Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 July 13

= July 13 =

Do midwives have knowledge of abortifacients and induce abortions?
Who actually performs abortions? A surgeon, physician, midwife, or a pharmacist/apothecary? Is the physician traditionally for rich folks but the apothecary is for poor folks and the midwife is for women? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you actually try to look any of this up in Wikipedia or anywhere else, or are you just rambling ideas without making any effort to look things up? Wikipedia has articles on the topic, which are quite detailed.  Read them first, then ask questions about what you don't understand.  Your manner of asking random questions whose answers are easily findable with a minimum effort are starting to wear the patience of many people quite thin.  -- Jayron 32 01:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? I thought this was the reference desk, and that I'm supposed to ask for references, even if they are "easily findable". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See those boxes at the top of the page? Have you ever tried using them? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What boxes? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Reference Desk is for those that have all ready done some basic inquiry, but without result and thus require help from a greater cohort of editors here on RF.  Read : . Aspro (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cute. And the kind of thing that could cause a lengthy row at the talk page. But I too am curious: What boxes are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure the search boxes for wikipedia and for the reference desk. (Particularly the former.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to ask for any reference you're having trouble finding yourself, but the reference desk is staffed by real people who are not being paid for this.
 * We're happy to help if you need help, but It's rude to ask volunteers for something that you could have gotten yourself very easily.
 * For this question, I think you could find your answers from the article abortion. "Apothecary" is a job description that doesn't really exist any more in developed nations. The modern equivalent is a pharmacist.
 * ApLundell (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the reverse. That it is rude to ask paid employees. It's like a guy who says, "Please volunteer to cut my lawn." If I don't want to cut off his lawn, then I'd not cut his lawn. I would probably not say, "Stop being lazy! You are able-bodied, so you should cut your own lawn." Instead, I would just not reply to the request. A similar example is receiving a phone call from a telemarketer or scammer or phone prankster. I'd just not reply. By not replying, I can pretend that I never saw the request in the first place. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. If someone is paid to do a service and you're asking for that service, then they tend to be more patient when people waste their time with stupid question. So for example, a real life librarian staffing a reference desk who is paid to (probably amongst other things) staff that reference desk is going to be more willing to put up with a dumb troll like you simply because it's their job. Likewise a if there is a menu right in front of you, wait staff will be more patient if you ask them what's on the menu than if you ask some random person. If you want to stick with the silly lawn example, if you ask someone who owns a lawn mowing business to mow your lawn be fully willing to pay them whatever the cost is, then they may say no if they have too many customers or whatever but, they're not likely to get annoyed if you only ask once. If you ask some random person, even if you're willing to pay them, they're likely to say no but may or may not get annoyed depending on the circumstance. If you're Mark Zuckerberg and today you go to a community group who offers free lawn mowing for the poor elderly, and ask them to mow your lawn for free they may very well get annoyed and ask you to bugger off. If you keep asking them in different ways they may end up asking you to leave, threatening to trespass you if you keep refusing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nil, I have to say that I think you crossed over the line into personal attacks here. Dragons flight (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't think it so much a personal attack on User:Nil Einne's part, more an expression of growing  frustration, that many of us are getting from this  single purposes and anonymous account that just keeps asks questions on our help desks instead of doing some simple searching themselves. One might well ask: what did his last slave die of. Rather than ban,  lets send him to  Coventry. For he is delaying us to getting around to addressing and considering fully,  other questions from people that really derive some useful benefit from our help desks.  The OP has proven himself to be a butterfly that flits from one flower to another. This is not what our helps desks are for. Aspro (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think selective ignoring of the OP is better than total ignoring of the OP. On rare occasions, the OP does answer questions on the Reference Desk. It's really just the questions that get annoying. I say we ignore the OP's stupid questions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 50.4, I understand why you would think of that, but I'm afraid you're wrong.
 * This is not equivalent to asking random friends if they'll help you out. This is a service provided by volunteers.
 * People here are happy to help you, but if it's clear you haven't put in even thirty seconds of effort on your own, your request will be seen as rude. (After all, you're implying that your time is too valuable to waste, but ours isn't.) ApLundell (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the person actually wants an answer. There are people who go to forums like this and try to think of stupid questions just to be annoying. They don't actually want an answer. They just want to be annoying. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am assuming good faith. ApLundell (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Without disagreeing in the slightest with any particular point that Jayron, jpgordon, ApLundell, Nil Einne, or Aspro have said, it's also worth noting that there's no reason not to simply ignore the poster in circumstances such as these. Jayron's initial AGF comment was perhaps advisable, insofar as there's no harm in making the point he chose to make to the IP (who may have taken the advice on board). But as soon as the IP started getting into this entitled defense of their refusal to do even the most basic search of information (that is already painstakingly gathered and organized per the entire point of this project ), the regulars here should know to wash their hands. Not double down on trying to explain to the IP why it was not a smart first move to not at least look at our article on abortion first.  Because if this individual is a troll (and I agree it looks like a very distinct possibility, given their responses), then you are simply biting hard on the lure.


