Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 June 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 16

Course selection

I'm a university student. After I graduate, I want to become a god. What courses should I take? 70.48.196.81 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Omnipotence 101. Followed by Omniscience 101, Omnipresence 101, and Ineffability 101. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Always take Omnipresence 101 first, because after that you can take all the other courses simultaneously.DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you passed omnipotence, you could just give yourself a passing grade in all the other courses anyways. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could take a BSc in computing and become a Unix administrator.- KoolerStill (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Omnipotence 501, etc., since they're graduate-level classes? Kingsfold (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You could become a starship captain and discover a technologically-backwards planet. It will also help if you save them from a malevolent computer that that they already worship as a god. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a writing class, and write some epic poems about yourself being god-like. If they're good, and survive, you'll become ingratiated in the mythology of a distant future civilization. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you imagine they exam Omniscience 101 ? "Q1: write down your mark for this exam" maybe ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would expect the grading scale to be brutal, with anything below perfection constituting a failing grade. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard might be a role model of sorts. Follow his route, but make sure your books say you are a god. 86.168.62.94 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming by god you mean 'general operations director' you should probably take some sort of business-related course, maybe an MBA in something? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as gods aren't mortal human beings, the first thing you should do is die! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"As man now is God once was, and as God now is man may become". Check with your friendly local mormon whether that is as inherent in their church's doctrine as Google searches suggest. If convinced, proceed as they suggest. Vaya con Dios. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Found your own religion, then worship yourself. If you wish to be the god of more than one mortal, take courses in leadership, public speaking, marketing, advertising, and administration. -Arch dude (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest some courses on mythology, so that you might have a pattern. You should also decide your course of study based on whether you wish to be benevolent, or malevolent. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your god-status has already reached the necessary degree of unfalsifiability...I say you go for it immediately. You might also like to know that my wife is the actual tooth fairy. She always told my son that the tooth fairy was real - then when she accidentally woke him up during the course of replacing an under-the-pillow tooth with a quarter, she was forced to admit that she is in fact the tooth fairy. Proof! SteveBaker (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Study psychology and sociology, with side studies in theology, all specialising in the dynamics of cults. Once you're set, build up your charisma and look for some serial cultists. Steewi (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could study anything you'd like. Take a couple of classes in psychiatry so you'll know what questions to expect then check yourself into a Psychiatric hospital. You can be god if you can convince the staff. You might upgrade your career to Napoleon or Ceasar later. Reportedly they usually get a couple of those. 68.208.122.33 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion for heresy

In Catholic seminaries, can a student be expelled for heresy? NeonMerlin 05:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To warm their spirits on a cold day they might have an Auto da fe. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Might they? The article discusses it as a historical thing which hasn't been used in anything like recently. Could you supply a link for it being something relevant to students in Catholic seminaries in the present tense? 86.168.62.94 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A Catholic seminary is only for Catholics in communion with the Church, specifically those preparing for the priesthood. A heretic (if found out) will be excommunicated, which means tossed out of the Church, therefore no longer eligible to become a priest, therefore not eligible to attend the seminary (although he'd remain a Catholic as baptism cannot be undone). According to this website excommunications still happen in modern times, inter alia in the USA. But it's not a site I'd accept as a NPOV source. - KoolerStill (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course excommunications still happen, why wouldn't they? It's usually not a big deal though, and can be easily undone. In university there was a big seminary across the street, and the students sometimes ate in our cafeteria...we once asked what could lead to excommunication, although I forget what the major reasons were (pretending to be a priest was one, and I think procuring an abortion was another). We didn't think to ask if they could be expelled for heresy though! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The normal line of the Catholic Church is that a heretic has excommunicated themselves by advocating their views. There doesn't need to be a 'ceremony' or formal procedure.

What doesn't happen is that if some student expresses a view that doesn't line up with church teaching they are immediately thrown out. Most seminaries are places where a certain amount of discussion, even argument, can take place. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused by how people have indented their answers to this. The usual form is to indent a reply under the post to which you are replying, but this doesn't seem to make sense here as Kooler does not seem to be replying to 86. Nor does DJ Clayworth.

Poker question: Which hand wins?

