Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 17

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.

June 17

Who was the abroad friend?

Nicolas Appert's book Le Livre de tous les ménages ou l’art de conserver pendant plusieurs années toutes les substances animales et végétales appears in June 1810. The following August 25, Peter Durand file a patent where he says use a method communicated to him by a person residing abroad : « When I received from a friend abroad, more than a year ago, a communication of the discovery above described ». More than a year ago = therefore in 1809.

Who was this friend?
According to the letter Appert (ref F12 2384 French National Archives), Philippe Girard went to England in 1810 after acquiring the book. So it's not him.
According to the edition of Le Livre de tous les ménages in 1831, a Gérard went to England with the book. So post in June 1810. So it's not him.
Who is he?

Gordon L. Robertson, in his bookFood packaging: principles and practice,2d ed., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, 2006, wrote at page 123: « The latest account, based on extensive research of early nineteenth century archives, has thrown additional light on those involved in the genesis of the canning industry » with a note No. 3.
I have no access to this book. And you ? Can you read it at the library? What does the note 3? What are this extensive research ?
Thank you already, sorry for my bad English, --Égoïté (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I could read (and saved on disk) page 123 (with the cited text) but not the note 3 (which must be on pp. 156 or 157). "Philippe de Girard got Durand (a broker in London) to patent the process in 1810, the patent referring to the substitution of glass jars and bottles with tin cases. A successful trial with the Royal Navy was undertaken at Durand's request in 1811, and the patent was acquired by Bryan Donkin in 1812 for which Girard received £1000...." ping me if it helps or I may better put this info into tin can over the weekend. East of Borschov (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you East of Borschov. I think we unfortunately need the note to find the origins of these informations ! --Égoïté (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Looks like this: [1] 3. Cowell, N.D.; Mermelstein, N. H. "Who introduced tin can? A new candidate." Food Technol., 49 (12) pp 61-66. 1995. East of Borschov (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The same author, Norman Cowell, continued the topic in May, 2007 issue of Food Technology [2]. Good luck! East of Borschov (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First woman assassinated in Serbia

Would anyone know who was actually the first woman to be assassinated in Serbia since its independence from Turkey? I believe it was Princess Anka Obrenovic, who was shot to death on 10 June 1868 alongside her cousin, the ruler Mihailo Obrenovic III, Prince of Serbia. Could other editors possibly confirm this so I can add this pertinent fact to her article? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, were there any women assassinated before independence, although this makes it harder to ascertain as we would have to go back through the centuries to the Middle Ages when assassinations were common?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "First" is a very far stretch, unless you set very tight definitions. The place was a war zone since (at least!) Alexander the Great. East of Borschov (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's say after it achieved indepedence from Turkey which was the 19th century. Were there any women prior to the assassination of Anka Obrenovic which occcurred in 1868? This should narrow it down more, making it easier to ascertain whether or not she was th first.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a "statement by exclusion" is still OR ... unless you redefine "assassination" to "political assasination of a member of Serbian ruling house" where there's a small, finite number of people. However, may I point out that the princess was not the target of the killers - she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. East of Borschov (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. We don't know whether or not the assassins only wished to hit Mihailo or wipe out any member of the Obrenovic family they could get their hands on. Thanks anyway. I would need a ref to say that she was the first female to be assassinated in Serbia, otherwise it would be OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hunting Act 2004

According to this article, "Anyone involved in the pursuit of a mammal with a dog without the consent of the landowner is guilty of an offence". Is there an exception granted for police chasing humans? Reading this sentence literally, I could see police being charged because they used dogs to track a fugitive onto private property. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is wrong. (I'll fix it.) If you follow the link to the actual text of the act, you will see that it only talks about "a wild mammal", not "a mammal". --Anonymous, 18:45 UTC, June 17, 2010.

Wild? I'd be livid if the fuzz came after me with dogs! DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay; I saw that the statement wasn't referenced by the text of the law, so I didn't think to look elsewhere. Curious, by the way; do British law enforcement ever use dogs to track fugitives? Or is that strictly a thing of the past? Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, police dogs are used a great deal. Our police dog article is fairly useless, but http://www.police-information.co.uk/Docs/careerinformation/specialistdepts/dogbranch.html offers more information regarding their use in the UK. Gwinva (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let there be light

