Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 2

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.

April 2

Cost of a gondola ride in C16 Venice

Hi, all - about how much would I have had to pay for a gondola ride of say an hour in Venice in 1580?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One ride was $1.50 but you could purchase a rechargeable metrocard which brought the price down to as low as $1.25 per ride. I missed it by a few minutes, didn't I. Oh well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not been there in several years, but I would say probably 50-100 Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The questioner said "in 1580" guys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spicciolini, a couple of small coins. A couple of sisini perhaps? Two soldini? A couple of gazette, perhaps, when one gazetta would buy you a news broadsheet to read on the way; but this may be a C17 coin: Words, facts and phrases.--Wetman (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, was looking this up at the same time as Wetman. Well, one other thing to note: the "official Venetian gondola website" confirms that gondolas were in use in 1580, but also says that when used for an excursion (what I'm guessing a one-hour trip would be) rather than a get-from-A-to-B taxi trip, the gondola may well have been owned privately by a rich person rather than being hired. So a person who could take a one-hour trip might already own their own boat (and servant to row it, etc). That same site also has a searchable reference database if you can read Italian – there might be some historical references in there. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - wonderfully helpful answers! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A Story....Is It True? If so, where can I find the article here on wikipedia??

Ok...this is the story... "High Beams" There was a girl who went to a bonefire pep rally for her school. She ended up staying longer that expected and went home late. On her way home, she noticed a semitruck following her. The truck had it's high beams on and it was really annoying her. She drove down a lonley country road, but the semi would not stop following her. She decided that if it followed her down the dirt road off of the main road, she would speed home and call the police. It did. Every once in awhile, it would turn it's high beams on. She finally got home and screamed and ran into the house, as the truck parked in her driveway. Her father came out with his hunting rifle and pointed it at the semi driver. The driver got out and said, " No, do not shoot! I was just... LOOK!" They all looked at the backseat of her car and saw that there was a man in the back. With a machete. They promply called the police and he was taken away. The girl asked the semi driver "How did you know he was back there?" He told her "I had my high beams on. He was standing with the machete just over your head. Every time he stood up, I turned them back on" the author said this was based on a true story --- is it? if so, what is it called??? ~ Thanks, Cheers --- Jubilee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.20.243 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an urban legend. You may want to go to http://www.snopes.com , which is a VERY well researched site. They have an article on this exact story: here. If you run across any more of these stories, check out Snopes. They are an awesome website. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also pretty silly. I mean, who "stands with a machete above your head" in the back seat? And heck, if you're some sort of crazy machete serial killer, you'd have to be pretty stupid to chop up the person driving the car you are in. At least wait until they stop or something. And hey—if I was going to hide in someone's car with a machete, I'd probably run out of the car after it had stopped and everyone was standing around talking about whether or not I was hiding in the back of the car. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Who would use a machete in a confined space like a car anyway... No space to swing it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, have you ever heard a news story with that level of detail? You can usually spot urban legends like this a mile away. It gets annoying, as you end up losing some level of respect for loved ones who (as in my case) credulously tell you that a co-worker's friend was found burned to death, at the top of a tall tree, dressed in SCUBA gear. --Sean 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And tis guy was standing in the car? What? Did it have a sunroof or something?--KageTora (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And she noticed the high beams of the following truck but not a person moving about directly behind her in a vehicle. What was she driving: a cop car with the sound proof division between her and the back seat? A bus where the intruder was 20 feet away? And with the trucker behind flashing his high beams, she didn't notice a shadow on the dash? What a silly story! // BL \\ (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, this guy is in the back of the car with a machete, watching some girl and her dad with his hunting rifle call the police, and he never got out and ran away? It really is an unrealistic situation. --KageTora (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago,when the story was told, the "man in the back seat" was of a different race than the girl driving the car. And he did not have a machete. The pursuing high-beam driver had just seen the man climb into the back seat. Edison (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The eyes of a Buddha statue

