Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 13

= March 13 =

Why is this space venture not a scam?
If you ask for funding to take people to space in, maybe, 10 or 20 years, but have no possibility of actually launching a simple rocket, is that a scam? Do we have to wait 30-40 years to cry "scam"?--Fend 83 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's all in the intentions. Scams set out to deceive people.  Risky ventures have a genuine vision, however unlikely it is to be achieved.  Some Venture capitalists like to invest in projects that have a low probability of success, because in the unlikely case that they do succeed, there is a very high financial return.  I'm not sure whether this falls into that category, or if investors just like to be involved in something so forward-looking.    D b f i r s   01:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mars One doesn't plan to launch any rockets; it plans to hire companies like SpaceX to launch those rockets. Mars One itself is for raising funds, selecting the astronauts, marketing, and contracting all the hardware work to private companies.  --98.232.12.250 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, the project is by no means feasible, even in the most optimistic analysis. What if they started selling plots on Mars, with an entry on the Martian Property Register and all? They appear to be asking for donations, and not selling tickets to Mars, but they have no reason to believe that they can deliver. Fend 83 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ". . .the project is by no means feasible . . ." is your opinion, but others may differ. [Warning: the following is not impartial.] Having had some contact with some of those involved in of Mars One via the similar organization The Mars Society, I have no doubt that that the people involved genuinely do think the project is feasible, and I personally wouldn't disagree and hope that they're right. (If I had appropriate skills and were younger, I would have signed up myself before now.)
 * Of course, no-one involved thinks that we have, today, all the technology and techniques to be able to launch tomorrow: part of the point is to lobby for and contribute to ongoing research that will, they/we hope, enable the expeditions in a decade or two's time.
 * I'm also fairly sure that no-one is expecting or trying to personally make any money out of all this (at least in the short term, where short = less than 40 years), and most are probably contributing significant time/money of their own: its all for Science! and Humanity! :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SpaceX themselves have said that, although they have been in contact, there are no contracts, and that there would need to be technological development they are not planning on doing. So it is indeed currently by no means feasible. Calling them wide-eyed dreamers is by far the most charitable interpretation. I would definitely call it a scam. Fgf10 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of us here seem to disagree. See my distinction above.  To some in 1961, Kennedy's goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" might have seemed like a scam, but he had the money to throw at the project, and it succeeded (unless you believe in Moon landing conspiracy theories.    D b f i r s   21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Scam is defined as fraud or to defraud, a civil tort and the accusation of which without evidence is defamation per se. See talk. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is mathematics necessary in qualitative thinking, such as in making moral or value judgments?
Follow-up question: How systematic is qualitative reasoning as opposed to quantitative and scientific thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja2015 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything can be broken down eventually to mathematics. The two disciplines may meet, if mankind survives long enough. A moral or value judgment is just that, that 'decisions' the selfish Gene uses to best maximizes its continuance. That can mathematically be laid out. --Aspro (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean everything can eventually be described mathematically? Everything being broken down to mathematics is Pythagoreanism, and an odd sort of naive reductionism to be held nowadays.


 * For example, if you want to remind yourself to do something, all you need to do is leave a common item in a strange place or orientation, and it will remind you. For example, leave a comb in the sink or a dollar under your comb, or hang a scarf on your doorknob (the list is arbitrary and infinite) to remind yourself to go for a haircut, or buy shampoo, or make an appointment with the dermatologist....  This is not capable of being broken down into mathematics.  See also, emergence and the arbitrariness of the sign.  There is no reason why the should be called dogs in English but perros in Spanish, and no connection between those sounds and those things.


