Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

Why such funky municipal borders in Idaho?

If you look at the towns in Idaho (Canyon County and area) on Google Maps, you'll notice the borders are in the most irregular shapes possible. There's a whole separate chunk of Emmett, and plenty of single farms which seem to be their own communities.

I can understand drawing a voting district this way, but why a town, let alone several? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities in many parts of the U.S. are often defined by where people live; and thus on population density. The U.S. census defines such "Places" as either "incorporated" (with defined boundaries and local self government) or "unincorporated" (lacking one or both). When a place "incorporates", it often requires a local government to collect taxes and provide services, such as water, police, road maintenance, etc. In places with moderate-to-high population density, having regular shaped, squarish municipalities that all abut each other make sense, for example in the area around Chicago (see Cook County, Illinois for example). However, outside of such large metro areas, in places where a municipality may be the only local concentration of people, with large gaps of empty space, municipalities will usually only incorporate the land which it makes sense to: where the tax base can support the services it needs to provide. Having to maintain a 5 mile strip of road for one house wouldn't make much sense, so these sorts of municipal borders are highly irregular as the municipality is careful to only annex the land that has people to give it the tax base it needs to support the services it provides. Those regions are left unincorporated, and services, such as they are, are provided by either the county or the state. It isn't just Idaho, consider the borders of, say Raleigh, North Carolina, or Austin, Texas and you'll see that in the U.S., such massively convoluted municipal boundaries are the norm, rather than the exception. The ONLY part of the U.S. where it doesn't work this way is in New England, which is organized along a totally different planning model, that of the New England town. --Jayron32 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the midwest (which, geographically, is actually the the northern mideast), where the Northwest Ordinance set up 8x8 mile grids, many of which still exist. For example, that's why the northern border of Detroit is 8 Mile Road. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jayron says about incorporation is true and I've seen it take place in the Chicago suburbs. When my parents bought the house I grew up in in the Chicago suburbs, it was not part of the town that matched the address of the house. The street is in a corner of the town and was not originally incorporated into that town. As the years went by, more and more houses on the block were added to the town. For some reason that I don't know the details of since I was too young to care, our side of the street was incorporated while the other side of our street was not. Then due to some municipal disputes and surveying issues, all but one of the houses on the block were in the town. So, if the population and urban sprawl of Idaho increases, then it's possible that the borders of towns will become more logical but still convoluted. Dismas|^(talk) 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, people. A bit clearer, but still a bit puzzling. I can understand cutting around empty space, but it's the stuff like Dismas' old house (and Marvin and Albert streets in Caldwell, Idaho) that just seems wrong. The houses I see on streets like this don't look new; plenty of years to do something simple like officially include them in the town they're physically within.

Guess it's just one of those mysteries of government. I'll try not to lose sleep over it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think, in some cases, they ask people on the border whether they want to be included or not. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules will vary from one state to another. In some states, residents or property owners have to agree to be incorporated, a city can't just unilaterally annex land. In other states, cities can do that. Also, residents or landowners may petition for annexation, because they want city services. So there may be a haphazard process of expansion. As others have said, this doesn't happen in some parts of the United States, mainly the Northeast and perhaps the Midwest, where there is very little "unincorporated" land, and existing municipalities often have an interest in avoiding annexation by larger ones. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inedible, one thing to check (perhaps you've done this already) is the topography. Counties, unlike municipalities, have their boundaries set by the legislature, and their boundaries are typically set for the convenience of the residents: the ideal is that you can get to your own county seat more easily than you can get to other county seats. This is presumably why Gem County (just north of Canyon) has its shape: the southern part follows a river, and the center and north are a wide valley with mountains on each side, so (especially in pre-automobile days) it's a lot easier to go a longer distance southward than a shorter distance over the mountains. In my native Ohio, Marco's statement about agreement from landowners is correct. Municipal services were a major reason that cities such as Indianapolis and Cincinnati annexed the formerly-independent communities of Broad Ripple and Sayler Park, respectively. In those cases, the communities were already incorporated; both Indiana and Ohio then (and maybe now) permitted one municipality to annex another if a majority of voters of the target municipality agreed. Exceptions happen; see Allegheny, Pennsylvania, for example. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't considered the topography, makes sense. Thanks. The more I look around the US map, the more it seems like exceptions are the rule, as far as planning goes. Within states, counties, towns and even neighbourhoods. It's actually cooler than it is stupid. Gives these places a distinct look, subtly reflecting distinct legal histories. Real "land of the free", in that regard. But not united, in the way you could ever make a jigsaw puzzle resemble a state. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dress by Israeli settlers