During a recent trip to Sri Lanka, I visited the Dambulla cave temple with a group of friends. There were more than 100 painted statues of the Buddha inside the caves, of varying sizes. We were informed that the eyes on a Buddha statue are considered sacred, and that they were always painted last. Once the eyes were painted (or had begun to be painted), the Buddha was considered "alive" in that statue and could see. I think my memory is correct on those points so far. However, I think we were also told that, in order to honour the Buddha during his "awakening" in that statue, the eyes were always painted via a mirror, so as not to look directly at them. And there was some sort of punishment if the painter were to look at the eyes directly before they were finished? Death? Lost his job? A fine? I don't know, and I can't seem to find any information on that custom. I did a google search but got lots of irrelevant hits, and I might have the whole thing mixed up. So I thought I would ask here and see if someone can help! Thank you very much, :-) Maedin\^talk 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno bout Buddhas, but in depictions of the Chinese dragon in Chinese culture - whether painted, sculpted, or a costume for use in dragon dances and suchlike - the eyes are always painted last, and painting the eye makes the dragon "alive". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The custom is aparently called netra pinkama (eye festival) and is described here and here and a few other google hits. As to the punishments or ill-fortune which you might expect from not doing it correctly, they are most likely to be kept vague in order to not be disproved. meltBanana 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know several Buddhist artists, and yes they all follow the tradition of painting the eyes last, but I've never heard of anyone using a mirror to do this, which I think would necessitate considerable practice and skill. Out of the hundreds of strands of Buddhist tradition, there are quite possibly some who do this, but despite all the ritual and tradition, Buddhist artists are on the whole a pragmatic bunch, and most would find the idea of using a mirror rather extreme.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese politicians have a custom of painting the eyes (or the last eye?) of a kind of roly-poly thing on election night, but I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the custom, see this article. And there is a related idiom 画竜点睛 in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your responses! It may have been some natural "exaggeration" creeping into the local's retelling, but also likely that the practice has relaxed a little, perhaps because we aren't quite as superstitious as we used to be? I appreciate your help, :-) Maedin\^talk 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Patriotic retirement"

I read the following in a newspaper as an idea of how to fix the US economy:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations:

• They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
• They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto industry fixed.
• They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.

Sound idea? Over to you... --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

$40,000,000,000,000 added to the money supply. Sound idea? --Anonymous, 08:22, April 2, 2009.

Is this a factual question, or an attempt to start a debate? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a factual question, insofar as economics is an exact science. I would have thought the question was obvious – what effect would such a measure, if taken, have on the state of the economy? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, hyperinflation sounds about right. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...how is unemployment solved if 40 million people are forced from their jobs? There's also the issue of constitutionality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to remove them from the labor pool. Retired people are not considered unemployed. No, I am not saying it is a sensible idea, just answering the question. --Anonymous, 22:22 UTC, April 3, 2009.

Out of curiousity, which newspaper proposed this idea? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the American version of The Sunday Sport.--KageTora (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides the massive inflation and the temporary labour shortage, there would also be the question of how many of those 40 million jobs would be filled by people who are qualified [and well-located] to do them. No point in sacking people who have proved they can do the job, only to get some high school drop out. Most of the unemployed are either straight from high school or on social security.--KageTora (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, a rational economic actor would not buy American cars... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, $1 million dollars wouldn't last more than 20 years if they have paid their mortgage off with it, plus bought cars, so you are saying every American should be broke by the age of 70?--KageTora (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Best not to trust what you read in the newspapers. If these guys were such economic geniuses, they'd be working for the banks, not playing around writing for a newspaper.--KageTora (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the people who work for the banks have proved that they're really good with money, haven't they? Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They seemed to do quite well for their own pocket books anyway... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OP, where did you get the 40 million unemployed figure? The actual number is 11.7 mn, or 7.6% 40 mn would be an unemployment rate of 33.6%. As for the $40 mn added to the money supply, let’s assume it is all cash, which means it is added to the smallest measure of the money supply (i.e., it has a bigger kick). Adding $40 mn to a $841.3 billion pile is, wow, almost 0.5%. Considering M-1 (Currency) is growing at better than 10%, I doubt anyone would notice. Hyperinflation is a non-issue.

However, driving 28.3 mn people out of their jobs (assuming the 11.7 mn are a perfect fit – and perfectly mobile – for some of the 40 mn jobs) would cause an enormous disruption to services and to what little manufacturing production employment still exists in the US economy (8.7 mn or 6.6% of total employment). And, paying off all those mortgages wouldn’t do anything to solve the financial crisis, since only about 7% of sub-prime – not total, just the sub-primes – are in trouble.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not $40 million added to the money supply in the OP's scenario, it's $40 trillion (40 million workers times $1,000,000 each). That's approximately 3x GDP. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP also didn't specify 40 million unemployed people - the specification was 40 million employed people over the age of 50. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all missing the obvious (by questioning what newspaper proposed the scheme, etc, etc,): The obvious reason for the question is that Richardrj is over 50, but not over 60, but sick and tired of working already! 79.122.13.83 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparative Wealth of North America versus South America

