Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 24

Islamic dietary law question in relation to bird food...

This query was inspired by this thread over at the Science desk, so have a read of that for the context in which I'm asking this.

According to WP's Halal article, 'all insects except for the locust' are considered haraam. So - does this definition also include larval forms of insects (e.g. grubs, caterpillars, mealworms, etc.)? What about spiders? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Animals that have no blood in them are considered Haram in Islam, such as a hornet, fly, spider, beetle, scorpion, ant, etc. The only exception is that of a locust, for there is a Hadith permitting its consumption. These interpretaions are according to the Hanafi school of Islamic law.--Shahab (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reply. Thank you very much. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish law also permits the eating of four kinds of locusts (although all other insects are strictly forbidden to be eaten). However due to the difficulty in identifying these four permitted species, very few Jews today have the tradition to identify these four species and thus they are in general not eaten. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah chapter 85) Simonschaim (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 supreme court decisions?

For some reason I've found myself reading wikipedia-articles on US Supreme Court decisions, and I find them fascinating. For instance, I hadn't really realized that Roe v. Wade was based on the idea that there's an inherent right to privacy in the fourteenth amendments due process clause, and that right to privacy guarantees abortion, thus making it a fundamental human right (or whatever). Anyway, I find these find these fascinating, and I was interested in a good primer on the most important ones. Thinking I was a little bit sly, I went to Landmark decisions in the United States, but there's like 200 hundred of them or something! Sure, I'm interested, but I don't want to go to law-school or anything. So I would be very grateful if you nice people could give me a few pointers to interesting and important cases. Like a Top 10 or Top 20. This is what I've read (or skimmed) so far:

• New York Times v. United States (this is where I got started, I was reading the article on the Pentagon Papers)
• Roe v. Wade
• Marbury v. Madison
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Dred Scott v. Sandford
• Gore v. Bush

Any suggestions where I should go next? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think before long we'll have 100 suggestions for your top 10 list. High on the list would be McCulloch v. Maryland and Miranda v. Arizona. —Kevin Myers 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

People's favorite cases will tend to be civil rights cases. I would clearly apportion cases involving governmental structure, war powers, foreign policy, commercial commerce clause, and civil rights and liberties. 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the place to start: List of notable United States Supreme Court cases. I would be strongly in favor of including those decisions that defined the entire political and governing system, many of which were right at the start. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My candidates:
• Fletcher v. Peck 1810 - the first time the Supreme Court struck down an unconstitutional state law
• Ableman v. Booth 1859 - Federal Courts' rulings trump States Courts'
• Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 - condoned racial segregation, allowing Jim Crow Laws
• Engel v. Vitale 1962 - ban on prayer in schools
• Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 - an accused person is entitled to representation, regardless of his or her ability to pay
• Miller v. California 1973 - obsenity defined - creation of the "Miller Test"
• United States v. Nixon 1974 - the President is not above the law
• Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 1997 - the Communications Decency Act meant to restrict freedom of speech on the Internet is ruled unconstitutional
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2005 - Intelligent Design cannot be required in public schools' science curricula because it is religious, not scientific (Note: This was not a Supreme Court Case)
• Boumediene v. Bush 2008 - Guantanamo Bay prisoners are protected by the US Constitution (Note: This, too, was not a Supreme Court Case)
Here are some that have been mentioned by others that I am also supporting to be included on the list:
• Marbury v. Madison 1803 - the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional state laws
• McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 - underscored the doctrine of implied powers
• Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 - Blacks, whether Free or Slave, cannot be US Citizens
• Brown v. Board of Education 1952 - school segregation is unconstitutional
• Miranda v. Arizona 1966 - Police must advise people they're arresting of their Constitutional Rights
• Roe v. Wade 1973 - abortion not unconstitional
You may also want to look at Landmark decisions in the United States.
Saukkomies 05:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add Jacobellis v. Ohio due to its tie to the First Amendment (my favorite amendment). The case is also known for the phrase "I know it when I see it". Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my favorite amendment, too. There's a reason it's the FIRST Amendment! Thank goodness we had Thomas Jefferson around back then to make sure the Bill of Rights got stuck on the Constitution before Virginia would sign off on it (he was busy in Paris during the Constitutional Convention, and so did not directly participate in it). Saukkomies 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Furman vs. Georgia, United States Supreme Court decision that temporarily abolished capital punishment in the U.S. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

To an Englishman these suggestions make fascinating reading. I'll note that the only ones of which I previously had any real knowledge were Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education, and Miranda v Arizona. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool! I love English history so much, and it's always a nice thing to meet an Englishman who has a reciprocal interest in American history. At any rate, some of those Supreme Court decisions are a bit of an embarrasment today. I mean, especially Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson... Ugh. Saukkomies 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to add a few more interesting ones (though not nearly as consequential to the present as those above), check out Buck v. Bell, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Takao Ozawa v. United States, and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, more embarrassing Supreme Court shenanigans! Well, except for the Skinner case. Saukkomies 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the Skinner one is pretty silly in its own way. We can't sterilize criminals because that might mean we'd have to sterilize white collar criminals too, and we all know that would be ridiculous? Economic productivity = reproductive fitness? That's basically the logic, they've just twisted it in a way that makes for a decision that most of us agree with. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the wonderfully named Loving v. Virginia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Although not a Supreme Court case, the Scopes Trial is interesting and topical given the original question. Dismas|^(talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to overload the discussion so I'll just recommend one additional case: District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark 2nd Amendment case from earlier this year. —D. Monack ^talk 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

art as a source of knowledge

i need urgent help for a due thesis.