Is there a website that shows different dresses of Israeli settlers, both men and women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.79 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are secular settlers and several varieties of religious settlers. Many of those who live in areas of the West Bank close to the "green line" (and nowadays on the Israeli side of the barrier) are motivated much more by property values than ideology, and not particularly distinguishable from ordinary Israelis... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the settlers tend to be agricultural workers ? As such, I'd expect a different type of clothes than, say, white collar workers. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really -- some of them include an agricultural component, but most of them are not really agricultural settlements as such. And many of the ones close to the green line are simple residential neighborhoods, whose main reason for being is that real estate prices are significantly lower across the line... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page Israeli settlement (disambiguation) is concise and useful to clarify the phenomena noted in the above responses. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the iconic militant figures of the Israeli settlement movement's present incarnation, see Hilltop youth. Elsewhere search a blog post (ca. last year or two), about a young leftist Israeli couple who for Purim dressed up as ideologically fervent West Bank settlers to attend a party given by friends-of-friends - and their disguise was so effective, they caused quite a stir as hosts and guests wondered who these party-crashers were...! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and the Sciences

My question concerns art and science. There are some scientists, mathematicians included, who have argued that doing science can be artistic. I've read Sam Harris said this. Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, defended that mathematics is the highest form of art. What then is the status of art alone? If doing science can lead us to objective and, at the same time, artistic discoveries and inventions, what then is the reason for pursuing art alone if by doing science we can be “scientific” and ‘artistic”. In other words, how can artist pursue art without pursuing science?49.144.146.30 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are different arts, and different motivations for pursuing art. Your question seems to me to be parallel to saying "Poetry is art. If writing poetry can be art, then what is the reason for painting, since by making poetry we can be expressing thoughts and doing art?" --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some arts are closely linked to mathematics, such as music. Perspective view paintings and golden ratio architecture also rely heavily on math. Science also comes into play in the resonant frequency of music, force diagrams for buildings, etc.

However, despite this overlap, I do see a fundamental difference between the sciences and arts. While in math and science there is a correct answer, in the arts it's all a matter of opinion. StuRat (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

49.144.146.30 asks: "In other words, how can artist pursue art without pursuing science?" I don't think an artist can pursue art without pursuing science. One can Doodle without pursuing science. But non-doodling art would necessarily share some of the rationality, for instance, generally associated with science. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, what I meant was - can an artist be an artist without becoming a scientist? I do agree with you if your statement above asserts that, it is as nonsensical for scientists to disregard creative thinking as it is for artists to neglect rigorous and systematic thinking. Surely, all brilliant scientists require articulate thinking, - which is not by itself or in itself scientific - in order to create the bedrock of their assumptions. Similarly, an artist, say, a painter, cannot just doodle his pen on his paper without systematically thinking what to draw, or how to transform a mental image into something that his audience will understand, or, at least, will like to understand. There will be no schism between the arts and the sciences if we believe that the difference between art and science is just the way of thinking employed by artists and scientists, as what the above statement seem to imply. There must be some differences between the method and the goal of arts and science.We can honestly believe that there are some fundamental and significant difference between them. To put it more clearly, how do academics differentiate the methods and purpose of arts from science, in such sense that being a scientist or scientific does not necessarily mean being artistic (vise versa)?49.144.146.30 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that all human activity falls on a scale of ᴀʀᴛ◄───┼───►sᴄɪᴇɴᴄᴇ. A few activities would be classified as purely art, and others purely science. But most fall somewhere in the middle. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

