Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 April 10

= April 10 =

The USS Maine: Is there any particular reason that it specifically was sent to Havana Harbor in 1898 rather than another US battleship?
Is there any specific reason that the USS Maine specifically was sent to Havana Harbor in 1898 rather than another United States battleship? Futurist110 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article USS Maine (1889) says the tub was located in the Florida Keys before being deployed to Cuba, so maybe it was merely convenient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tub? Also, were any other US naval ships stationed in the Florida Keys during this time? Futurist110 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Bugs was referring to the fact that although Maine had only been in commission for three years, several years had been spent prior to that in an unsuccessful attempt to correct the flaws in her design, at a time when warship design was moving very fast. She was still a modern ship and was only intended to "show the flag" at Havana. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for other ships that could have been sent were it not the Maine, I believe the North Atlantic Squadron was the formation that the Maine was a part of. In your independent research to answer your question, I would look to see what other ships would have been a part of the North Atlantic Squadron in 1898.  -- Jayron 32 12:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The blockade order for the ships of the North Atlantic Squadron on April 18, 1898 is here. Maine sank on February 16, so it may be that ships had been moved to Key West from other stations by that date.
 * Key West - The Spanish American War from the Historical Preservation Society of the Upper Keys says: "The USS Maine left Key West, met with the Atlantic Fleet on training maneuvers in the Tortugas, and sailed into Havana Harbor on a peaceful mission". Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Epicurean Objection
From The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd Edition:

"According to Epicurus, a man who says that all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize one who denies it, for he admits that this too happens of necessity. This can be taken as the first in an intriguing (if elusive) run of philosophical arguments purporting to show that belief in determinism is self-invalidating. Since necessitation of a belief does not exclude one’s having good reasons for it, Epicurus’ argument remains unclear. A recent suggestion is that the true force of the argument is in the consequence of determinism that our beliefs are owed to our being caused to make some discoveries and not others."

What is Epicurus' actual argument here? That because, according to a determinist, everyone is pre-ordained to end up having the belief system they do, that makes discussion on the matter pointless, since neither side will be fundamentally capable of changing their view? Loafiewa (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Think it's just that, according to determinism, the determinist is fated to support determinism and the non-determinist is fated to support non-determinism. If either one changes their views, that was also fated, of course.  It reminds me of the old joke, "I wonder why more people don't become solipsists like me..." [[image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Correct, the article for this view (that people have no choice in their actions or speech under determinism) is incompatibilism, in contrast to compatibilists, who hold that free will, in some form at least, is compatible with determinism. - Lindert (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * By the same argument as Epicurus used, an adherent of determinism cannot criticize someone for stepping on their toes, since they could not help it – it was predetermined by Fate that they would do so. I criticize Epicurus for presenting such a fallacious argument. As it happens, I believe strongly in determinism, so I believe Epicurus had no choice but to come up with this argument; this fact was already recorded from the beginning of time in the immutable Book of All that Will come to Pass. So if I am a determinist, why do I criticize Epicurus? It is pointless to ask: I can't help myself – Fate has determined that I will criticize him, and I am powerless; I cannot not criticize him, but have no choice but to comply. --Lambiam 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)