i need to cite a philosophy that argues for art being a source of knowledge. knowledge in areas such as moral provocation, critical thinking, sharpening of skills, etc.

not a specific type of knowledge. but mainly to just show that art contributes to knowledge construction.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.14 (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Source" may be your issue here. Art is a vehicle for information. One aspect of the "information" conveyed through art is propaganda.--Wetman (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

May be this site would be helpful. Actually I was surprised no such article doesn't exist in wikipedia.--Shahab (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

price differences in the UK

Hello wikipedia,

Why is everything more expensive in the UK (and Europe generally) than it is in the US. I know that VAT (sales tax) is higher, but even taking this out, its still more. This rule seems to be true for every product i've even cared to check. (by way of an example, a single on iTunes costs 79p ($1.45/€1)). I mean, i know that land is more expensive here (because we're more densely populated) but surely this is compensated by the fact that you'll get more people through the door? So wassup?82.22.4.63 (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What does a single on iTunes cost in the US? In addition to different taxes, you also need to take into account that fact that prices don't change as quickly as exchange rates - they may well have cost the same when the prices were set but the exchange rates have changed since then. You may also like to read purchasing power parity. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Rip-off Britain. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the UK is more densely populated than most of the US (although there are areas in the US where it is just as densely populated as the UK), there still is an overall huge difference in the populations of the two countries: the UK, including Northern Ireland, has around 60 million people; the US has around 300 million. But population alone is not the reason that prices are cheaper in the US. It really has to do with the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. If one compares the various economies of the world, the United States maintains a position that, if not at the top of each sector of the economy, is close to the top. The GDP of the US is ranked at 13,220,000,000, while the GDP of the UK is at 2,341,000,000. Even if you take the GDP of the entire European Union (EU), it is 13,620,000,000, which makes all of the European economy just 3% larger than that of the US.
A lot of the reason that the US has such a strong economy has to do with the vast wealth of natural resources that are to be found within the national territory of the United States. The US ranks third in the amount of food produced, after China and the entire EU, and this is due largely to the huge amount of fertile regions that lie within the US. The US also has vast amounts of mineral resources, including being ranked 14th in the world for proven oil reserves, ranked #1 for coal reserves, #6 for natural gas reserves, as well as large reserves of iron, timber, fishing, and many other resources. In addition, the US is blessed with having navigable rivers and lakes that allow ocean-going ships to travel far into the interior of the continent, where they may dock and take on large cargoes to be cheaply transported by sea to places all around the world.
The US also has other factors that greatly effect its GDP, such as the huge manufacturing sector, the world's leading software developer, a financial sector that (well, until very recently) was second-to-none, a huge service sector, and a research sector that is world-class. Taken altogether, the sheer amount of infrastructure and economic power that is within the United States just overpowers the economy of the UK. It's a matter of sheer muscle... Of course the entire EU is able to outproduce the US, but not by a huge amount. Again, all of this is just part of the reason why things cost more in the UK than they do in the US, and I am sure others will provide additional information here to help round the answer out some more. Saukkomies 13:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that prices tend to be lower in countries with higher GDP? I think anyone who's ever travelled in what used to be called the third world would disagree with you. Algebraist 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm claiming that in two countries that are developed (as opposed to "third world" countries), the country that outproduces the other will tend to have lower prices. Saukkomies 14:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice also, if you will, that the subject at hand is comparing the UK and the US economies - NOT the economies of the Third World to that of developed nations. In addition, if you actually read what I wrote, you'd find that I mentioned a couple of times that the GDP was only just one factor in this equation. Bonk! So take your quibbeling elsewhere. Saukkomies 15:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonk? :-/ --Tango (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonk. Saukkomies 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote, thank you. You spent a long time explaining that the US has a huge economy compared to the UK, and stated explicitly that this is one of the factors that causes prices to be lower. At no point did you explain why a larger economy leads to lower prices, or under what conditions this occurs (since it is clearly not true in general). Algebraist 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. You are absolutely correct, Algebraist. I did indeed NOT state HOW a larger economy would lower prices, but specifically stated that others would most likely do so. Thanks for your pristine articulation of the obvious. Saukkomies 00:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you said that other people would give reasons other than GDP differences, but never mind. So, in summary, you advanced something as a cause of an observed phenomenon without giving reasons, sources, or explanation, and when asked for an explanation of how your point might cause the phenomenon under discussion, you replied that someone else would provide the explanation. Wild unsourced speculation is not a useful way to answer questions on the reference desk. Algebraist 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you win Algebraist. Happy now? Sheesh. Thanks for being SOOOOO careful in making sure that everything I say about the US economy had something directly relevant to do with answering the question in the most succinct way. Man, you're just the best, you just simply are the finest reference editor around, and I stand in complete awe of you. So, what else would you have me say, because it seems like you want something out of me, but I seem not to comprehend what it is... Saukkomies 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to understand why higher GDP (or GDP per capita) among developed countries implies lower prices (other things equal). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The US is not cheaper than the UK on everything. Some things cost more, some less. 2) Purchasing-power (as linked) is a decent explanation of the cost. The Big mac index is a particularly nice one as it compares the cost of a big-mac across many nations. There was also an 'ipod index' as I understand it at one point. The reason for lower costs of the same items will be mostly down to 'market size' and inter-national-operatability. The US has one power-standards and the UK has another. The US has NTSC and the Uk PAL, the US has different regulations to the Uk. All of these factors will alter the cost of producing the same product for each nation. In the UK it might be more costly to transport goods, or it might be more expensive to produce a PAL version of your tv because NTSC is used by a larger population so using Economies of scale the product is cheaper in the larger market (that is because US maybe use systems that are more widely adopted they benefit from a global-price whereas the UK may be less 'mainstream' and so is hampered by a smaller international market size). There will be a variety of reasons for every product's extra (or lower) cost. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PAL vs NTSC is perhaps not a great example, I rather think that PAL is much more widely used. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Per capita GDP is the measure to use if you want to investigate a possible connection between national wealth and pricing policies. Remember that is is quite a rough measure and the UK and USA score so close to each other that it's unlikely to be the main explanation for differences. (Agree with IP above that we need first to show that the UK is dearer in general.)Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating unemployed men

