Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 October 30

= October 30 =

COOKING
How much is a saltspoonful measurement? It is in a recipe. thank you JRW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.219.86 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this blog (scroll down to the Amston Sterling salt spoon section) it is exactly 1/4 teaspoon. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an archaic term for 1/4 of a teaspoon. In metric, then, a teaspoon is very close to 5 ml, so 1/4 of a teaspoon would be about 1.2 ml.  See  and .  -- Jayron  32  20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...but take that with a grain of salt, or perhaps 292. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

spiritualism vs. evolution
how can i reconcile the differences between spiritualism and evolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.46.18 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In so far as spititualism is make-it-up-as-you-go-along bunk, and evolution is not, I'd merely make sure that your version of spiritualism incorporates the known landscape of evolution. You can, for instance, admit to evolution whilst still believing in ghosties and ghoulies, if that floats your boat. Sure, you may have to abrogate logic somewhat, but since you;ve already done that to embrace spiritualism, a further tweak should not be harmful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no conflict between them - in as much as spiritualism doesn't even pretend to explain how human life came to be. This is apples and small furry things from Alpha Centauri. The possible deficiencies of spiritualism as a philosophy are beside the point; evolution is science, and spiritualism really, really isn't. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP may be interested in reading Rocks of Ages (the book itself, not just the Wikipedia article about it), which presents one perspective on the issue. -- Jayron  32  21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any God not smart enough to have invented a universe with evolution in it is not worth worshipping? Most opposition I see to evolution has nothing to do with spirituality, which is mindfulness of one's highest values, just the fact that the preacher seems to find the subject personally challenging.  I.e., they have a hard time imagining a God that is smarter than they are. Not sure what references one would want, but see Stephen Jay Gould's Catholic Church-inspired non-overlapping magisteria. I know plenty of Catholic scientists and engineers. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe we ought to define our terms. There's Spiritualism but there's also these.  What exactly  are we talking about?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "spiritualism" to me usually means holding seances and talking to the dead, who surprisingly almost never say, "I'm dead! Leave me in peace already!" Maybe the OP is referring to "spirituality", which is rather a different thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes indeed. Being spiritual is what all trendy young things claim to be, immediately after denying they're religious. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. When someone tells me that they're "spiritual", I usually ask something like, "Meaning what?" Or at least I'm tempted to ask. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate the way "spiritual but not religious" has come to be perceived as (and perhaps be, in some cases) a sort of a pose and a fixed phrase. For a while it was a useful shorthand for "I think there's something beyond the physical world, perhaps because I can sense it, but I'm not persuaded that any of the groups who want to teach me about it know anything more about it than I do".  In some ways that's a more direct affront to religious hierarchies than materialism is, so maybe the backlash is not surprising. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)