 * And even if they aren't a troll--even if they are just that lazy--then ignoring them is still the best way to send the message that we're only interested in helping those whose interest in a subject is beyond the idle level needed to post an inquiry about whatever random thought happens to be floating through their head at the moment--or at least when the answer to said basic question is easily found within 60 seconds of using our encyclopedia. Which this community was kind enough to build for them for that exact purpose.  If ignored in such circumstances, they either take the hint and next time wait until they've truly hit a roadblock before inquiring here...or they don't, but at least our contributors didn't waste their time on the affair and just blew by the thread without comment (in an ideal world).  WP:DENY all around, is my advice--especially if this has been going on for a while with this particular user.  S n o w  let's rap 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to ignore the stupid questions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Midwife, Abortion. Blooteuth (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Midwives don't do abortions. Their role is to assist in standard childbirth. Abortionists do abortions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess as a tautological statement, that's true, but "abortionist" is not a title or occupation used anywhere in the world, that I'm aware of, except in reference to unlicensed/"back alley" procedures, perhaps. In most of the world where the procedure is legal and regulated (and even in many nations where it is illegal) abortions are performed by a medical doctor (they could possibly be a surgeon or a general physician, but they are likely to be specialists in obstetrics).


 * You are actually mistaken that midwives never perform abortions; in many developed countries they do. In fact, a Swedish midwife very recently went before the European Court of Human Rights, asserting unfair dismissal from her position as midwife after she was terminated for refusing to perform abortions, for religious beliefs. But part of this is a matter of variation in nomenclature and licensing schemes; midwives are not licensed to perform abortions in the U.S., for example.  And given the focus of their work, I would speculate that most would not want to (though no small number of them will have provided assistance in a miscarriage at some point in their career).  Pharmacists do not perform abortions (not legally anyway), though most would have the knowledge of how to trigger one with medication, though this would be very dangerous, especially outside a controlled environment and not under the guidance of someone trained in the procedure.


 * There, now you see what you made me do? I've had to answer the OP's question in full in order to correct your fly-by response. (I understand being curt with the OP, but if you're going to answer at all, remember that other people may end up reading this). Shall we now close this as a resolved, since the OP's very basic question ahs been answered?  S n o w  let's rap 21:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do if you asked two experts and they have conflicting opinions?
If you don't know much (or nothing at all) about some issue, but have to take a decision: what to do if you asked two (or more) experts and they have conflicting opinions? --Hofhof (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you, yourself, can either a) seek more information or b) remain agnostic on the decision, that is, take no stance yourself. In formal statistical logic, this is called the Principle of indifference, and holds that you should believe that each person has a 50% chance of being correct, i.e. you should think that neither is more right than the other until more evidence comes along from other sources.  Or, you have no reason to do anything.  It is rare that exactly two, and no more, equally respected people are sufficiently knowledgeable in that subject.  That is, you always have more than two opinions usually (except, perhaps, the Schleswig-Holstein Question, but I think there you had at least 3 people who knew about it).  From a philosophical point of view, what you're asking about is an abstract version of Buridan's ass perhaps.  Since you're speaking in the abstract, I'm not sure what help we can give you except to direct you to vague philosophical concepts.  If you gave us the specific conundrum you face, we could perhaps direct you to more information on it to break your indecision.  -- Jayron 32 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We have a nice article on decision theory, SEP's article is better.  There's statistical methods, bayesian and frequentist inferential methods, etc etc. Here's  a freely accessible older but well-cited scholarly article on the topic of behavioral decision theory. One key distinction is to separate normative from descriptive branches of study. "deciding agents should do this" is a very different from "this is what deciding agents are observed to do." While this theory has some application in systems science and Management_science, it also has implications for AI design, control systems, expert systems, etc. If you can give us more context you might be a better answer but this is a huge field of inquiry, and there is no one correct answer, either from normative or descriptive points of view. It's all well and good to remain uncertain or seek more information, but in the real world, no decision is often worse than a bad decision, and things have to be decided with only partial information and consensus.  SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers so far. I was asking from a general point of view, but I have an interest in complex practical issues like the security of my PC or personal investing. Hofhof (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't give a reference but I use the 3 P's. Possible, Plausible and Probable. If it fails any of these I'm dubious. 41.13.198.49 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You bring the two experts together, and get them to talk it through. Then you will have three opinions. Wymspen (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In science expert opinion counts for nothing. The whole point of the scientific revolution a few centuries ago was to reject any arguments from authority (X says Y, and X is a well respected expert so Y must be true). We stopped doing that since about the 17th century and in the few centuries that have passed, the entire World got transformed into the modern technological world. But we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to respect authority, so the scientific method is not the way we intuitively think. Count Iblis (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is quite wrong. The motto of the Royal Society is indeed Nullius in verba, but that is a statement of principle, not of practical operation. Expert opinion is not sacrosanct, and ancient authorities are even less so, but of course expert opinion has significant weight. Why else hire expensive professors to do the teaching when the word of a bum of the street has the same weight? Things don't go into the scientific canon because Professor X says so. But he is probably a good candidate to tell you what is currently widely accepted, and possibly even why. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also notice that my question was about using knowledge that already exists. It was not about obtaining scientific knowledge from nil.Hofhof (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I can give one bit of advice. Do not listen to the experts, and do not look at the experts, just read what they say and then make the decision. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Delphi method is a formal way to do this. -Arch dude (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It also depends on the nature of the question. In your example of PC security there are some well established principles that experts agree on (e.g., don't use a dictionary word as a password) while other ideas have less agreement (e.g., whether requiring frequent password changes is a help or hindrance to security). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * you may use the old (Odysseus') method of dealing with "Between Scylla and Charybdis" issue: opt to pass by Scylla and lose only a few sailors, rather than risk the loss of entire ship in the whirlpool; same as minimax. This is the basis of insurance: rather incur a certain moderate loss, than a chance to lose everything. If no insurance can be given and even "moderate" loss is too heavy, just go boldly to charybdis and hope for the best. Gem fr (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Consult more experts, until you see a consensus emerge.
 * In some cases, you should then decide for yourself, based on the evidence. For example, if you are on a jury and the case depends on a finger-print ID, and the defense has an expert claim that he's 100% certain that's not a match with the accused, while the prosecution puts forth an expert that says he's 100% sure it is a match, I'd suggest you look at it and decide for yourself. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Err, no. You are not an expert in the subject of fingerprints (unless you actually are). If two expert witnesses polarizingly disagree, as a juror you ignore their evidence entirely and the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. Akld guy (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That would mean the defense only needs to pay off a so-called expert to lie, and their man goes free. Fingerprints have the advantage, unlike DNA, that whether two prints match is something a juror can hope to decide on their own.  More generally, one side will always trot out "experts" who are paid to lie for their side, so it's important NOT to just say "well, there's an argument on both sides, so let's do nothing", as in the case of cigarettes causing cancer, and now man-made global climate change. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you single out the defence? Isn't the prosecution just as likely to call a witness who is prepared to lie? That's what jurors are for; to determine who to believe. See List of miscarriage of justice cases. Akld guy (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that they are just as likely to lie, this is why I wouldn't rely on either expert in cases where the jury can decide things for itself. That's why they are there, after all.  This, BTW, is one reason I find DNA tests troubling, that if the "expert" witnesses lie, there's no way for the jury to tell, unlike if they say two fingerprints match when it's obvious to the jury that they don't.  At the very least, there should be rather extreme penalties for experts lying under oath, but prosecutions for this are few and far between. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)




 * I was serving on a jury at Crown Court and the prosecution lawyer mentioned that the accused had lined up as no. 6 in an identity parade but the witness had pointed to no. 7 on the cards in front of him.  After the lunch break I passed a note to the judge pointing out that in Arabic (the witness was a Muslim) the number "six" is written "7".   We were immediately sent home for the day, and the following morning were told the case was still not ready to proceed.   Finally the court reconvened and we heard from an expert witness who had been called to introduce the new evidence.   So it's not necessarily best to keep quiet. 92.19.185.111 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Temperature at which water vapour forms
I put a pot of cold water on the cooktop and turn it on. The water starts to heat up. Well before the water boils, steam (or water vapour) starts to rise from the water. At exactly what temperature does this occur, and what is the significance of this temperature? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a single temperature. At any temperature, the molecules of water have an average kinetic energy, but the energy distribution follows a particular formula (for ideal gases it's the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, but I'm not enough of a physicist to know which one applies to liquids). In this distribution, some molecules will have enough energy to overcome surface tension and leave the liquid phase. The higher the temperature, the more molecules will be able to do so, but there will be some at any temperature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. So, there are molecules spontaneously separating out of any container of water (or any liquid?) sitting at room temperature, but we can't see them because there's not enough of them; it's only when their volume increases under the effect of heat that we can see them.  I get that.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost. You can't see the molecules because water vapor is a colorless gas. You can only see water when it is a liquid or solid. The water vapor mixes with colder air above pot and condenses to form tiny liquid droplets that you can see. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One possible answer to Jack's original question would be that you can see the visible fog when you get the vapor pressure high enough that the humidity above the pot rises enough that the dew point drops below rises above the ambient temperature. However the relationship between vapor pressure and humidity may be complicated. --Trovatore (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See vapor pressure. As the temperature rises, the vapor pressure does as well, until it reaches the ambient pressure, which is when the water boils (that's slightly simplified; see nucleate boiling).