Historically, can we suppose that woman are more accepting toward unemployed men, since woman earn their own money?80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean are women now more likely to date an unemployed man than they were X years ago? On the basis you mention I would sas - that makes a certain amount of sense, though I don't believe that it would be a huge barrier to a relationship. If the employment is long-term that might be an issue, but short-term unemployment would be less so. After all these days most people will date first before sharing financial-committments so the fact someone is unemployed isn't hugely important in dating. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 194.221, I expressed myself rather in a confusing way. I asked if women are more likely to date an unemployed man than they were X years ago, since they don't depend on men for earning money.80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in my conjectural speculation, it's that in some cases a man having a relatively low income may not be as much of a deal-breaker as it was in the past (when sometimes it was simply the smart thing to do for a young woman contemplating her future and the future of children she might have to coldly calculate the earnings potential of a potential suitor), but that the great majority of women have never found the prospect of a man persistently one-sidedly mooching off of them to be very attractive, and probably never wil... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we know a song about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Employment is often taken as a proxy for responsibility. Would depend on the woman. Many of the women I know would take that as a very bad sign unless it was just a temporary thing that could be blamed on other factors. Assuming we're not talking about a "stay at home dad" sort of scenario which is different. But even the most freethinking woman is going to wonder about a man who can't hold down a job. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that short-term unemployment is so prevalent that no one would care about a partner not having a job, as long as the partner is trying to learn something or find something or doing something out of his life. Woman are short-term unemployed too.

The second point is what caused the unemployment: sickness? drugs? life-style? Unemployment can have many causes, many of them would turn away both men and woman.

And the third point is: is he blatantly attempting to get into her pants, as well as into her wallet? In the third case, I suppose woman would react quite differently than men would.Mr.K. (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blessed virgin Mary

If she was a Jew, and the muslims adore her, then they adore at least one Jew, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Prophets of Islam lists some other people mentioned in the Bible and presumably Jewish that are revered in Islam. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Muslims do not adore Mary (Miryam) any more than they adore Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa), or Jesus (Issa). They regard her with respect. To claim otherwise would be similar to claiming that Christians worship the prophets, the apostles, or other saints. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the Blessed virgin Mary believed in his son?

Is there any evidence that she believed in him?Mr.K. (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What evidence? If you are wanting evidence contained within the New Testament, then what more evidence would a woman need to know her son was the Messiah than to have God get you pregnant in an Immaculate Conception, have a bunch of angels singing on high during your delivery, and three wise men come from far away to give your son gifts and worship him? Also, if Mary was a typical Jewish mother, she would naturally consider her son to be super special (apologies to Jewish mothers and sons everywhere).

There are some books that are included in the non-canonical Apocrypha that are refered to as the Infancy Gospels that cite miracles that occurred during Jesus' birth and young life that would have convinced his mother of his divinity, such as Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life; another case where a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse; and another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into him, etc.