 * Finally, among biologists, the selfish gene theory as Dawkins first put it forth has been described (properly) as not even science by such people as E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr (who derides the idea as "beanbag genetics"), and Stephen J. Gould. Dawkins has had to qualify his statements to the point of negating any original claim in his defense of the ideas of that book. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How much math is required for making moral judgements is pretty much the split between Deontological ethics and Utilitarianism, which are considered opposite ends of the spectrum. Deontological ethics pretty much ignores math and basically asks "if everyone did this thing, what would happen?"  Utilitarianism aims for whatever brings the greatest good for the most amount of people (which requires at least something like mathematical consideration).  Both, at their extremes, have problems that their proponents would deny, their opponents would overemphasize, and those in the middle would be disgusted with.  If presented with a situation where one had to torture a small child to death to save thousands of people, extreme deontological ethics would proudly let thousands die, and extreme utilitarianism would proudly torture a small child.  Of course, that's not something that comes up in everyday life, but still, one could conclude from this that one needs to use either approach as needed for moral judgements.  Alternatively one might reject all this and conclude that we're just making this up as we go along, we're not going to be satisfied, and that there are more important things.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Logic is sometimes considered part of philosophy, but of course there is a whole branch of logic that is really just math. So Formal_ethics might be the closest thing to what OP is looking for. It's not necessary to use formal math to address ethics/morals, but it can and has been done. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some comments. The logical genus that subsumes both mathematical thought and ethical thought is conceptual thought.  Not all concepts are mathematical.  The concepts of the "fruit/vegetable opposition" or "reality TV" or "gossip" are not mathematical.  Second, utilitarianism provides no moral content, and does not define the good.  It merely gives the circular definition that the good is that which is the most good for the most people, reducing ethics to factional politics.  Third, deontological ethics again provides no content outside of either religious revelation or the arbitrary Kantian maxim.  And, fourth, these two notions plus moral relativism do not provide the only alternatives.  There is also, at a minimum, rational egoism which is a form of consequentialism: if an individual wants to live a happy life he must take certain actions and avoid others.  Conceptual reasoning should be logical.  That brings us to us to Aristotle's axioms, A = A; A V ~A; ~(A & ~A).  But the A's are not necessarily numerical equations. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thus sayeth Ayn Rand, whose ethics are not universally praised, in part because ethical egoism can lead to a profit-based morality, her attacks on deontological ethics and utilitarianism are straw men, and her criticism of Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism apply to her ethics as well. If utilitarianism provides no moral content, neither does ethical egoism -- it just changes the factions to individuals.  And if deontological ethics provides no content outside of religious revelation or the arbitrary Kantian maxim, ethical egoism provides no content outside of greed or the redundant Aristotelian maxim (that Aristotle might not have actually said anyway). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's rather smarmy and political, attacking the target Ayn Rand, whom I did not refer to as an authority, and with whose ethics I have serious problems.  Although not the rational egoism part.  A simple, "that sounds like Ayn Rand" and a bare link saying, one can see Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) would have been more neutral.


 * Ethical egoism simply holds that each self's (yours, mine, his, hers) own happiness is its highest concern. It's called the right to the pursuit of happiness.  That's the same as mainstream Christianity (at least Catholicism since Aquinas)--your salvation (eternal happiness) is your highest moral concern, as well as the ethics of Aristotle, Sedgwick, Spinoza, Locke, Epicurus, and the Stoics.  Rational egoism just limits itself to what's demonstrable without revelation or the thought of an afterlife.  No 72 virgins, or enjoying the contemplation of the wicked burning in hellfire.


 * Also, you don't define greed, just relying on its grinchly connotation. Perhaps you think a man who lives as a thief off others is an egoist?  He is not, he's a parasite, totally dependent on the work of others and their deception, not on his own self-reliance.


 * What provides content to rational egoism is a person's own particular values, his own particular nature. I like writing, you like professional golf, she likes medicine, he likes being a cop.  If I am gay, I should not want to try to pretend I am straight out of duty or "social norms" or the greater good of the Lebensborn.  According to egoism, each of us is responsible for our own happiness, and it does not come in the mail from Gordon Brown.  For example, I know a woman who takes great joy in helping disabled and disadvantaged children.  She takes great personal joy in it.  That's entirely admirable according to ethical egoism.  Perhaps it's also greedy?  It is of no moral worth to Kant, since she does it because she takes pleasure in it, not out of a sense of duty.  Nor does she do it for free because the greatest good for the greatest number demands it.