I've been wondering about this lately. Why is it that most of North America (the United States and Canada) are relatively prosperous while most of the nations south of these two countries (beginning with Mexico and continuing with Central America and South America) tend to be less prosperous? By 'prosperous' I am referring to wealth and standard of living. My understanding is that prior to European colonization, there wasn't a great disparity of wealth between the northern and southern parts of the Americas. Was there something specific about European colonization that resulted in this disparity? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between England and Spain.--KageTora (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, modern-day Mexico and Peru were among the wealthiest and most urbanised regions of the Americas prior to serious European settlement. The Spanish, arriving in Mexico, started exporting its extensive gold and silver supplies back to Spain. This led to the collapse of the Spanish economy - the first ever national bankruptcies in history. The English, on the other hand, settling in modern-day New England, mostly exploited renewable resources. The persecution of various religious groups in northern Europe (England included) during the 16th and 17th centuries led to extensive emigration to north America, meaning that the rate of import of European skills and technology was very high. There's more to it than that, or than an entire library could explain, but those are my first thoughts. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparative levels of acceptable corruption.--Wetman (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Catholics! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is right to look to history for the answer to this question. I think that a lot of the answer has to do with the differences between the cultures of early modern England, on the one hand, and Spain and Portugal on the other. By the 17th century, England was one of the most successful mercantile powers in the world. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution cemented the dominance of the merchant class (in modern terms, the business elite or capital) in English society, and they structured England's legal system and political economy to enhance their success. The English colonies acquired this mercantile legal system and an influx of merchants who brought with them the skills and outlooks needed for commercial success. As a result, England's American colonies—and particularly commercial centers such as Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Montreal—grew in wealth during the late 18th century. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution had begun in England. English migrants brought industrial techniques to the American colonies around the turn of the 19th century. American commercial elites embraced these new technologies and invested their capital in them. As a result, an industrial revolution was soon underway in New England, followed by other parts of the United States and Canada by the mid-19th century. Industrial and commercial development continued at a rapid pace in the United States and Canada well into the 20th century. As a result, these regions have inherited great wealth.

By contrast, merchants had little status and little chance of success in Spain and Portugal or their colonies. The state monopolized much of the trade within the Spanish and Portuguese empires, and the proceeds of trade were used as collateral for loans mainly from Italian and Dutch and later English bankers, which Spanish (and to a lesser extent Portuguese) monarchs used to finance unproductive empire building through warfare, mainly within Europe. Thus, the profits from the Spanish and Portuguese colonial trade tended to end up in Northern European hands. Little capital accumulated in Spain, Portugal, or their colonies. Because merchants in the Iberian empires had little chance of success, they tended to have low social status. Commerce therefore failed to attract the most talented Portuguese and Spaniards. Instead, status in these cultures came mainly from large-scale land ownership, which provided a source of income not through capital investment but mainly from the exploitation of a servile agrarian class. Status could also come from military success, which often led to land grants. Consequently, Spain, Portugal, and their colonies never developed a successful merchant class and accumulated little capital. The Latin American colonies inherited this lack of capital and the low status connected with commercial pursuits when they gained independence in the early 19th century. Consequently, they were disinclined and not really able to embrace industrialization at that time. In fact, these regions retained agrarian economies right into the 20th century, and most of the profit to be gained from the trade in Latin American mineral and agricultural commodities was claimed by American and Northern European trading firms. There were a few small exceptions to this pattern, such as the financial sector that developed in São Paulo to finance and profit from Brazil's coffee trade. Industrialization did not come to most of Latin America until the mid-20th century. In many cases, even this industrialization did not lead to profit or capital accumulation, since the industrialization was undertaken by the state without much heed to the dictates of the market. It was really only in the late 20th century, with the move toward globalization and the removal of government regulations that restrained trade and investment, that Latin America began to industrialize on a profitable basis. At first, and to a large extent still, it was mainly foreign (largely U.S. and European) firms that profited from an investment in industrial plant in Latin America. However, the spread of a global entrepreneurial culture led to the spread of local entrepreneurial efforts within Latin America. They were able to draw on an increasingly skilled labor force as a result of foreign industrial investment in those countries. As a result, during the last two decades of the 20th century, capital accumulation really began to take off in much of Latin America. Of course, the Latin American countries started out far behind the United States and Canada, and they still have a long way to go to catch up. Marco polo (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hark! Do I hear the echo of Clio, laughing in the forest? (Bravo! Well answered!) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that Argentina was the 10th richest country in the world in 1913 (source: [1], GDP per capita). Though something structural was probably "wrong" already then, one should note that a lot of the downhill path for Argentina (and perhaps Chile and some other countries) has really been since then. My bet is that high inequality has played an important role, as well as political instability (for which inequality might have played a role again) Jørgen (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes. He addresses this very question in a very readable and interesting history. Many things are suggested, but I'll let you read and find out yourself!NByz (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mace of the House of Delegates (Virginia)

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Mace of the Virginia House of Delegates Please consider contributing

Is it true that the original mace was sold to raise money and the current one is just a cheap replacement? If so where is the original? Privately owned? Given back to the Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.89.137 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article states:

"The original mace was presented to the House of Burgesses by the Royal Governor of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia in 1700. That mace, alas, has since been lost. The current mace dates only from the Edwardian period, and is constructed of silver covered in 24-karat gold. It was purchased by the Jamestown Foundation and presented to the House of Delegates in 1974."