A few friends and I were playing Texas Hold 'Em. At the end, the cards in the middle were: 2, A, A, 4, 4. One of my friends held a 5 and an Ace. My other friend held a 2 and an Ace. Both claimed they won the hand, and I couldn't settle the argument. Eventually they split the pot, but I'm curious: which of them actually won the round? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a tie. Both had a full house, Aces full of fours. Only five cards count—both had the same full house. ÷seresin 06:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, poker hands consist of 5 cards and 5 cards only, since a full house uses all of them kickers have no influence. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They did the right thing in the end. They should have, and did, split the pot. In hold'em you also occasionally get a situation where the 'board' has the best hand; that is the best five cards for everyone are the five community cards. In that case, everyone who has not folded splits the pot... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic case of a split pot. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dyeing a merino wool pullover?

I have an expensive light color merino pullover that unfortunately became stained when i washed it with other clothes. Stain does not go away no matter what and I dont have the heart to throw it away as it is expensive and fits quite well. Besides the stain problem, it gets dirty quite easily due to its light color and dirt does not go away easily either. Iam thinking about dyeing it black to solve both of the issues. Any words on the dye or the pullover and possible pitfalls in this procedure please?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.24 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Use cold water dyes otherwise it might shrink.--88.109.188.173 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The stain problem won't go away with dyeing because whatever the stain altered in the fiber structure of the wool is also going to alter the absorption of dyes. Try throwing it in the wash with something dark brown or some jeans (cold water) and add some vinegar instead of fabric softener. (Don't use detergent that contains bleach.) That should give it a darker hue. If you want to go for a greyish shade you could try dark green or purple fabrics. Then put a sew-on or iron-on applique e.g. [1] on the stain. (Have an alterations person stitch the iron-on in place, don't actually iron it on, the glue will mess up your wool.) There are some types of dirt that show quite well on black. 68.208.122.33 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wool needs to be dyed with acid dyes. The dyes used for cotton and other cellulose-type fibers will not work on wool, at least not for very long. Also, it's not the heat that shrinks wool - it's a combination of heat and agitation. Acid dyes set best with water near boiling, which won't damage the wool as long as you don't move it around vigorously, wring it out, or rub it. If you can't find acid dyes, the Wilton cake icing dyes will work, as will koolaid. Just add about 1/2 cup vinegar to a large pot of boiling water, enough dye to make the water really dark, and then gently put the sweater in the pot, pushing it down slowly with a spoon or stick. Leave it in the water until it's cool, then place gently into clear water the same temperature as the sweater. Changes in temperature will shock the wool and cause it to shrink. I've done this many times, with everything from raw wool to finished products. Shuttlebug (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Best before date