However, if you want evidence that is not from the New Testament and the Apocrypha, well, you're out of luck because there isn't even any evidence outside of the New Testament that either Jesus or his mother even existed in the first place, let alone that she would have "believed" in him. Saukkomies 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me qualify that. There is no evidence outside the New Testament that is accurate that Jesus existed. Saukkomies 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Just to pretend that this has anything to do with WP) the question is not accuracy but reliability. Saintrain (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quibble: the "immaculate conception" was Mary's own conception without sin rather than the Virgin birth of Jesus. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that what I said? Saukkomies 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No - "to have God get you pregnant in an Immaculate Conception" is what you said, Mary's mother was made pregnant in the Immaculate conception, not Mary. DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you better go study your New Testament, or at least the Wiki article on Immaculate Conception. It's Mary, mother of Jesus, who is the subject of the Immaculate Conception. Saukkomies 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is my point, Mary was conceived immaculately. i.e when her mother fell pregnant (when Mary was conceived) it was the immaculate conception. When we say "Mary was conceived" we are not talking about the conception of Jesus, we are talking about the conception of Mary, in her mother. When God knocked up Mary, that was NOT the immaculate conception. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is noted as a common misconception (!) in our Virgin birth of Jesus article. Catholics believe that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Margin Re-Adjusted) DuncanHill, there are two separate "Immaculate Conceptions". You have mistakenly confused this by combining them both into one. There is the more generally-accepted Immaculate Conception in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, is miraculously knocked-up by God and then becomes the mother of Jesus, and then there's the other, less generally-accepted (well, basically just accepted by Catholics) Immaculate Conception of Mary that holds that Mary's mother was ALSO miraculously impregnated. Okay? Saukkomies 14:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quibble 2: There is a little evidence outside the New Testament that Jesus existed. I don't know that there's much evidence outside the New Testament about Mary, though, assuming that Jesus existed, it would be reasonable to assume that he had a mother. (Then again, most people would consider it reasonable to assume that he had a father as well, so assumption is not always a good strategy). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again to reiterate: there is no evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus or Mary ever existed. Saukkomies 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct you there.--Shahab (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But the Islamic basis of belief that Jesus existed is based on the New Testament. Show me, if you will, where there is evidence that is NOT based on the New Testament writings that demonstrates that Jesus existed on earth. If you can do such a thing, your name will become immediately famous among scholars because for hundreds of years just such evidence has been sought after desperately by many people. Saukkomies 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not really based on the New Testament -- Muhammad never read a single line of Christian or Jewish scriptures, and felt free to elaborate narratives in the Qur'an which strikingly contradict the contents of the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad did not need to have read the New Testament in order to have gotten the idea of Jesus from it. In other words, let's say someone has never read the book "Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, and yet this person knows about the character Huck. Where did he get his knowledge? Obviously he got it indirectly from the book that Mark Twain wrote, or perhaps from one of the movies based on the book. But ultimately he got his knowledge of Huck Finn from the book.... Such was the case with Muhammad. Now, if you are saying that Muhammad instead got his knowledge of Jesus from somewhere else, then show us where this other source is. If it was part of the revelations that Muhammad received, then it ought to be in the Quran. I am not an expert in the Quran, and so I do not know if there is any mention in it of Jesus or not. Please let us know where Muhammad got his information about Jesus from... Without solid proof, though, it is just conjecture. Saukkomies 17:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad got what he knew about the Christian religion solely from what both advocates and opponents of Christianity told him orally. He had no particular knowledge of the New Testament, he did not distinguish between Biblical vs. extra-Biblical Christian beliefs and narratives, and he never had any particular compunctions about uttering forth revelations which contradicted the contents of the New Testament. The Jesus of the Qur'an reflects to some degree what Muhammad was told about Christianity by various individual Arabic-speaking Christians whom he happened to personally encounter (Christians who were by no means always the most knowledgeable about the details of their own faith) -- but to say that the Jesus of the Qur'an is somehow "based" on the New Testament is stetching things quite a bit.

It's certainly true that Muhammad had no direct knowledge of 1st. century Judea, independent of Christian or Jewish sources -- but you could have expressed this in a way which did not involve making quite dubious claims about how the Jesus of Islam (عيسى) was somehow supposedly "based"[sic] on the New Testament... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As explained in Jesus in Islam, Jesus is mentioned numerous times in the Qur'an. I'm pretty sure Muslims believe Muhammad's knowledge of Jesus came mostly or entirely from God. Obviously, if you don't believe Muhammad got any of his knowledge from God, then it's entirely possibly that Muhammad got his knowledge from his contact with various scholars and from reading various literature (not necessarily the Bible) and made up what he didn't learn. This wouldn't be that unlikely since Jesus was already well known by the time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Margin Readjusted) From the comments above, there are basically three possible sources from which Muhammad received knowledge of Jesus:
1. Indirectly from the New Testament through Christians he met, who in turn got their knowledge of Jesus from the New Testament.
2. Indirectly from some other source that we do not know about, and probably through Christians he met.
3. From revelation. However, the revelations of someone - even if that someone is Muhammad - do not give us academic scholars solid tangible proof.
However, not one of these possible sources would fall under the requirement of being an outside, verifiable, academically reliable source that we have access to today. So basically, again, I'll reiterate: there is NO proof outside of the New Testament that Jesus existed. Saukkomies 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse; and another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into him" - what a nice guy. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Like father, like son... --Tango (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing matters further. As our own article states, there is only 1 (one) Immaculate Conception which is the Roman Catholic theology which states Mary was born without original sin. There is also the Virgin birth of Jesus but is not called the Immaculate Conception except in error (in other words, no branch of Christianity calls it the Immaculate Conception). Note that the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not mean her mother was a virgin or her father wasn't her father, or that he conception didn't occur the way any conception occurs (sperm penetrates ovum) it just means she was conceived without original sin (since such a concept is meaningless outside of religion I would say there's no reason why it's not possible if you believe in the concept). Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Immaculate Conception means one and only one thing: what Nil Einne said. For those who believe, this is what Mary called herself when she appeared to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858. Mary may be considered God's 2-I-C, but there's only one I-C in Heaven and it's not Jesus (if you'll forgive my horrendous mixing of expressions). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I invite you all to a feast of me eating crow. My apologies, I stand before you embarrassed, enlightened, and corrected. Saukkomies 00:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent.  :) JackofOz (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside the New Testament there is the history by Josephus from the year 93 AD (which of course could have been altered by later copiers) and for which the oldest manuscript dates from the 11th century. In Rome there is a grafitto of a crucified figure from the second century or so as well as archeological finds in the Holy Land which have been interpreted to show there was Christian worship quite early. As for solid documentary evidence, they did not issue birth certificates or passports, he did not have a drivers license, any census records have been lost, no will is to be found in the public record office. Millenia of decay, destruction from war anc conflagration, and general discarding of outdated records have destroyed the vast majority of all such documents from that era. His burial place (long term or for 3 days) is disputed, there are no transcripts or identified group photos from his school, there are no coins or statues from his time with his likeness, and there are no letters in his handwriting. If he had lived 100 years ago, modern documentary evidence would be a reasonable demand. For someone from that era, there is the tradition written down a generation after his passing. Edison (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For Josephus, see Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus actually mentions Jesus in two separate passages, one of which was definitely "spiced up" by subsequent Christian copyists (since the text as they originally found it would have been too coldly unreverential for their tastes), and the other of which has been left alone by them. The existence of Jesus is about as well-established as that of any other person of classical Greco-Roman antiquity who was not a ruler or prominent government official, and who isn't mentioned in any surviving inscriptions of contemporary date -- and the main alternative theory to the historicity of Jesus (i.e. that Jesus is a fictional mythical personage cobbled together from various Adonis / Tammuz / Golden Bough-style Dying God myths) is a fringe theory which has no support from mainstream reputable scholars (other than John Allegro during his magic mushroom period). AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The passages in Josephus that mention Jesus have been quite thoroughly discounted. There are earlier copies of Josephus that do not have the passages, and the style of language these passages was written in was completely different from what Josephus was using. In other words, the passages were phony.