So, it's not original but as it is gold-plated silver, I'd hardly call it a cheap replacement either. I have no idea if "lost" is a euphemism for "sold off for cash." - Eron^Talk 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was it prior to 1974? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Virginia State Capitol Visitor's Guide, the current mace was made in England in 1938, which contradicts the earlier reference's statement that it dates from the Edwardian period. The first author may have confused the Edwardian style of the mace with its being from the Edwardian era. - Eron^Talk 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were made in 1936 rather than 1938 I could suggest yet another answer. —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this, the original was sold in 1794 for $101. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

that also gives a different date for the current mace's purchase and presentation to the legislature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe we have a Mystery! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Every reference I've found - five or six - except Bedini's book gives the date of the new mace's acquisition as 1974. Bedini's work is the most scholarly of the bunch and is very well referenced. However, the sentence in which he says the mace was acquired in 1962 has a footnote that only seems to refer to the disposal of the original mace - no reference he cites is later than 1911 so they can't support the date of 1962. (He also says the mace was presented by the Jamestown Foundation when it seems to have been presented by the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation.) I think on balance we have to go with the 1974 date.

So, to answer the OP completely: The original mace was indeed sold, in 1794, to raise money. The plan was to use the money to buy new, non-royalist maces for the Virginia House and Senate, but they got bogged down in cost and design issues so that never actually happened. The original mace was sold to a silversmith and was probably melted down for spoons or teapots or something. The current mace, while a replacement, is hardly cheap: it is silver with a 24K gold plating. (This information and much more, including intimations of Jeffersonian fascism, can be found at our shiny new Mace of the Virginia House of Delegates article. - Eron^Talk 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

atheism

Is atheism a religion in and of itself?

A related question, is anarchy a form of government? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism: no, not really. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. Spirituality is a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality, or one or more deities. One could make an argument that an atheist has a concept of spirituality, but only in the same way that one can imagine fish-eating vegetarians.

No, not "not really", not at all. Atheism is an aspect of philosophy. Philosophical materialism denies the useful existence of metaphysics. --Wetman (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy could indeed be a form of government. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How can anarchy be a form of government? Other than maybe each anarchist declaring that they are their own government. To have a government would need to have some sort of authority, thereby diminishing the 'anarchiness' of someone else that is being governed, unless you say each person had equal authority, but wouldn't that just be nice, pure democracy.MedicRoo (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We are governed by custom and contract, as well as by the State, so in my humble opinion government properly understood is broader than the State. Anarchy (≠lawlessness) is certainly a form of social order. —Tamfang (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion in and of itself, but there may be atheistic religions, that is religions which do not assume the existence of God or gods. See Atheism in Hinduism for an example. Anarchy, on the other hand, is a lack of government, not a form of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One may argue that, in the Soviet or North Korean model of communism, atheism has become a religion, manifesting at least some of the typical attributes of the religion (such as iconography, traditions, observances, veneration of the "saints", and following the "spiritual leaders" without question). That does not apply to Western atheism, or applies to a lesser extent. It is interesting to note also that Confucianism is often described as a religion, although, to the best of my knowledge, present-day Confucianism is a form of atheism (however, see Tian). In general, we have several good articles on the definitions of religion; a good place to start is Religion#Definitions of religion. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday on the BBC I heard someone who called himself an anarchist describing how government works under anarchy: it sounded remarkably like concensus politics to me.--TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"One may argue that, in the Soviet or North Korean model of communism, atheism has become a religion, manifesting at least some of the typical attributes of the religion (such as iconography, traditions, observances, veneration of the "saints", and following the "spiritual leaders" without question)". Can you provide some specific examples? Or did you mean 'communism has become a religion'? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