Who was God talking to when He said "Let there be light." 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people often have a need to vocalise their thoughts. It has nothing to do with other people being around to hear them. In fact, if anyone else is around, we'll tend to mutter close to inaudibly - not always successfully, hence a certain reputation for being 'eccentric'. There you have it: God is an eccentric mumbler. But a fairly successful one so far. Nobody else has created a universe quite like his yet. Let there be try-hards. (The foregoing is provided in the confident belief that a reliable source for the name of God's interlocutor at the creation of light is a challenge that will defy even the Wikipedia Reference Desk.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody else has created a universe quite like his yet"{{citation needed}} :) Dmcq (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

the definitive answer is "the universe". case closed. 85.181.147.170 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/colossians/1-15.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/colossians/1-16.htm.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Let there be light can illuminate the background for the uninformed.—Wavelength (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Biblically speaking, this is a human-method of putting human-words on a Divine happening. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one common interpretation is that God made the universe by speaking it into existance. That is, the word of God itself is what brought the universe into being. There's a philosophical/theological concept called Logos (from the greek for "Word") which deals with this exact concept. The concept of Logos entered Jewish thought via Philo of Alexandria, and thus into Christianity a short time later via the Gospel of John. The idea behind Logos as it applies to Biblical creation, according to this interpretation, is that when Genesis says "God said let there be light", he wasn't telling someone what he was going to do, the very act of speaking is what created the light. When God names it, it comes into being as the thing. --Jayron32 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What Jayron32 said is correct. See Saint John's Gospel; Ch. 1. "In the beginning .....". MacOfJesus (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Back in the 1960s, there used to be a religious programme on Los Angeles television called Lamp unto my Feet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is relevant to Genesis HOW? The book was written a thousand years before Philo and half-a-thousand before Plato (school-of-whom was Philo). 63.17.73.196 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's plenty relevant. Considering we can't interview the author(s) of Genesis to find out what they meant, interpretation is all we've got to go on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So ANY interpretation is relevant because "we can't interview the author," even if the interpretation is a historically impossible anachronism? That's stretching the meaning of "relevant" pretty far. The poster wrote "The concept of Logos entered Jewish thought via Philo of Alexandria" -- but Genesis PRE-DATES PHILO BY A MILLENNIUM. This is like interpreting the Book of Revelation by saying it was influenced by St. Anselm. UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE what happens to people's ordinary critical faculties the moment the subject becomes religion. 63.17.34.202 (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saints ("LDS" or "Mormons") believe that the earth and its contents were created by more than one being-- God the Father being the supervisor, so to speak, among them. This explains, for us, the other plural language at the beginning of Genesis, such as "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" in 1:26. Kingsfold (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

obsession with truth

what is science minded peoples' obsession with the truth, even if it means believing in very complicated things, such as quantum mechanics and relativistic physics that, as a point of fact, they do not personally understand. I mean, why is it so important to believe something you can't understand, just because it's true, rather than believe something you do understand, that is not true? wouldn't you rather believe something you understand? 85.181.147.170 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some related information in the Wikipedia article Philosophy of physics.—Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See Mass–energy equivalence and http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-26.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any philosophical reason to say that believing in the truth is better than believing in falsehoods, though accepting such a statement would seem rather necessary to pursue philosophy in the first place (because if it doesn't matter what truth is, why bother?). I do think we can say that people who strive for truth and understanding even when the latter is often elusive get better results—measured in any tangible form other than individual human happiness—than those who don't care about the distinction. I leave out human happiness, because as we all know, many believe that ignorance is bliss, at least on certain topics. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Science is useful. Theologians don't help invent, for example, computers that people can use to ask questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Scientists do. It's not about what we do and don't like to believe - belief doesn't come into it. It's about what works. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot better than obscurantism, postmodernist deconstructionist ultra-relativism, or the Strong programme... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we not all be interested in the practical application of truth, so that we can enjoy its benefts? The human race is now experiencing many problems, including climate change, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the financial crisis of 2007–2010, and AIDS. In preventing problems before they happen and in dealing with problems that have happened, should we not want from ourselves and others an honest search for the truth? (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/22-3.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What is truth? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that scientifically minded people believe in ideas like quantum physics. In my experience they are more likely to say that they find those ideas useful. Nor are they usually obsessed by truth. They are trying to put various theories together to build up a picture of the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's always true yuk yuk. The Philosophy of science article, and all it's sub-articles, make interesting reads. Certainly, there are some people, including scientists, who see scientific theories "just" as a way to catagorize observations. On the other hand, there is a great deal, um, disagreement over such things as the correct Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Does a wave function "collapse" into a single observed state, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, or is there only a single wave function that does not collapse, but rather is observed differently from different universes, as in the Many-worlds interpretation? These are not strictly scientific questions; there is no way to find find evidence that supports or refutes any of these interpretations. They are rather questions of philosophy, and some scientists take these questions very seriously. Buddy431 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See Mathematical proof#Computer-assisted proofs (permanent link here).—Wavelength (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we know what is true and what is'nt? MacOfJesus (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple. We do not know what is true. All that we really know is what is not true. That which remains are things we know that are yet to be proven false. 139.130.1.226 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't know (in an absolute sense) what is not true, either (since if X is not true, the statement "X is not true" is true). Certainty is not infallibility. Given that we don't use the verb "know" to mean "know infallibly", though, it's possible to know things. 81.131.2.69 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See Don't Confuse Me With the Facts. (I am not endorsing any financial advice on that website.)—Wavelength (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Obsession with power and obsession with pleasure can cause big problems.—Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Our lie-to-children article is relevant; the original poster is asking whether it's better to believe in a lie-to-children that's thoroughly understandable, rather than claiming to believe a complicated explanation that's not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Might it be better to "believe" in classical Newtonian physics because it is intuitively reasonable, rather than relativity, a slightly better model of reality that's much more complicated? But frankly, it would be even sillier for a science minded folk to claim to not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics, merely because they can't understand it. That would be implicitly rejecting the work of lots of big name scientists from the past 100 years, something not to be done lightly. I certainly don't understand everything that I believe (Quantum mechanics being a good example, though I like to think that I'm better than most non-physicists). Likewise, I don't believe everything that I understand either. I recognize that simple Valence bond theory is only an approximation of how molecules bond "in reality", but for many molecules under many circumstances, it does a pretty good job. While belief and understanding are certainly related, they don't have to go strictly hand in hand. At some point, I trust that the scientists who formulated relativity and quantum mechanics understood what they were doing, even if I don't. Buddy431 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Believing scientists involves trusting their ability, but it also involves trusting their integrity. There is the issue of scientific misconduct. Also, there have been moon landing conspiracy theories.—Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question can't be answered generally because people think different from one another. I for one, strive to understand the world for it's hack value, later someone might find a use for it, but that's not why I seek the "truth". 200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Physics is essentially a way of trying to describe the universe using models, in which mathematics is the language used. You build up a model, say, of the atom, in which each part of the description is tested against experimental results to see if it is a good model. If the evidence is what would be expected from the model, it suggests that the model is still good under the tested conditions. If the evidence goes aginst the model, then the model is flawed and needs refining or starting again, or perhaps there was a problem with how the experiment was carried out and that need to be determined. Physics is very logical. Each step is derived from an earlier one, so you can derive everything from first principals, if you so wish. Thus 'belief' doesn't really come into it, unless you don't want to work it all out for yourself from first principals but are prepared to take a short cut by deciding to trust others who have done the earlier work and jump in part way through (or to the end) of the chain of reasoning. (I think 'trust' is a more relevant concept than 'belief' if you don't want to follow a particular derivation of a model through from the beginning to satisfy yourself that each step is correct.)