Edison's wall scribblings of a crucified person (which happens to have been one of the most commonly practiced forms of execution in the Roman Empire), and his illogical argument that because we don't have an account of Jesus outside of the New Testament, that it still means he existed anyway, are examples of very very bad scholarship. Shame on you Edison.

AnonMoos' claim that the "existence of Jesus is about as well-established as that of any other person of classical Greco-Roman antiquity who was not a ruler or prominent government official" is complete conjecture on his/her part. Not only is such a statement wrong, it is misleading and carries with it an agenda, thus making it poisonous as well. This debate should really stop right here, because it is covered so much better in the Wiki article about the Historicity of Jesus. People, quite wasting bandwidth and go read the article!

For people who consider themselves to be Christian, the bottom line of this argument is that in order to believe that Jesus actually existed, you're going to have to rely on Faith, since there is no way to prove he existed or did not exist from a reliable (thank you Saintrain) source outside of the New Testament and the Apocrypha. Saukkomies 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely refuse to accept blame for the wall scribbling. First, I have never visited Rome. Second, the grafitto was already on the wall when I reached the site. Third, when I left there was no sign there had ever been any grafitti! Humor aside, you verge on personal attacks, and that is uncalled for. I did not claim as you assert that the absence of testimony about his existence outside the New Testament proves he existed; I just note that that is all there is other than evidence of the Roman "worshipping his crucified God" or the Josephus passage. Is there a reference for the earlier copies of Josephus without the passage? How can we be sure they are not copies purged of support for Christianity by athiests or those of other faiths? Forgery works both ways. Some denominations today have their own "Bible" with many sections removed or altered to support 19th century views of the founders of their faith. Edison (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd be the Historicity of Jesus article which begins "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." and concludes " historicity is still regarded as effectively proven by almost all Biblical scholars and historians"? Gwinva (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- it is simply NOT the case that there is a surviving edition of Josephus's works which was not transmitted by Christian scribes. The works of Josephus, along with those of a number of other ancient Jewish authors (such as Philo and the books of Maccabees) would have simply perished if they had not been preserved by Christians. Furthermore, it is widely accepted by among mainstream reputable scholars that Josephus did mention Jesus, and you ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth and calling me "toxic" won't change that (and in fact merely serves to distract from the issues). And I'm sorry for your oh-so-delicate and easily outraged supersensitive feelings, but it's absolutely true that "The existence of Jesus is about as well-established as that of any other person of classical Greco-Roman antiquity who was not a ruler or prominent government official, and who isn't mentioned in any surviving inscriptions of contemporary date". How is the evidence for the existence of Apollonius of Tyana (a person roughly contemporary with Jesus, and with whom Jesus is sometimes compared) any more solid than the evidence for the existence of Jesus? It would be nice if you could answer such questions factually and substantively, without epithets and name-calling. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected, AnonMoos. There are indeed no surviving manuscripts of Josephus' work Antiquities of the Jews that predate the alterations that were made to the text. However, there are two separate versions of this work: one with the passage that discusses Jesus, and one that doesn't. It is recognized by most scholars that the version that does not include the passage that mentions Jesus is the older, accurate version. As far as being widespread among "mainstream" Biblical scholars that Josephus did mention Jesus, you would probably be refering to the second instance in Josephus' works that supposedly mentions him: the one that basically just says that there was a man named "James the Just", who had a brother named Yeshua (or Jesus). Okay, guess what? Yeshua was THE MOST COMMON man's name in the Kingdom of Judeah at the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived! Yep. So, the fact that Josephus said that someone named Yeshua lived during the time period of around 35 AD would be like today someone saying that a man with the name Mohammad lived in Arabia today. This is NOT PROOF that Jesus lived. Sorry, and whether the Wiki article says it is still doesn't mean it is so, since you probably are the very person who wrote the article to begin with. Or someone just like you...