I got a can. It made in USA and it say that best before is printed on top. The only thing that printed there is a string "2100632400FG15088 USA P770" Is it possible to tell best before date from that string? Or I have to throw it away? DeadlyPenguin (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes they say 'printed on top' and it's printed around the top edge, or even on the side or bottom. Have a look around other parts of the can for a different set of figures that look like a date.Popcorn II (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the label? Have you tried calling the manufacturer or producer of the canned good in question? --Blue387 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Goods in undamaged cans will generally be fine for years after the "best by" date, which is more like "best buy it quick so we can get paid". Sounds like a perfect time to use the powerful chemoreception equipment attached to the front of your face. --Sean 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you open it, sniff it, look at the color, then taste it. Canned food keeps pretty well. Best before dates are misleading and there is currently a campaign in the UK to get rid of them. I've just eaten beans from a can with 2007 on the bottom.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A man ate a roast chicken in a can from 1963. (He ate it in the 2000's sometime.) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the UK a 'best before' date is merely an advisory date to ensure the food taste/appearance/consistency is as you would expect. A 'use by' date indicates that the food should not be consumed after that date. I'm not sure if this would apply to products from the US but [[2]] might shed light on it. I have no links but I have read about people eating canned foods from the 2nd World War with no ill effects --87.115.23.15 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your other option is to use the old tested methods that we used before the marketing scam of 'consume by' and 'best before' arrived. We would look at it so see if it looked OK, you know, no moulds or critters. Then we would smell it to see if it was off, did it smell rancid, putrid, rotten or 'a bit iffy' and then if we had any further doubts we would cautiously taste it. If it tasted as you expected with no odd flavour then, by jingo, we'd eat it. Here I am quite a few decades later. Richard Avery (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"It never did me any harm!" (But I agree that "sell by" on canned goods is probably mostly a marketing scam to get you to repurchase.) Tempshill (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I say this with the greatest gratitude and humility: may I never be so poor or so isolated that I have to eat food that smells "iffy" or has run past its "sell by" date! // BL \\ (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I lived on my own, I assumed food that had gone a couple of days past its expiration date was okay, as long as it was in the fridge. The fridge is a magical place that keeps all food safe! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Those dates always seem arbitrary. Have there ever been scientific studies showing the long term health effects of eating food canned with the current processes 20 years beyond the date stamped on it? Heck, they put those dates on bottles of water. How would those possibly spoil? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted all these dates will have 'give or take' implied. The level of that give-or-take is up to you to decide. As noted some things have dates where theoretically they shouldn't ever need a date, somethings like fruit/veg etc. can go off before the use-by date or can last long-beyond it, it really is a matter of judgement. A friend of mine has no sense of smell so he uses the best-before/use-by dates quite religiously because he feels that (with the exception of visible off-ness) he can't really be certain so would rather not take the risk. Personally I constantly eat fruit and veg after the best-before date, regularly have condiments and spreads that are opened and not consumed within the guidelines. I cut the mould of cheese and eat the bit below, I chop the end of a cucumber and carry on with the good bit - it's usually pretty obvious whether or not something is past its best. ny156uk (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Msg from question author:) Thanks all of you for reply! No, cans(got 3 of them actually) don't have anything like date printed. Looked very carefully, several times. Yes, in fact label have phone number of the company that produced the product. But I very reluctant to call it - even if company still exist(most likely, but not granted) I will talk to some sales who will answer my questions using just general logic(not product specific, 99% sure) and play safe answering question in doubt. YES - I think I agree, the best way is to make judgment based on senses response - smell and then taste one:) Product do look tasty - at least from picture and description:) Got it from parents house. Thank you one more time for replying this! DeadlyPenguin (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

checkmate

hello! i just wanted to ask if in a chess match, is it necessary to say "check" while the opponent's king is in check, and also "checkmate"? and supppose, let's say, i have my opponent's king in check and if the king has only one safe square to move onto, and my opponent doesn't know about that, should i tell him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.137.180 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are required to, if neither you nor your opponent notices until the next turn problems arise, but usually the game will be painstakingly taken back turn by turn until the original check occurred. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, calling "check" is rare in professional games (see Rules of chess). ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea professional rules where so strict. I find it useful, for some reason, to touch the piece I'm thinking of moving while I work out the potential responses. Looks like I'll have to give up my dreams of becoming a grandmaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.23.15 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. In a real chess match or tournament one is not required to announce "check." If you do call "check," be sure to do so before pressing the clock, as calling "check" while your opponent's clock is running may be construed as annoying your opponent. Most players have enough sense to resign before they are actually mated, but a quiet "Mate" will suffice. B00P (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So "Who's the man?!", high fives with the crowd and the "nah-nah-nah-na-naaah-nah" victory dance are right out then? SteveBaker (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

However, if he moves his king into check (or lets it remain there) you can't capture his king and declare victory, you have to inform him that his move was invalid, then he'll probably ask you to explain why. If you think your oponant probably won't notice the check, it's worth saving time by just pointing it out when you're making the move.

The game can't really proceed until he knows about it. APL (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Only beginners and very casual amateur players actually say "check" out loud. If you go play at a chess club (club players are generally at least slightly serious about the game, but are a long way from being professionals) they will probably shush you if you say "check". 208.70.31.186 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So say check to help your opponents underestimate your skill and experience. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[[3]] having played in sevral senior chess tournements it may be rare to announce chk as it assumed the other guy/girl sees it - if however he misses the fact then a quite your in chk you noob follows :)Chromagnum (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping question