they're just saying that a cult of personality is like a religion. which I would dispute... socialist cults of personality are far more centralized and powerful than any religion ever has been, even during the worst of the Inquisition (which was more arbitrary than it was effective)... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not atheism that has become a religion. Atheism is simply the position that no gods exist. All North Korea shows (if it shows anything) is that it is possible to have religions incorporating a belief in atheism, but we knew that already (Buddhism is another example). Algebraist 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you're after, but try Anarchism. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism clearly is a form of religion, because it makes a strong statement about supernatural beings: they do not exist. Agnosticism would be a better candidate for implying much the same thing without claiming knowledge of every sort of thing that exists. Edison (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the belief that gods don't exist claim any knowledge? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We have no certain knowledge that God(s) exist. To believe they do falls under the category of faith, a key component of religion. To believe they do not is the basis of atheism. Both, you will note, depend on a belief in the unprovable. Hence, I would agree that atheism is a (God[s]less) religion. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not equal in those cases. Have a look at the article on Russell's teapot. Faith is not a component of atheism; Occam's razor is its guiding principle, not belief. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also venture that, if the existence of God(s) was actually proven (and gods are physically present on earth in much religious literature; there's nothing to suggest their existence is unprovable), the average atheist could cease to be an atheist without compromising any of his or her principles. The gist of atheism is "I see no objective evidence of God, therefore I have no reason to believe in God," not "I refuse to believe in God, no matter what." This distinction is sometimes lost on people of faith, to whom all of creation is essentially evidence of God. It's also lost on some atheists, for that matter. But if objective evidence of God's existence were to surface, somehow, and atheists persisted in denying his (or her) existence, they would then be acting on faith regardless of evidence, and would be practicing a religion. Given that such evidence does not currently exist, atheism is not a religion, but an observation. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What proof do we have that Occam's razor is a valid tool? How do you go about demonstrating, rigorously, that the burden of proof lies with theists rather than atheists? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See Occam's_razor#Justifications. The theists are the ones with extraordinary claims. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those justifications are interesting, but they don't demonstrate the necessity of Occam's Razor, nor do they in any way lead logically to your conclusions. What rigorous method can be used to partition claims into 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary'? Many of the arguments for Occam's Razor which suggest that 'simple explanations are more probable' remind me of the old Ptolemaic model of the universe in which things were assumed to move in circles because circles are more simple, and thus more ideal. And if simple explanations are more probable, how does one explain something like General Relativity, which is not at all simple. In what sense is it improbable? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Occam's Razor, but my understanding is that about the simplest explanation that fits the observational evidence. General Relativity is the simplest explantion that fits the observational evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Alex Tiefling, that this is a reference desk, not a debate forum.

The reference given above, Occam's_razor#Justifications, states that "parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein", ie that the theory of general relativity is the simplest explanation. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)@Alex: Okay, let's pick a phenomenon. Say, the origin of life. Now we have several theories that try to explain this: one theory says that God created life but there are other theories too and Occam's razor says we should choose the one that requires the least assumptions. The "origin of God" renders the God hypothesis problematic with respect to Occam's razor. So that's the logic behind my conclusion. Regarding the necessity of Occam's razor: this is just a convenient way to live our lives - you use it everyday for everything except your religious beliefs.

General relativity is not a phenomenon that needs a theory - rather it is a theory that explains a phenomenon. And it has been empirically tested - the God hypothesis has not. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to have a debate - it was a genuine question about the basis for Occam's Razor. I agree that creationism (both physical and biological) has much more substantial problems than more materialist approaches, and it wasn't my intent to challenge that. I'm just curious about the epistemology of assertions like 'simple explanations are more probable' or 'extraordinary claims {are distinct and} require extraordinary evidence'. They don't seem to me to have any formal basis - they are axioms, but I'm not sure why they are so strongly preferable to other ones. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If Occam's Razor is dependent on observable evidence, it doesn't apply here. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Robert De Nero play the violin?

Question moved to Entertainment Reference Desk. - Eron^Talk 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting General Ledger

Hello. Why is the Particulars column for temporary accounts not underlined when temporary accounts close? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because when they are closed they are not particularly important anymore?--KageTora (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's a mere formatting issue and the rationale would be clarity or ease of use...? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question, but I understand that "formatting issues" are quite significant in accounting. The underline might mean something. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't recall that the GAAP/IFRS says anything about underlining. There are conventions - single line for subtotals, doublt underline for grand totals, but the rest would surely be up to the individual accounting entity... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

capital punishment

Is capital punishment permissible in the US territories and P.R.? I did not see them mentioned in the US capital punishment article 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the infoboxes on the Capital punishment in the United States article states that American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have no current death penalty statute. So I believe the answer is "No." - Eron^Talk 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that several federal crimes carry the death penalty, and one could be convicted of such a crime and sentenced to death even if the crime took place in any of those territories, or in any State that has no death penalty. Tempshill (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)