49.144.146.30—you say "If doing science can lead us to objective and, at the same time, artistic discoveries and inventions…"[1] Can you give me some examples of science leading to "artistic discoveries and inventions"? Bus stop (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot Set. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is the "Mandelbrot set", art? Does anyone make this argument? Bus stop (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Arstechnica, Fractovia and Wikipedia do. Is a pile of bricks or an unmade bed art? Dbfirs 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically Ars Technica and "Fractovia" are wp:reliable sources. But WP:RS calls for "authors" to be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art "experts" seem to disagree on the definition of art: Classificatory disputes about art#Theories of art classification. Whom does one regard as "authoritative"? “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” ― Pablo Picasso; “The principles of true art is not to portray, but to evoke” — Jerzy Kosinski; “The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery.” — Francis Bacon; “The longer you look at an object, the more abstract it becomes, and, ironically, the more real.” — Lucian Freud; “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” — Aristotle; "If I were called upon to define briefly the word Art, I should call it the reproduction of what the senses perceive in nature, seen through the veil of the soul." — Paul Cezanne; “It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.” — Henry David Thoreau; “Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.” — Andre Gide; “Great things are done by a series of small things brought together.” — Vincent Van Gogh Dbfirs 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs—you say "Well Arstechnica, Fractovia and Wikipedia do. Is a pile of bricks or an unmade bed art?" This was a followup to the mention by Jack of Oz of "Mandelbrot Set". I expressed doubt that "Mandelbrot Set" was art. I asked "Does anyone make this argument?" When you refer to "an unmade bed", are you referring to that which is titled My Bed? I'd like to know what you are referring to by "a pile of bricks". But the piece titled "My Bed" was, according to our article, one of the "shortlisted works for the Turner Prize" and "exhibited at the Tate Gallery". We are not just looking for merely passable wp:reliable sources. We are looking for good quality reliable sources, such as here, here, and here. WP:RS calls for "authors" to be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Do we find authoritative writers and institutions implying that a "Mandelbrot Set" is art? You refer to our article Classificatory disputes about art. It refers to "Disputes about what does and does not count as art". Is anyone disputing whether or not "Mandelbrot Sets" are art? These are visual entities. They can be considered art. But no "dispute" swirls around them. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "pile of bricks" is Equivalent VIII, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tevildo. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure exactly what you were requesting, Bus stop, so apologies for going off at a tangent. There have been art exhibitions and art competitions featuring the Mandelbrot set, of course, but I haven't yet found a quote from an art expert to satisfy your request for an authoritative claim. (Many years ago I spent hundreds of hours finding emotive images from deep within the Julia set, or, rather, my computer spent hundreds of hours calculating, and I spent a few hours selecting likely regions and choosing the colour scheme. School students seemed to appreciate the results (to the extent of taking some to put on bedroom walls) but I wouldn't regard myself as an artist, and, as far as I know, my computer was not self-aware.) Dbfirs 23:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs—I think that when you say that you selected likely regions and you chose a color scheme, you were acting in the capacity of an artist. There is no reason that "Mandelbrot sets" cannot be art. If an unmade bed or a pile of bricks can be art, why can't a "Mandelbrot set" be art? Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julia makes prettier pictures ( ... but is Mathematics an art or a science?) Dbfirs 09:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Art is anything that evokes an emotional response" - One of my art teachers. Based on this, I would say that all science, from the moment we decide to do it, is also art.Hayttom 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Mathematicians are on an eternal quest for elegant solutions to intractable problems. Andrew Wiles finally cracked Fermat's Last Theorem, but it took him many years of assiduous work and even then, many pages (c. 60) of writing to show the result was true. Later a teenager from Russia came up with a vastly simpler solution, but our article strangely makes no mention of him. Leonid something, I think. Wiles probably wept tears of "duh, of course" when he saw it. That's art. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All human activity? My morning shower? Random murder? —Tamfang (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Beckett said "To be an artist is to fail as no others dare fail". If you regularly fail at showering, or fail to hit anyone on your weekly shooting sprees, or fail at boiling water, then maybe you're an artist, and whatever you do is art. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail at lots of stuff, in spectacular fashion. So I qualify as an artiste. But why don't get I lots of money for it? Bobornot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But see, you fail at earning money from your artistry. That's excellent. It proves you're an artist, even if you weren't to begin with. Success is so tawdry and common these days, everyone and his dog is talking about it and writing self-help books yada yada, but nobody talks about how to become a successful failure. Well, as my Dad always said, do as I do and you can't go far wrong. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, there is very little ambiguity in what is an art and what is a science. (Just ask where one publishes her work, or by whom she is paid ;) The key point is: this is mainly an issue for philosophers, linguists and the like, it seldom matters at all for any professional scientist or artist.

