborhood" if they call it anything.  Here's the Google Maps hit. Hope this helps.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, it totally helped me.  Poison  Whiskey  18:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Poison Whiskey, a great source for this kind of thing is the GNIS database, http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic. It doesn't have every place in the country, and Briarcliff(e) only appears once, but with 2.25 million locations in the database, they're almost always going to have the thing you wanted.  Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nyttend. According to this website (briarcliffefireco.com), Briarcliffe is indeed part of Darby Township.  Poison  Whiskey  01:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Corporate profits versus manager pay
For a large company (like Apple, for example), how does the total salary of the top-level managers compare to its annual profits? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 20.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The World`s Oldest Crime Novel
I was wondering if you wikipedians had any idea what was the first crime novel ever written. And the year it was written and published. THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.27.6 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article on crime fiction names the first known crime novel as The Rector of Veilbye by Steen Steensen Blicher, published in Denmark in 1829. The article on the history of crime fiction names some notable antecedents, crime stories that would not be considered novels. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * An even earlier example, not mentioned in our article: the two apocryphal sections of the Book of Daniel known as "Bel and the Dragon" and "Daniel and Susanna" incorporate two detective short stories. In the first, Daniel shows what really happens to sacrifices apparently eaten by the statue of the Babylonian deity Bel; in the second, he successfully defends a woman against her accusers by interviewing them separately and showing the discrepancies between their testimony. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)