Humanities desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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 4

Name of a conceptual error

What is it called when people incorrectly (or just through sloppy use of language) ascribe purposes or thoughts to non-thinking entities, as in "the atom wants another electron" or "the camel evolved a hump in order to live in the desert" or "the virus doesn't plan on killing its host"? I considered teleology, which seems to fit, but that's not a very specific term for an error (and it has irrelevant overtones of being about God). 213.122.41.57 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental fallacy: "All Nature mourned", etc.--Wetman (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That might be the one. Anthropomorphism doesn't quite fit because, even if technically correct, it's generally understood to mean "cartoon animals", or at least imagining animals to have human personalities, not ascribing human thought to an abstract thing such as a process. I guess it does include that (as the page says), but it's not specific enough. 213.122.41.57 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism is the turn of mind that made ancient Greeks see abstract conceptions like Night or Temperance as having female human form and made Christians assert in Dies Irae: "Mors stupebit et natura", "Death will be struck dumb, and nature too"..--Wetman (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question is kind of a mixed bag. The part about the camel evolving a hump is giving way too much credit to the camel and not nearly enough to natural selection. The one about the atom is anthropomorphizing. It's "pagan" to attribute human-like motivations to non-humans, but we still do it. For example, we talk about an approaching storm as having "angry" clouds. Clouds aren't sentient beings, they are simply collections of molecules that are shaped and reshaped based on the dynamics of the atmosphere. But it's a natural human tendency to endow nature with human-like characteristics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that it gives credit to camels as a species, but giving credit to natural selection for having a plan for the camel is equally wrong. No planning took place at all, that's the error. 213.122.45.16 (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only "plan" in natural selection is survival of those best-fitted. So it's not so much that the camel developed a hump to survive, it's that those camel ancestors with a tendency toward humps had a competitive advantage over their brethren that didn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this is only one example, but "want" has several meanings (polyseme). An atom may not be able to (definition 1) "desire" an electron, but it may well "lack" or "require" one (def'ns 2 & 3). See wikt:want. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I just wanted to know what to call the conceptual mistake: I think it's perfectly forgivable to use language with these implications, and sometimes hard to avoid. 213.122.45.16 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more easily explained by rephrasing as "wants for", which is another way of saying "lacks" but doesn't imply a conscious state. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a form or transference, "anthropomorphic transference" perhaps?83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PEnnsylvania 6-5000

I copy an interesting question from Talk:555 (telephone number): "back in the 30s, were the phone companies deluged with calls to PEnnsylvania 65000?" Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Did people call and ask for Jenny? --Jayron32 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was and is the number of a hotel, the Hotel Pennsylvania. I have stayed there. Their music on hold is the song. It is generally thought to be good to be a business with lots of people calling your number. Plutocrats currently seek to demolish the hotel and put up an office tower. Edison (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they still sore about the demotion of their ex-planet? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ok, but that's only in one area code. What about all the other area codes? APL (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would people in the thirties call that particular number? Somebody help me understand the original question, please. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the thirties, but sometime during the forties, Glenn Miller had a hit song which featured that number prominently. BTW, we have an article: PEnnsylvania 6-5000. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Miller discography says it hit #5 in Aug. 1940. Maybe he popularized it before he recorded and released it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the item on the talk page. Incidentally, I've stayed at the hotel too. --Anonymous, 07:12 UTC, September 4, 2009.

Those younger than the Glenn Miller generation knew that, at least after 1962, they could call BEechwood 4-5789 any old time. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure more boys tried to call BUtterfield 8 than NOrthside-777, if you know what I mean. —Kevin Myers 23:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "867-5309/Jenny" or "777-9311" ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the Glenn Miller song; but as I didn't bother to look at the article about the song, and as I forgot that it was from the 1940s, I didn't modify the original question. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gore vidal

I once heard on the BBC TV show that writer Gore Vidal was once headbutted by a fellow writer. Is this true ? Was it Norman Mailer or William F. Buckley, or was it Vidal who did the head butting ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Norman Mailer [1]. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, edit conflict. But here.'s another description of the episode.--Rallette (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Economics

Suppose you are a stock market analyst, who specialise in stock Theme Parks. It has been recorded that, tourism has slow down in Ghana in six of the region.A now roller coaster is now operating and another new site would be opening this year.