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that Jesus existed. There has not been any reliable outside secondary proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever walked the earth. Now, does this mean that it is conclusive that Jesus did not live? Of course not. However, for those academic wanna-be pseudo-historians who claim that they have irrefutable evidence that Jesus lived, my advice would be to go form a chat group called "Religious Kooks R Us" and yack away at each other to your hearts' content. However, just wishing such evidence existed does not make it so. Saukkomies 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding Apollonius of Tyana, nobody (as far as I know) today claims that Apollonius is their personal Savior whom they must pray to every day and who will sit in judgement over their souls. So really, who cares whether Apollonius of Tyana lived or not? Certainly not the vast majority of people alive today. But there are a LOT of people who care very greatly about whether Jesus had actually been on the earth or not. So your logic is actually working against you: if nobody can prove that Apollonius of Tyana had ever lived or not, are you about to go out on a limb and make a claim that - based on no really solid evidence - he actually existed? I think not - your academic reputation would suffer. But you're willing to do just this in claiming that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus existed. Saukkomies 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies: I think we are all now aware that you remain unconvinced by any proofs offered for the existence of Jesus, and you have adequately explained your reasonings. People are free to accept or agree with your conclusions; they are also free to draw differing conclusions. It is nothing to do with you whether they base that on faith, tradition, or a differing interpretation of historical record; moreover, it is entirely inappropriate for you to attack them or denigrate them for those conclusions. Please desist. Gwinva (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently my zeal for academic excellence in historical research is not shared by others whose desire to have their religious faith proven true by nonexistent historical accounts blinds them to the reality that no such records exist. I was not the first in this argument to start slinging mud, so why not lay some of that scolding on those who started the whole business in the first place? What, is the Humanities Reference Desk now to be completely turned over to religious zealots who eagerly turn away from academic research standards when the subject at hand is one that they happen to support? If so, then I believe I'll just leave. I had the obviously mistaken belief that this was a place where the utmost care was to be taken to try to ascertain the truth, but apparently it is a place meant to coddle the weak minded, so long as they mouth the accepted forms of religious dogma that seems to be the norm here. So, if you'll excuse me, I'll leave you twits to your own devices. Ta ta. I have better things to do with my time than to argue nonsense with a bunch of religious fanatics. Saukkomies 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I understand that you feel that the evidence here is sketchy. However I do believe that there is evidence of the existence of Jesus bar Joseph of Nazareth. One thing I seem to remember is a old Roman record of the execution. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, it is not acceptable to constantly insult other contributors. Perhaps you could find a blog somewhere where such flaming is acceptable,. Here, it runs afoul of the policy against personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the "weak mindedness" of the "religious zealot" "twits" who contribute to reference desk. This is not a soapbox, and your postings here are unacceptable in tone. Edison (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To return to the original question, let us assume, as many historians do, that there was a preacher called Yeshua who was executed by the Romans on a charge of subversion. It is not an implausible suggestion, after all. This preacher naturally had a mother and the mother's name is recorded as Myriam or Mariam or Maria. Still plausible. Now we can pose the question: did this mother "believe in" her son? The answer hinges on the multiple meanings we can give to the phrase "believe in". Still assuming that there was such a mother-son dyad, the mother obviously believed in the existence of her son. But did she believe in the rightness of the cause he preached and give him her unqualified support? Possibly not, there is a story in one of the gospels that his family begged him to stop preaching. However, his mother is reported to have been present at his execution and to have visited the tomb after his death. Did she believe in him as Messiah or God Incarnate? Almost certainly not; in fact there is no evidence in the Gospels that he even thought of himself in either of those ways. This is as far as anyone can go to answer the question without taking a leap of faith. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At Cana, she reportedly asked him to change water to wine, per the Gospel of John[1]. This would indicate that to the writer of that gospel, it seemed that his mother did indeed believe, early in his ministry, that he had powers beyond those of ordinary folks. Of course this is expressed in one gospel and not in the others, and would not constitute objective documentation to satisfy a skeptic. Edison (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the wedding she asked him to sort out the shortage of wine, against his will (you can almost hear the "Mo-theeeer"), and told the servants to do whatever he said, but the gospel doesn't say she asked him to turn the water into wine, or that she expected a miracle. Maybe she just thought he was good in a crisis? However, the whole annunciation, nativity and associated events would suggest that she was aware he was not like other people, and probably that he was at least a prophet. That is, if you're going by the gospels. 79.66.84.84 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absentee ballot == proof of vote?

Hi all,

It's my understanding that one big reason that we can't have clear paper trails in an election (U.S.) is that I can't ever get proof that I personally voted for a specific person, because otherwise I would be able to sell my vote (and offer my voting stub as proof). But isn't this system already compromised? What's stopping me from voting absentee, and whoever I'm selling my vote to can look over my shoulder as I vote and mail the envelope?

Thanks! — Sam 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Absentee ballots are fairly miniscule in the great scheme of things. This is almost impossible because you are talking about a candidate staring at thousands of ballots. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They are miniscule currently. In Canada, it is possible for the whole country to request absentee ballots. The candidate would merely have to organize representatives for each area. Voters would bring their ballots to a specific place where someone could watch them mark and mail them. Now, before someone accuses me of WP:BEANS, in order for this to be a successful tactic, an enormous number of people must keep the activity secret. That requirement alone would be sufficient to ensure it would not work. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually absentee ballots are fairly miniscule. But not always. In the election of 1864 absentee ballots were incredibly important - specifically, ballots from the men who were serving in the military during the Civil War, who voted overwhelmingly (70%) to keep Lincoln in the White House. During the months leading up to the election, there had been some question as to whether it would be even possible to allow the men serving in the Armed Forces to vote, due to the complications of the process. However, it ended up being a lot easier than critics had imagined. Although Lincoln may have won the election without the soldiers' votes, with their votes he won it by a landslide.