The recent kidnapping case here in Finland caused me to think of a question: According to newspapers, the kidnapper threatened to kill the victim if the police was to be involved. Why would he kill the victim? That would only cause him to lose his only advantage, and thus his only hope of ever getting the money. Wouldn't it be a better option just to keep the victim imprisoned, but still alive and perfectly healthy? JIP | Talk 17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a threat, is that? "If I see cops running around trying to find me, helicopters buzzing overhead, dogs barking, I'll keep my victim perfectly healthy! So don't do that! I'll make her eat her vegetables and wash behind the ears and floss! That'll show you!" If you are a criminal maybe the cops will limit their actions if you threaten with retribution. If they keep on coming you haven't lost anything by trying the threat. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have needlessly picked on my choice of wording. What I meant was simply not either killing or freeing the victim, but continuing the situation as it is, until the victim's family gives in to your demands. If you kill the victim, then I don't see any way the situation could ever turn to your advantage after that. So why would any kidnapper in his right mind do that? JIP | Talk 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not the doing, it's the threatening. Perhaps in a single-shot kidnapping it's not reasonable to carry out the threat. In a systematic organized business of serial kidnapping (see Somalia pirates, South America, Middle East, Far East, whatever) killing works because next time they'll know you are serious. For a single-shot case the question the cops need to consider is "is this guy crazy enough to carry out his threat, out of spite, even though it isn't reasonable if you are into mathematical logic". If the answer to a ransom note is "no, we won't pay, we'll send in the cops instead" then the kidnapper might kill the victim because he knows he'll never get any money and a dead victim isn't going to tell where she was being held. A well hidden dead body with a chance of a getaway may be better than an endless guaranteed-not-to-work ransom bargaining. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the opposing side, Frank Herbert's Fremen correctly gamed the system by promptly holding a funeral for any of their people who were captured and held hostage by the Harkonnens; the hostages were assumed to be dead already (or as good as dead), and the tactic of kidnapping was neutered. Tempshill (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I love thos books, and games too. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also remember that the rationale don't really commit crimes like this. If you have coherant, working thoughts, then you reach the reasonable conclusion that kidnapping people is likely to go bad for you. So throw any explanation that requires the kidnapper to be well-thinking out of the window. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also cases, from time to time, where they promise to return the person, but do kill them once they've collected the money, so the hostage cannot identify them. In some cases the person is already dead (accident during the kidnap etc) when they ask for the money. Kidnappers have no rulebook to follow, and tend not to be the most stable and logical criminals anyway.The more expert ones might send a finger or ear to demonstrate the person is still alive but will be maltreated if the moolah is not forthcoming. - KoolerStill (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read from a newspaper that during a similar case in Sweden in 2005, the kidnapper took a photograph of the victim together with the latest issue of the newspaper to simultaneously demonstrate that he has the victim, the victim is still alive, and the photograph was taken today. According to what I think, this works better than sending body parts, which can just as well come from a dead body (the body part itself will be dead anyway by the time it arrives). Allowing the victim's family to speak to the victim works even better but carries the risk of the telephone call being traced. I have to say I can not think of any counterargument to killing the victim after collecting the money, other than not being able to do so (because of the family not paying until they can safely retrieve the victim) or because of it precluding any further kidnappings. JIP | Talk 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A photograph of the hostage holding a recent newspaper is a classic proof of life and is used in many fictional accounts of kidnappings, and probably in many real ones as well. I think the main disadvantage to killing the hostage is that if you end up getting caught you'll receive a life sentence (or even death sentence, depending on the jurisdiction) for murder, rather than a potentially lesser sentence for kidnapping/false imprisonment. --Tango (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is related to a discussion about economics about "rules vs discretion" - an example: if you run a country, and people consistently build houses in flood-prone areas, do you give them money to rebuild their houses after the flood? For the single case, it is good to help people out, but in the long run, it makes more people build houses in bad places. A lot has been written about this problem in monetary policy (high inflation can have good effects sometimes, but once people expect it, it's not good anymore.) Jørgen (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Tango, yes but the chances of getting caught are much higher if the victim can identify you. There is a similar "logic" at work when a rapist kills his victim (in cases where the killing is not part of the thrill) or the armoured-car robbers kill the driver. In all these cases, staying unidentified is advantageous for being able to repeat the crime, which may be regarded as sufficiently rewarding to take the slight chance of being caught for the heavier penalty. The trick is to stop repeating it (or vary the methods) soon enough to avoid being caught by the accumulation of smaller clues. For a one-off kidnapping it is better to leave the victim alive, but make triple sure their blindfold doesn't slip and don't wear a rare imported after-shave. - KoolerStill (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Slight chance" is an important part of this - almost by definition, criminals think they won't be caught, else they wouldn't commit the crime. To Tango's statement that the main disadvantage of killing the hostage is an increased prison term upon capture, we've got to add the note that to the criminal, this seems like a very minor disadvantage indeed, since in his mind he's not going to get caught in the first place. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially if he kills the victim/main witness. - KoolerStill (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In some fictional works about kidnapping, the victim is careful to avoid looking at the kidnappers face, and welcomes a blindfold, to make it less likely the kidnapper will kill them to avoid conviction. Contrariwise, if the kidnapper kmakes no effort to avoid being seen, it is taken as an indication that the kidnapper is planning to kill the victim, so he/she might as well take any chance to knock the kidnapper in the head, stab him, escape, whatever, on the grounds of having nothing to lose. Edison (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another, game-theoretically sound approach (as a victim) if things do not seem to be going the kidnappers' way is to suggest they get/fabricate some compromising material on you, such as telling them about (or documenting) financial fraud or having them taking pictures of you in compromising situations. They get to keep this material. That way you can credibly claim that you will not tell anyone anything about them after you are released, increasing the chance that they choose to release you. (However, that is probably too far-fetched even to be included in works of fiction...) Jørgen (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially since one is unlikely to be able to give the crims a piece of blackmail juicier then the prison sentence they would be looking at. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It never did me any harm!

The titular line comes out all too often, often related to health-based things (washing hands, use by dates, anything that may cause cancer, etc). My current argument against this is "You're statistically insignificant." It rarely works. Is it accurate, and is there a better argument? (Wasn't sure whether this was maths, science, or language...) Vimescarrot (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another argument which works in some such situations is 'how do you know?' The speaker has presumably been unwell at some point in their life: on what basis do they assume that their poor hygiene habits, eating habits or whatever were never to blame? Algebraist 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you find someone who puts on a blindfold and crosses a busy street, and they didn't get hit by any cars, its hardly an endorsement of that method of street crossing. Merely surviving an event which is harmful to most people does not make it something one should do on a regular basis. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This counterargument about statistical insignificance can, to some level, be used to even question the laws of physics. For example, you could question the law of gravity by asking "What if it has, all along, been mere coincidence that things thrown up just happened to fall down? There's statistically nothing guaranteeing the next thing I throw up will fall down!" JIP | Talk 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...I don't see the link. Statistics is surely relevant to events which may or may not occur in one particular instance. Not to immutable laws of physics... Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the counterargumenter is questioning the existence of the laws of physics. He is claiming that things thrown up have always fallen down because they just happened to, not because of some immutable law, and that doesn't guarantee they will keep doing so. JIP | Talk 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Observer bias and Anthropic principle have a lot to do with it. If you are disposed to ignore the importance of hand-washing - then when you get an upset stomach - you'll be more likely to attribute it to "something I ate". Worse still, if you are one of those unfortunate people who died from not washing hands when appropriate - you aren't here to say "Well, no, actually, you really do need to do that. I didn't and it killed me!". Also, people are very bad indeed at understanding statistics. They worry to a ridiculous degree about exceedingly improbable things - whilst happily ignoring things that are statistically much more likely. People who are on a nice tropical beach will worry about being attached by sharks when they swim - whilst completely ignoring the statistically MUCH more likely risk of being killed by a falling coconut (true thing!). People worry a lot about the risks of flying in a commercial airliner - but ignore the much MUCH greater risks of driving a car. This gets silly sometimes - almost anyone without a science background will agree that the chances of flipping a coin ten times and getting the sequence: Head,Tail,Tail,Head,Head,Tail,Tail,Tail,Head,Tail is much more likely than getting ten heads in a row. People in general are simply not rational most of the time! SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That line of argument is based on falsely interpreting "danger" to mean that the undesirable consequence will always follow. Danger is the potential for a bad result. You can get away with dangerous practices (such as crossing the street blindfolded) just so many times, before getting caught. The number of times depends on the level of danger. So it is a combination of language and statistics. "There's always a first time" would be an appropriate answer, but is probably too trite to influence anyone. A very knowing look and a muttered "we'll see..." might be more effective.

@Steve -- with coin-flipping there is a conflict between probability and empirical observation. Mathematicians prefer the former, gamblers the latter (and winning counts as confirmation, observer bias again conveniently forgetting the other times when they lost). - KoolerStill (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"How do you know?" and "The people it did affect aren't around to tell us so" seem like the most likely answers to actually get a response more than just the "knowing look" ignorant people give me. I am right in saying that the one single person saying it did no harm to them is statisically insignificant, right? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. If you are talking about common dangers, like your examples, it is so statistically insignificant, it is just a rounding error. It would show as zero.- KoolerStill (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all about induction, but "inductivism is false" is probably an even less effective line to use, unless you've already explained what it is. You could try telling the story of Bertrand Russell's chicken. (In short, the farmer never did the chickens any harm, until the day he did.) 81.131.51.81 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course your right Vimescarrot. 1 case doesn't prove an argument. The point I was making, rather to obliquely it seems, is that there were times when we didn't have such nanny guidance on our foodstuffs to tell us if it was still fit to eat. I referred to myself for the sake of the tone of my response but I was talking about people, ordinary people, everyday UK people who were able to decide for themselves if food was fit to eat or not. I am not aware that there was in pre-guidance times widespread food poisoning from eating bad food or starvation because people couldn't decide whether to eat food or not. It is a sad indictment on our personal liberty that we are obliged to accept such mundane and trite guidance in our lives, that we seem to have lost such a basic skill as being able to discern the palatability or edibility of our food. My main point was to say why are we thinking about the technical solutions to such a simple problem (where is the bb date? what does the code mean?), why not use probably the most reliable method, developed over eons, your senses and common sense. Lighten up a little eh? Richard Avery (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh so you're trying to provoke a debate on the Wikipedia RefDesk, which is not what we're about? Well for what it's worth, I usually say that the people whom it did harm aren't around to warn us and they expect us to have more respect for them than to ignore them. Take, for example, building regulations and health and safety in general. When people complain about the onerous nature of adhering to them, I generally tell them the story of a branch of my family, who were wiped out due to a building collapse in Birmingham a hundred years ago. The building collapsed because it was poorly built and there was no regulations nor inspectorate to make sure it was properly built. As far as best-before dates, of course there were outbreaks of food poisoning from eating bad food, just as there still are because regulations are ignored. There was a famous incident in Wales where a butcher was jailed because his poor hygiene led to deaths. So it does happen: people do come to harm. The real question is whether we expect the State to be one which tries to improve the lot of its citizens, or just stand back and wring its hands. There. You've had your debate. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could have just assumed I'm not having a poke at you. You seem to be the one attempting to spark this debate, since your comment was the first to say anything about it. I used the example of use by dates because it was what reminded me. The purpose of this question is to find a way to beat accurate information into a stupid person's head (read: my mother, and a few people in my social circle). Apparently, using a brick with said information written on it won't work... Vimescarrot (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If the person is amenable to reason and logic - then this is an easy matter. If they aren't then there really isn't much you can say - you have to resort to the usual human methods of getting something done in the absence of reason and logic: Pleading, bribery, flattery, threats, violence and protest. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think TammyMoet was replying to Richard Avery, in which case you've all got your indentation backwards. Argh. 81.131.27.135 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When people say this, they aren't saying that, because of their 1 observation, they believe the hypothesis (Y causes X) to be wrong. I think they're kind of saying the exact opposite of what you reply with. They are saying, sure, there's percentage of people who get X from doing Y, but because I am such a small sample size, statistics don't really apply to me, in that I'm not going to get 0.5% of cancer, chances are I'll get no cancer at all. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we should take seriously such statements. The person may be aware of a risk in a behavior but may be choosing to engage in the behavior anyway. Rather than give a lengthy (some might argue irrational) explanation for what they are doing, they state an irrelevant fact. (It is true that "it never did them any harm," or at least they may know of no proof that it has actually done them harm.) Humans don't necessarily always communicate in a straightforward manner. We sometimes imply, and others are left with no choice but to infer. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A guy I know will say things like "Well, we all played with mercury in chem lab, and it never hurt me-me-me" twitching his head sideways abruptly with each repetition. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should all take a deep breath and read Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and Causality. Livewireo (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)