 * In any case, my point that duty, collectivism, and subjectivism are not the only three options in ethics, and that logic is prior to math are valid, relative points. I'll assume Aristotelian maxim was a misspelling for axioms.  (If you want to argue that logic is of no value, please don't use logic yourself in trying to prove it.)  All math and logic is tautoligical.  That does not make it redundant. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An even better example of rational egoism in action (although I don't know that, and doubt that she considers herself an egoist) is the Model Melanie Gaydos. See this inspiring 12 minute interview).  Gaydos had an abusive family, and suffers from ectodermal dysplasia, which means her skin, hair, nails, teeth and palate didn't develop properly.  She left on her own to make it in NYC. In the interview, she is asked whether she would like to trade places with someone else, to which she replies she is happy being herself, and that she would never wish her own physical condition on another person. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mathematics is necessary in qualitative thinking but I don't think we use our brains with any degree of control over such things as synapses and chemical signals and electrical patterns that our brains might need to use in order to create "thoughts". Thinking can be quantified but as thinkers we have no access to that which takes place on a molecular/chemical/electrical level. We are left with weighing our thoughts and analyzing their relationship to one another. I think this is what we are calling "qualitative thinking". Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Brother and fatherly protectiveness
I recently read an article about a guy who found out his sister was an adult actress and he freaked out and became over-protective. I thought that was a normal reaction. But then later I read that there are other adult actresses who have had fathers and brothers who support them and even encourage it. That surprised me. So I was wondering which is the more common/usual/customary/typical reaction when guys find out about a female relative doing adult films? The overprotective reaction or the "I'm cool with it" reaction? Gteen-hed-or-wurple (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt there has ever been a comprehensive study of the reactions of all adult film stars and their male relatives, no one has asked all of them and written down the data and plotted it out. However, we do have some anecdotal examples of those who are "cool with it", noting that anecdotes do not indicate any general trends and cannot be used to gather information about people beyond those specific to the anecdote.  That qualification being said, Sunny Lane is an adult film actress whose parents take an active role in managing her career.  There may be others.  -- Jayron 32 15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you'll want a book for this. Jayron is right, there likely won't be detailed statistics available, but I'm sure this question has come up in the context of ethnography of pornography and the porn industry. Here's a few books I found that might be helpful  . The last one in particular seems to have a huge reference list/bibliography. Searching things like /porn star actress ethnography/ will also turn up some relevant results, like this . SemanticMantis (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jewel De'Nyle got her stepdad (since six) a job at Platinum X Pictures. Seems to have been more drama with her momma, the similarly named pornstar De'Bella. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, are we at the stage now where "adult actress" is taken to mean "porn star"? Isn't Meryl Streep an adult actress?  Oh but wait again, I thought all members of the acting profession preferred to be called "actors" these days (except at the Oscars, where the female ones gladly accept a "Best (Supporting) Actress" award).  Does that make Meryl an "adult actor", which distinguishes her both from child actors and from her adult thespian sisters who prefer to show more of their bodies than their minds?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the trouble with euphemisms clashing with the pure meanings of words. Reminds me of a friend, a church minister, who reported that he wandered into the local porn shop and was asking about materials on religion. The clerk said, "This is an adult book store." The pastor said, "Well, I'm an adult!" Apparently the clerk was not amused. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Heh, I laugh at the over-priced goods in the amusingly-named "Health Foods" section of the supermarket. What are all the other foodstuffs they sell there supposed to do for us?  Poison us?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Same with "performance enhancing drugs". Should athletes stick to placebos? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rafael Palmeiro used to advertise Viagra, and in an ironic twist, his baseball career came to an end due to "performance enhancing drugs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hulk Hogan sold four different colours of vitamins to children. Then he told the grownups a slightly different story. His career was also never the same; he was soon relegated to working the bush league, with riffraff like Ted Turner, The Walt Disney Company and the New World Order. Tragic.
 * When he was offered a Viagra commercial, he asked "Are you crazy?" No, it's Steel Libido all the way, brother! ("Do not use if pregnant or lactating.") InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More on topic, Hogan's closest "brother" directly supported his rise to "pornstardom", by secretly filming his wife (Hogan's "sister-in-law", I guess) getting bodyslammed. His then-wife was not supportive of the filming, and his next wife was "rattled" when it "leaked". His father, appropriately named Peter, had no comment, as he was still dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, you could say Hogan is a bit "protective" of his "pop star" daughter. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pornstar" used to mean more, too. In the good old days, you could count the stars on one hand (or two, afterward). Now somebody can shoot a few Z-grade films, get famous for murder instead and see "CANNIBAL PORNSTAR" in the bright lights of The Daily Mail.
 * If this means he counts as an adult actress, Luka Magnotta's dad didn't seem too supportive, and his mom seemed protective. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that this is merely the product of two factors, male protectiveness and possessiveness towards female kin and mates, and the males' views of whether the adult industry is good or bad for women? I.e., can we not by definition assume a male would support his female kin working in porn if he thought it were safe, lucrative, and empowering, and oppose it if he felt it were dangerous, immoral and degrading? I note that our article on gender roles has a huge section all to its own on Disney films, but not much on paternal protectiveness. I guess that pseudobalances the fact that we have an article on feminazism? μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)