 * As a side note, the visible white "steam" or "water vapor" is neither &mdash; it's actually (tiny drops of) liquid water, condensed from the water vapor as it hits cooler air. Water vapor itself is invisible, though you might be able to detect it from the change in refractive index. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It also happens below the freezing point, as water vapor will sublimate well below the freezing point from solid ice. If you've ever left an ice cube tray in a freezer for a long time, you've already done the experiment to prove this if you've ever noticed the cubes to have shrunk.  Here is a table of vapor pressures of ice at temperatures down to -100C.  You'll note they are small, but decidedly non-zero.  The answer to your question is likely absolute zero, or near enough as to not matter.-- Jayron 32 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Grr, peeve alert &mdash; "sublimate". The perfectly proper and euphonious verb form is "sublime".  I don't know when people started saying "sublimate" like it was a repressed memory or something, but I do wish they would stop. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It started in 1559 (or earlier) according to the OED, long before Freudian theory.   D b f i r s   21:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The OED is a sublime work. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You can tell that some of the water in the pot becomes vapor even at room temp (provided the relative humidity in the air is less than 100%), because the water will all eventually evaporate. And, technically, some of it still evaporates even at 100% humidity, but just as much water condenses in the pot from the air, so the equilibrium is maintained. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the wrapper by Klondike ice cream made of real aluminum?
I tried to google it. But I couldn't find any results of the material of the wrapper. Is the wrapper made of real aluminum foil? Can it be used instead of buying aluminum foil? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Supposing it were (and I'm not at all convinced of it), would it be worth the bother of having to wash the thing before using as if it were aluminum foil? And it's pretty small, so its application would be limited. One thing you could try (very carefully) is to put a match to it and see if it burns. I suspect it's as much paper as anything else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sterile inoculating loops are used to culture plates. They can be made of plastic, which is disposable, or can be made of metal, which must be sterilized over an open flame before use. If one holds the metal loop long enough in the flame, then the loop will glow red. So, does that mean metals will glow red while paper combust? What if the wrapper is part aluminum and part paper? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that aluminum burns; in fact, all aluminum foil is covered in aluminum oxide (Al2O3, the basis of the mineral corundum, from which gems are made). It makes it able to scratch things you probably don't want it to.  Atomized aluminum is fun stuff; you can mix it with perchlorate or chlorate or the like (solid sources of oxygen, basically) for flash powder (fireworks...).  Of course, I would not tell you to do so, since celebrating the 4th of July in the old fashion would make you a terrorist...  Anyway, point is you can more or less dispose of aluminum foil in a fire (leaving behind some residue), making this a bad test really.  Wnt (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. What I had in mind was some kind of test using the wrapper instead of foil. Like, for example, baking a (very small) potato in it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Klondike does not publish what the wrapper is made of (except for the news about changing from metallic to plastic wrappers). However, there are tariffs on many items, including metallic wrappers. So, Klondike had to explain exactly what their wrappers were made of. If you check this, you will see a brief description of exactly how much aluminum is in the Klondike wrapper. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very impressive answer! But to be clear, was your approach simply to go to customsmobile.com and search for rulings that contained Klondike wrapper - is that a general enough approach to find most brand products? - or is there a higher-level search mechanism that led you to this site? Wnt (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew that there was tariff issues on candy with metallic wrappers. So, I googled Klondike wrapper tariff. I hoped to see if there was a tariff and if it fell under aluminum. The first two hits were about switching to plastic wrappers to avoid tariffs. The third explained how much aluminum was used in detail. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)