Pragmatically speaking, everything is a belief. we do not have access to ontos (the actual 'is-ness' of things), and so we can only imagine what things are really like. every belief (religious of scientific or personal or whatever) is a way of understanding the world designed to help us in some way - we make assertions about the onto of some object or event so that we can determine how to use or or cope with that object or event in future cases. The point of science of every kind is to try to construct beliefs about the world that are rigorously consistent with how we actually experience the world, according to well-defined rules of method and observation. That makes it very good for physical beliefs, but not so good for other things.

In other words, scientists are not really obsessed with truth (as ontos) but rather are obsessed with episteme - how we know things. a physicist can tell you in great detail why he knows that the theory of gravity works; what that really means is that he believes the theory of gravity is true, because he has knowledge of many cases in which it works and knowledge of theories and equations which functionally describe the behavior of actual events. --Ludwigs2 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate quality control in manufacturing can lead to problems requiring product recalls. Negligence in an operating theatre can lead to problems and a medical malpractice lawsuit. The Latin expression "abundans cautela non nocet means "abundant caution does no harm". The Latin expression "Primum non nocere" means "First, do no harm." The truth is important.—Wavelength (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

[In my message of 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC), the expression "requiring product recalls" modifies the word "problems" restrictively, so I did not put a comma after the word "problems".—Wavelength (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)]

See Scientific progress and http://www.multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/3-11.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To decipher the difference between truth and that which is not true we have to use judgement. That involves our intelligence to a unique level. Maybe we should be looking for an article page on this subject/s. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Should not a victim of defamation be actively interested in the truth about his or her own character? Should not a friend of a victim of defamation be actively interested in the truth about the character of that victim? Forensic science can be crucial.—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To the OP, google this quote by Friedrich Nietzsche and then read some of his writings. "Indeed we came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will — until we finally came to a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?" Ericoides (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See Confidence trick#Vulnerability to confidence tricks.—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BP

Is BP (British Petroleum) owned by the British government? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a publicly traded firm (more precisely, a PLC). Here is a list of the largest institutional owners (according to the BP website, 79% of the stock is held by institutions). Antandrus (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was originally a british government owned company; apparently the first to get oil out of the Middle East. --Joe^Talk_Work 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some reporter on BBC Radio 4 said (I think last week) that 38% of BP's stock is owned by US investors, and that it employs more people in the US than in the UK (or indeed than anywhere else). 87.115.146.181 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

According to their website, that's true (they round to 39%). Antandrus (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth recognising that it's BP, that's not an abbreviation. The name changed some time ago, the British Government divested itself of the last of the stock in 1987.

ALR (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Same as KFC; ironic since they both kill birds and pollute with oil (KFC polluting our bodies and BP polluting our environment). I suspect both changed their names to hide something: KFC hiding that they fry things, and BP hiding that they are still an oil company, not the progressive alternative energy company they would like us to believe in their advertising. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this question asked just last week? Sorry, two weeks ago... Here we go. Dismas|^(talk) 00:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)