Another election where absentee ballots were critical was in the election of 2000, specifically in the state of Florida, where the votes for Gore and Bush were so close that election officials had to count and recount ballots by hand several times. There were some several hundred absentee ballots from people serving overseas in the military that had not received postmarks when mailed for some reason. I think it had to do with the fact that the post office station that had shipped them just bundled them altogether without individually stamping a postmark on them. This violated the requirements for them to be accepted, and so they were not included in the overall count. Had they been included, they would have tipped the scales in favor of the Republican Party early on, thus insuring that the Florida elector votes would have gone to Bush, and thus avoiding the drawn-out agony that resulted as the nation looked on while poll workers debated over loose chads and such.

So, yeah, sometimes absentee ballots are important...

As per the original question, the absentee ballot is sealed after you make your vote, and is only opened by election officials. Only people who have official business may look at the names of the original absentee ballots. Now, having been an election official a couple of times, I do have to say that every time I looked at an absentee ballot, there was at least one other person - representing the opposite party - who was also present when I did so. I suppose it is possible that I could jot down names and later have the people all reimbursed for having voted for a particular candidate, but this is really pushing things. Not to say it wouldn't happen in the US somewhere... And if it did, chances are it would probably happen in Florida, where it seems that whatever problems that can possibly go wrong with any kind of voting system will be strenuously put to the test. Saukkomies 16:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Had they been included, they would have tipped the scales in favor of the Republican Party early on, . . . " Is this revelation related to the previous discussion, or do you have some sort of evidence that people like me (absentee voters) have a preference for a certain party? The reason I ask is that I have been involved in absentee voting issues for a long time, and this is a new one on me ~ DOR (HK) (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to check an absentee ballot, you would do so before it was mailed, not after it was opened. The voter would bring the yet-unmarked ballot to the candidate's place of business, mark the ballot in full view of whatever representative of the candidate was given the job, then the voter would seal the ballot, put it in a mail bag and collect his/her pay. This is all quite illegal, of course. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

About the absentee ballots in the Florida election, doesn't it depend whether they all should have been accepted with a postmark, which we will never know? I don't know how these votes went, but if says 75% of the votes for Bush were sent too late, while only 10% of the Gore ones, this may have changed things. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could see how the process you mention above would work. What is more believable is that the absentee ballots would be filled out by a platoon of soldiers in front of their commanding officer, who would insure they all voted for the candidate he (or she) wanted them to, since so many absentee ballots are from Armed Forces personnel overseas.

The business with the Florida absentee ballots of the 2000 election that were not postmarked was that they were almost entirely for George Bush - they'd been tallied anyway, even though they weren't officially included in the vote. There almost definitely would have been a major lawsuit about this if the Supreme Court had not stepped in to settle the matter and dispel all other lawsuits that came out of the way that election had been conducted in Florida. (I don't want to leave the impression I'm forgetting the way that many Democratic Party sympathizers were cheated out of being allowed to vote at the polling booths due to racist and other unsavory ways). Saukkomies 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Absentee ballots or ballots marked away from a polling place, are becoming more and more important in the scheme of things. At least one-third of the ballots for Mayor of Sacramento in the last election were absentee, and Oregon runs some of their elections with all ballots absentee. My parents have voted absentee for years, even though their polling place is right down the street, less than a block, from their home. It's becoming more and more common. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about a paper trail. If you are thinking of electronic voting machines, it's easily possible to add a paper trail without compromising voter anonymity. For starters, I don't know of any point of a system where the voter keeps a receipt showing how they voted. Any logical system would have the 'receipt' kept by officials (i.e. placed in a box or something similar). So the only issue here is ensuring the receipt can't be traced to specific individuals. Note that in some countries, postal ballots are the norm in certain elections. For example, in NZ postal ballots are used in local government elections and for referendums not held during a general election. Other then vote buying, any system which enables a vote to be linked to a voter also runs the risk of voter intimidation Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In most states, you can vote in person after voting absentee invalidating the mail-in vote. Thus, if you are forced or bribed to fill-out an absentee ballot, you can negate that ballot by just showing up at your regular polling place on election day. —D. Monack ^talk 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