Using demand and supply analysis predict the impact of this events on ticket prices and attendance at disco houses. Disco houses has a slash ticket prices and admitted that attendace was somehow on a lower rate.

Is this consitance with your prediction using demand and supply analysis? In light of the fact that both prices and output are fallen at disco houses.

Is the law of demand being voilated in the world of fantancy?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.60.118 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Hint: What impact would you say the new roller coaster would have on the demand for tickets. And remember that "demand" refers to the overall demand as a function of various prices - i.e. the demand curve. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try also supply and demand and, probably Substitute good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the last question. "Is the law of demand being voilated in the world of fantancy?" What's the point of a fantasy world if you don't violate some laws? Warofdreams talk 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to keep things consitance. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If We Hold On Together

I am looking for the music (no lyrics) as a video or can be downloaded.

I would suggest posting this on the entertainment board if you do not get a good result here. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus name

After watching True Blood, Dionysus is depicted as a Satan-like god. However in Wiki, names like Dennis has origins in the Dionysus name. Was Dionysus not considered so Satan-like way back then? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Dionysus? Marco polo (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the name "Dionysus" is presumably the same linguistic root as in Greek Zeus and Latin Deus ("god") -- see Dyeus... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most modern names like "Dennis" are derived more directly from the name Dionysius (note the second "i") than from "Dionysus". I suspect that naming children in honor of Saint Denis, and perhaps others of the notable Christian Dionysiuses, led to the preponderance of the current usage. More generally, people seem to have always named children for gods, even if that involved ignoring some of the particular gods' more unadmirable aspects. Deor (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few or no Pagan gods were, or are, considered by their devotees to be "Satan-like." Satan as a figure of evil was a largely Christian construct, derived from a non-evil servant of Yahweh in earlier Judaism, and was deliberately attributed with elements from pre-existing pagan deities (such as Pan's horns and goat's legs) in order to more easily denounce them as "devils" and persecute their followers - calling a competing religion's gods "devils" has always been a standard tactic in religious conflicts. Please note that deities such as Pan and Dionysus (who resembles Jesus somewhat more than he does Satan) are still sincerely worshipped/venerated/respected by small (but growing) numbers of people who are not in any way "evil", and that assumptions of those deities "satanic-ness" may give offence. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

riot

"A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism or other crime. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."

The above definition is from our riot page. Would 10,000 people jaywalking be classified as a riot? Or do they have to cause damage or people get hurt? There is an AFD going on for List of riots and I am trying to figure out what some criteria might be. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually riots require violence or mass vandalism (e.g. looting, destruction of property, etc.). Jaywalking is not a riot. (Nor is Critical Mass.) These sorts of things might be disruptive, but they are usually 1. organized, and 2. fairly non-violent. A riot is characterized by its semi-spontaneous and out-of-control nature, generally speaking. (So I wouldn't include Second Intifada, for example, which is much more coordinated.) And an easy, easy, easy, way to deal with "boundary" questions (in this and all other topics) is to NOT try and list things by their ontological status ("is it a riot, or is it not?") but instead to do the really NPOV/NOR thing and list things that are DESCRIBED by reliable sources as riots. (And of course there will still be a handful of weird examples, but you can easily say "(classification of this as a riot is disputed citation citation citation)." When we try to do ontological work, we get into disputes; when we do simply descriptive work, it is pretty straightforward. (This is the same whether it is a question of what is a riot, or what is a pseudoscience, or whatever.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 1, 2003, some 300,00 to 700,000 Hong Kong people (up to 10% of the population) marched in the streets. There were no arrests, no looting, no fighting, and no anti-ethnic, -business, -class slogans. The only injuries were dehydration and twisted ankles. That was a demonstration, not a riot. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]