But you may enjoy reading up on philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of art. For what it's worth, most professional mathematicians I know do not consider math to be science! For that account, see Karl Popper and Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science.

So, "how can artist pursue art without pursuing science?" -- simple: by not using any scientific method, and instead by making/doing something purely of creative desire. Sure, lots of artists perform series of experiments on their way to a final product, and may even have lots of technical knowledge. But -- don't be confused by tools. E.g. it took a lot of science and engineering to develop movie-making equipment. But that doesn't make Citizen Kane a work of science. Likewise, any paper published in Science or Nature these days will have some aesthetically pleasing images-- but that does not make the research a work of art!

Finally, I will disclose that I usually take falsifiability as the sine qua non of basic research science. One advantage of that position is that it makes all these problems go right away. Claiming The Treachery of Images is somehow falsifiable seems surreal indeed! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermarket

what is the biggest hypermarket in the world?--79.52.182.216 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define Hypermarket. Shadowjams (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See hypermarket. Apparently it's not a market full of hyper people, like the stock market floor. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsegae Cetum City in Busan, South Korea, is apparently the largest. It is billed as a department store, but it includes a supermarket in its basement, so it seems to qualify as a hypermarket. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Presidents and Major Party Presidential Candidates With PhDs

Woodrow Wilson was the only U.S. President ever (at least, so far) to have a PhD, correct? Also, have there been any major party candidates for the U.S. Presidency (meaning only those who actually won their party's Presidential nomination) who lost their bid(s) for the U.S. Presidency but who also had PhDs? Futurist110 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States by education shows that only Wilson had a PhD, although many Presidents have gotten honorary degrees. RNealK (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this link to that Wikipedia article. Is there a similar Wikipedia article for unsuccessful/losing major party U.S. Presidential candidates? Also, to clarify, I am not including honorary degrees in my original question here. Futurist110 (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any, but it shouldn't be that hard to find out. Just go to {{United States presidential elections}}, go to each election's page, and click the biography of the losing major party candidate; presumably all holders of doctoral degrees will be noted. Remember that the PhD first reached the USA in 1861, so you need not check anyone before that date. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did exactly that (because I was bored and found the OP's question interesting). The ONLY other major party presidential candidate I can find with a Ph.D. was George McGovern, who had a Ph.D. in History. There were some "near misses", either non-Ph.D. doctorates or things like that. In 1867, Samuel J. Tilden, who lost the close 1876 election, had received an honorary LL.D. Alton B. Parker, Wendell Willkie and Adlai Stevenson II all received an LL.B., which in modern U.S. terms is equivalent to a J.D. (doctorate) degree. There have been a LOT of others with LL.B or J.D. degrees; there were lots of lawyers who became presidential candidates. Hubert Humphrey was in a doctoral program, but never completed his Ph.D. That seems to be all I can find. --Jayron32 04:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A JD is not really a doctorate. It has "doctor" in the name, but that's what you'd expect from lawyers. There's no way a degree that you get for three years' coursework and no original research deserves to be called a doctorate. --Trovatore (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you were going to count the JD, then you have at least Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama. There are several others listed who graduated from law school, but I don't know whether the JD was the standard law degree back then. --Trovatore (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MD's are also usually called doctors and nobody complains ;-). Ron Paul and Howard Dean are MD's who ran for president in the past few years (neither got nominated) and Rand Paul might run for 2016, if that helps. Gary Hart went back to grad school and earned a doctorate in politics (in 2001) after serving in the Senate and unsuccessfully running for president in the 1980's. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An MD at least takes four years, it's a little more plausible. Still, it's not an (academic) doctorate, despite the fact that we call the holders "doctors". --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(That does raise an interesting point. What do you call someone who gets the MD but then makes a career switch before doing a residency, and never gets a license to practice medicine? Is he a "doctor", by virtue of the degree alone? Not sure.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he should have done a doctorate in ethics. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Women's Studies perhaps?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a JD is a "real" doctorate is irrelevant, as is whether we call MDs "doctor". The OP specifically asked for PhD, and Jayron has given a pretty complete answer. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it matters I enjoyed the discussion on JDs v MDs v PhDs.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all of your answers here. They are certainly very useful to me. Futurist110 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved