Humanities desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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.

May 26

Model and methodology

Moved from the Help Desk. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
difference between a model and methodology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.176.66 (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a model is an organized way to think about something. A methodology is an organized way to do something. (Caveat: a "computer model" can be exectued. executing the model is a methodology.) -Arch dude (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, a model is a pattern or example for thinking about something; methodology, a system of methods and a method is a set of procedures, an organised way or steps to do something. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the last bit of the parenthetical remark; running a computer simulation does not a methodology make. The term "model" is rather general and can mean many things, depending on context. In most cases it is a simplified or more abstract representation of something concrete that is more complicated. If done right, you can answer questions about the more complex thing by studying the model.

In most cases when people use the term "methodology", they mean an organized set of methods for tackling some class of problems: Dating methodology, System Development Methodology, Value Measuring Methodology, and so on. See also Methodology. --Lambiam 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth century Byzantine policy to the caliphate

What were the major battles of the 950s between Byzantium and Sayf ad-Dawla? There doesn't seem to be anything specific on it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.35.53 (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most specific article we have is Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180), which discusses battles with Sayf al-Daula. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SARS morbidity rates

Canada and HK, to my surprise had a higher death rate than China and Singapore. I expected Canada is the most developed of these countries to have a higher survival rate, and China (as an LEDC)to have a lower death rate, and Singapore as an NIC to be somewhere in between. Is there any reason why this isn't the case? I'm thinking that China has a far larger "sample" so its death rate there is a somewhat more reliable picture of Sars? 79.72.197.227 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have an opinion, how would one adjust for the varying credibilities of official figures? --Wetman (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about age-adjustment? Most diseases kill the elderly more, and populations may have different average ages.John Z (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the figures are credible, they are from the WHO... but age! Yes! Age! Fantastic, Canada has an ageing population! (My IP's probably changed, but it's still me haha) 79.78.65.89 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the WHO generally relies at least partly on officials and doctors in the countries they are reporting on. And these figures may vary, I'm not talking about people covering up deaths although that's a possibility but the fact that the varying systems in place to catch all deaths and report them to the people at the top. Age may be a factor, although it's difficult to say how big a factor. Bearing in mind SARS was AFAIK never widespread in Canada for example but isolated to people who had been in contact with carrier it's infection profile may not have mimicked Canada's population. While Canada has an excellent public health system, I suspect it may not have been available to many of the people affected (who may have been tourists, students, people on work permits or illegal immigrants) meaning they might not have gone to a doctor until fairly late. Another factor may be that China as the source for the virus and also with the greatest number of cases would likely have had the greatest genetic variation in the virus. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organised crime

Have any attorneys that represent gangsters, members of organized crime or the Mafia attended Columbia University or Harvard Law School? 71.100.169.132 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Edward Hayes at a push (Columbia University). Looking at the article, while he was to represent persons accused of mafia involvement, he's not exactly your typical "mob lawyer". Fribbler (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess—you are hoping to find a few from these particular universities in some sort of guilt-by-association with Barack Obama? Can't you see that's a little pathetic, not to mention illogical? Columbia University is one of the top undergraduate institutions in the United States; Harvard Law School is one of the top law schools. You're going to get a whole mix of people who have graduated from such institutions who went through all different walks of life. The same could be said of all elite institutions. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to hide? Where better to hide than behind the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities desk or perhaps one of those elitist institutions. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Feeding of ye Olde Norse dwarflets of the 71.100 Viking clan is, whilst not prohibited, not constructive. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it was a legitimate question (though in hindsight, an odd one) initially. My cat-like ref-desk reflexes tend to lead me to answer any question I see....occasionally providng sustainance to the aforementioned sur le pont dwellers. Fribbler (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a legitimate question and what you fail to realize when you go on these personal vendetta attacks is that by acting in this way you fail to provide responses to others who may have the same question. But I realize you guys are all into yourselves and do not care about others. So typical of lets see... preadolescence. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I just don't see why anyone else would want to know the answer to the question. It's like asking "Has anyone from Eastern Denmark ever filed a dodgy tax return?". If you don't explain why you want to know it, then it looks like trolling when combined with your other questions. Fribbler (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the question is that lots of people take things on face value, which I try not to do. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

(exdent) What is the face value that you believe people will take things on, in this regard? (Not a challenge; just a query)Fribbler (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are differences in degrees of respect one accords another on the basis of whether they went to school or not and if they did what school it might have been because various schools tend to acquire a certain reputation. For instance, while I would look for Berkley graduates to populate my radiation lab I would look for Harvard graduates to add to my legal staff. Eventually such reputations become the face value of which I speak that might require one to probe a bit deeper. Would you pick a mate on reputation alone? Maybe but my guess is that you might want to apply your own questions to determine if the reputation was correct. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Grand, so to summarise my research: there is no evidence that graduates of Columbia or Harvard Law School represented persons shown to be involved in organised crime. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but there is no sign of it. Fribbler (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... and precisely why there is a reason to be concerned about taking a person's claim to be a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law school on face value, especially one who does not consider publication of the law in the form of a decision table or polychotomous key to be of any value. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

LOL. "Yes, my assumption is totally wrong, but that only proves it right, because after all, the law should be in the form of a decision table or a polychotomous key! Elementary my dear Watson, as long as I neglect to take my medication!" --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever wonder if this guy is related to 65.163.etc on the Miscellaneous desk? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, 65.163 isn't a troll. He's a perfectly harmless individual who is obsessed with UFOs, conspiracy theories and Fox News. This guy is something else. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a basic assumption underlying your posts, 71.100, which is highly questionable. You seem to be saying that a lawyer who represents a mobster is somehow guilty of associating with the mob. This is nonsense. Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to legal representation; innocent until proven guilty, remember? Lawyer friends of mine have represented people accused of murder and rape in court. Does that mean their morals are questionable? Of course not. It's the lawyer's job to ensure that the accused gets treated fairly under the law. Until the verdict is handed down, no-one can say whether the accused is innocent or guilty. You may not like that, but it's a fundamental principle of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have forgotten that he doesn't recognize the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition as legitimate since it doesn't involve a decision table or a polychotomous key (that is, he's a crank). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a fundamental principle of the legal system but "innocent until proven guilty" has never carried any weight in US elections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]