County clerks in general will compare the lists of absentee ballots vs. people who vote at the polls, and invalidate one of the ballots. Corvus cornix_talk 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Up here, double voting gets you arrested Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Any absentee ballot, or telephone vote, or computer vote, done outside the polling place cannot be assumed to be a secret ballot. Intimidation and bribery can influence the casting of any ballot outside a polling place which has impartial election judges. A political machine precinct worker, often someone with a patronage job, who is held accountable by the boss for the vote totals in his precinct, could well demand to watch the voter phoning in a vote, or marking an absentee ballot, or voting on a computer. The voter could refuse, but with an aggressive political boss, that could lead to the voter's relative losing his city job, or a relative losing a contract with the city, or to the voter being cited for code violations at his residence or business, or not getting building permits, or not getting his trash picked up, or not getting welfare checks, or getting his car ticketed, or just having the alderman make a "friendly " house visit to ask if the voter has a problem with the city administration. When the vote is cast in the home, it also allow bullying by a dominant person to influence the votes of members of the household. Some religious denominations have pronounced damnation on politicians they oppose andd those who vote for them, creating another area to generate undue influence during remote voting or Postal voting. It only takes a few votes per precinct in the big city to tip the balance for the state in a close election. Edison (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't possible due to the massive amount of people that would need to be involved. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon frere. There is a long history of vote fraud in the U.S. and other countries. Any precinct where there is fraud can make a difference. Consider the last couple of U.S. Presidential elections, where a state's electoral votes can be decided by a few hundred votes. There is no requirement or even desire that EVERY vote be bought, just ebough to ensure victory. The election worker needs to be involved (that is one person). Where is the "massive amount?" Then more election workers= more remote votes controlled by intimidation or bribery. Edison (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of a fallacy..

Person A: When my child eats sugar, they get hyperactive.
Person B: That isn't true, you only think that because of your confirmation biases.
Person A: How come so many people are biased towards sugar leading to hyperactivity then, rather than potatoes or beef? This shows there must be some truth in it.

What is it called when this happens in an argument? I know Person B can come up with a theory such as that artificial sweeteners in various sweet foods cause hyperactivity or that because people know sugar as a source of energy, they assume it will cause bursts of energy when eaten. But this is just an example where the template fits, whereby someone is proven wrong and then changes their argument, so that when person B can't respond, they assume their first statement was correct. I guess it is kind of like a reverse of the strawman, but I think there is specific name. Before you say, Argument from silence and moving the goalpost are not quite what I mean. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can think of is Argumentum ad populum, which relates to the "How come so many people...? This shows there must be some truth in it"-part of the argument. From your "template" stuff, however, it sounds like this isn't what you were referring to. — Sam 18:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

Ad_Hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial... AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that most of these kinds of arguments are appeals to authority. "I heard some guy on tv say it, so it must be true!" 90.235.30.211 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe there isn't a specific name for it, but the above aren't quite what I'm looking for. What I mean exactly is that someone makes one point, which is refuted, then makes another slightly different point, which isn't refuted, and the person then goes back to thinking that the first point is correct. I guess moving the goalpost is the nearest. --Mark PEA (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a list of fallacies in our article on fallacy. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NSDAP, 1930s

I can understand the middle classes voting for Hitler and his NSDAP in the early 1930s such as the two 1932 elections, but why did young people make up a large percentage of people voting for him? Were they simply impressed by all the pageantry and vague talk or was there a deeper reason? LGF1992UK (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When there is no work to be had, no work in your future, and inflation requiring you to tote around wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread, anybody who claims to be able to solve the problem looks pretty good. The youth of the time had no future to look forward to. Corvus cornix_talk 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflation wasn't actually a problem in Germany in the early '30s. Unemployment was though. Algebraist 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Idealism, work hard and build the future, Tomorrow belongs to me, parades with lots of other young people doing things together, stopping corruption, being part of something greater all that sort of stuff is a strong incentive for young people. How do you think perfectly sane and healthy young people get turned in suicide bombers or join weird sects or go and do any one of the 101 other insane bad or stupid things they do? Just be thankful that so many do great things before they get old and cynical Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis were a revolutionary party at the time. They were popular on college campuses with kids who, in the wonderful fashion of youth, saw the world in black-and-white terms, had little sympathy for those outside of their own experience, and were into the kind of idealism about being German that the Nazis were pushing. A good number of people saw them as a party with a clear message of change and reform. Most people did not think things would actually get as bad as it did—most thought that the Nazis would mellow out a bit once they actually got power. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis were also seen as a counter to the perils of communism. For a first person account, see the quote at Arthur Rudolph#U.S. Army. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Philisophical term

When confronted with n possibilites and you have no meaningful information on the absolute or relative probability of any of the possible outcomes, you assume that the probability of any certain possibility is 1/n. E.g., if I have no way of knowing whether to make a right, left, or to continue straight at an intersection in order to arrive at my destination, I will assume that I have a 1/3 chance of being correct by taking a left. What is the name of this concept? (This may be related to Pascal's wager.) Thanks, Dar-Ape 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is simple probability and somewhat remote to sycophantically gambling on God´s existence. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

remote from, even. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bayesian statistics has something to do with starting out by assuming arbitrarily-assigned probabilities, but has little direct connection with philosophy (as far as I can tell)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, but Bayesian thought has plenty of direct connections to philosophy. Numerous of philosophers of science have sought to explain the scientific process (belief revision, paradigm shifts, etc) through the view of Bayesian statistics. Using similar lines of reasoning, Bayesian epistemology is a view in mainstream epistemology.--droptone (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the principle of indifference, though it doesn't really apply in this case; going straight is distinguishable from turning, and your past driving history (or scenery visible from the intersection) may break the symmetry between left and right. Also, if you really don't know where your destination is, you should consider making a U-turn with 1/4 probability. -- BenRG (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also the more general principle of maximum entropy. 130.188.8.13 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, principle of indifference was what I was looking for. I suppose you're right, BenRG; it's a crude example, but I thought it was better than none at all, lest a more abstract definition be too vague or confusing. Bayesian statistics seems quite interesting; I will have to read into it. Dar-Ape 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)