Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 16

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.

December 16

Are there any professional political scientists who adhere to this so called "Perestroika Movement"?

This movement was born just in the year 2000, but it does not seem to have much popularity in the field it represents. So I suppose there are some notable academic figures that believes and supports it. And if it is no longer well received today what are the other political science movements that carry the same beliefs and arguments of the Perestroika Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I love the lede to Perestroika Movement (political science), which says, in an inaccessible way, that the movement is about making politics more accessible. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... What's a "non-specialist academic"? Someone who lectures postgraduates on General Studies? Tevildo (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they need to use simple terms. Or should they eschew polysyllabic locutions ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ever since mathematical techniques started finding their way into political science, there's been tension between the math-oriented types and the non-math types. I think there are still plenty of both types and always will be, which in my view is a good thing. I don't think the Perestroika Movement that began in 2000 was at all a new thing, but rather a flare-up of the tension that dates back to the 1970s. Incidentally, economics went through a similar process when math entered it in earnest in roughly the 1950s and until maybe the 1980s; by now, and long since, the math types are in the vast majority in economics. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident

"However, numerous high-profile UFO researchers discount the possibility that the incident had anything to do with aliens." Is it mean that many high profile UFO researchers believe that the incident had nothing to do with aliens? Or it means they do believe in the incident being involved with aliens. I think the sentence itself is hard to understand.174.20.99.196 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem vague to me. It means they don't believe any aliens are involved. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're having difficulty with the word discount. See meaning 4 of [1]. --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

UFO doesn't necessarily mean "alien." Though that's the popular view, UFO watchers run the gamut from those who believe all UFO sighting to be aliens; those who think they're extra-dimensional beings; those who believe they are spirits (in the supernatural sense); those who think it's all government super-secret projects; to those who think they're lizard-men from inside the Earth, which is hollow. And any mix in-between. Given that there's no solid evidence behind most sightings, you'll find any number of hypotheses about their nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The lizard-human hypothesis is the most hilarious thing I've even heard in my life. However, I do have to admit that he does have a good story to tell regarding lizard-human.184.97.227.164 (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that nut-job was the inspiration for the South Park "crab men who live underground" episode. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism

This thing was built in 1st century BCE and it wasn't until the 14th century ACE, something like this was being built again. I mean this is simply shocking to me. In 1,500 years, we haven't advanced in bit in this specific kind of device. I mean after 1,500 years, we, humans, still were incapable of producing a better device. The ancient Greeks with absolutely genius, considering all the philosophies thinking and scientific advancements they have accomplished. I wonder why after the ancient Greek collapsed then why there were no more Greek genius? Why human advancement has grew little to nothing (nothing major) since like the 1st century until the renaissance?174.20.99.196 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Greeks had a genius for mathematics and philosophy, but they were rather sporadic and erratic in translating this into practical inventions that would benefit people. Heron of Alexandria seems to have been the pre-eminent Greek engineer in non-construction, non-military fields, but the majority of his inventions seem to have been temple tricks, for impressing devout but naïve worshippers at temples. The term banausos, literally "craftsman", was used as an insult among many educated ancient Greeks... AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond pointing you at History of technology, I'm not sure there is much we can do to answer you. The Reference desk is not a place for canvassing opinions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an opinion. I wonder if there is a valid scientific reason why humans stop advance much in such a long period of time like over 1500 years. Something that would make sense like mutation that makes human genetic less smart for 1,000 years until we got smarter again or the Greeks were simply just superior smarter by some unknown factors. I'm looking for something valid explanation that is agreed among scientists.174.20.10.159 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend taking a look at Idea of Progress. It is by no means self-evident that "progress", particularly the development of more advanced technologies, is necessarily a good thing. If you have food on the table, does it matter that the fields are ploughed by oxen rather than tractors? If you have books to read, does it matter if they're printed or hand-written? True, technological advance means that _more_ people have these things, but if the powerful have all they need, where's the incentive to go any further? Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the powerful have all they need or want but how about the poor and middle class? I can make the same argument for the ancient Greeks. What made the ancient Greek a lot of advancement than the rest of the world until much later on? What is their incentive? If they had incentives to progress then why people stopped having incentive to progress for like 1,500 years after the ancient Greek collapsed?174.20.10.159 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there is no "ACE" era. You want BC and AD, "before Christ" and "anno Domini", or BCE and CE, "before the common era" and "common era". Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See Dark Ages (historiography). --Dweller (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is not correct. Technological advancements continued in the Roman Empire after the 1st century. See, for example, Water wheel. It is true that technological advance came to a near standstill in Europe between about the 5th century and the 12th century, because European society experienced a civilizational collapse and a dramatic loss of social complexity. Specialized technologies depend on a detailed division of labor that exists only in complex societies. However, technological innovation continued in other civilizations. The Islamic civilization made advances in mathematics and chemistry that were fundamental to subsequent European technological advances, and Arabs made important advancements in the development of the astrolabe. No doubt the premodern civilization with the richest technological development, though, was China. Chinese technology achieved a number of advances beginning in ancient times and continuing through a period contemporary with the European middle ages, without which European Renaissance and early modern technological advances would not have been possible. These include technologies such as the compass, paper, gunpowder, and printing, among many others. Chinese technological development continued right through the period when technological development came to a halt in Europe and provided a foundation for later European developments. It's also not true that Europe saw no technological advance between antiquity and the Renaissance. See Medieval technology. Marco polo (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I never say Europe saw no technological advance between antiquity and the Renaissance. Indeed they have advanced but little compare to what the Romans or the Greeks have done. According to what I have learned, the Roman or the Greek have built a much more magnificent palace, city and so on... Compare to those of Europe before the Renaissance. After all, those Europeans were all descendants of barbarian Germanic tribe (no offend intend, I do admit that later on the Europeans will have the greatest technologies that enable them to conquer the whole world at one point). I feel like human kind actually has been in a leap backward for over 1,000 years. 2 objects with the same technology but were made 1,500 years apart tells us a great deal about it. You're also right about that advancement continue on through other civilization but I feel like there is a big disconnection between the those technology, they were very independent. If those technologies were more connected such as the Chinese were exposed to Greek and Roman and Islamic technology and so on... Then I think we could have been on the Moon much sooner than 1969. Lol I actually was talking off topic of what I was originally asked. I guess the technology halt in Europe was caused by the barbarian Germanic tribes that successfully conquer the Roman.174.20.10.159 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems we have about the classical era is that very, very, little of it's writing has survived. Imagine the commentary upon and predecessors to Archimedes's and Pythagorus's writings and works which must have existed and were lost. Claudius wrote a grammar of the Etruscan language. Can you imagine if that had survived?

The issue with the Classics mentioned above is the denigration of "shop work" and the prevalence of slave labor. Why invest money on R&D when there was no concept of patent and no return on investment and a glut of manual labor? (PS, anyone who isn't absolutely enthralled by the existence of the antikythera device is entirely ignorant of human history and its significance.) μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but the OP's point is that it _wasn't_ significant. Whoever made it didn't go on to develop a clock or an adding machine or a bicycle or anything _useful_, and astrologers got on perfectly well without mechanical assistance for the next 2000 years. Tevildo (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Medeis has spoken! So may it be written, so may it be done! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Library of Alexandria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The attitude a culture has towards science is critical. In parts of Ancient Greece (like Athens) and Rome, being a scientist was something to be admired. Less so in medieval Europe, where smart people were more likely to be steered towards The Church. Unfortunately, in the US today, science is also under threat from those who don't want to believe in global warming, evolution, etc. Thus, a large portion of the US is developing a contempt for science and scientists. I'm sure China will once again take over as we slide back into the dark ages. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks admired philosophers, mathematicians (including geometers), and astronomers; they often had more ambiguous attitudes towards those who actually worked with their hands to determine the properties of physical materials (something which Aristotle seems to have avoided). AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some scholars believe that the reason why "whoever made it didn't go on to develop a clock or an adding machine or a bicycle or anything useful" is because they were unfortunately killed by a Roman soldier, but the "or anything useful" is totally mistaken. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to say, but my feeling is that the Dark Ages business is terribly exaggerated. Just because some Gauls had some guys with bows looking over their shoulders at a Roman fort on the hill doesn't mean that they were spending their time chatting about the natural philosophy of Pliny or the medical ideas of Dioscorides. Just like in the present day, the scientists ended up being drawn to where the funding was, namely, the Islamic Caliphates, which controlled many of Rome's foremost intellectual provinces in Egypt, Turkey, and Greece anyway. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me! It wouldn't make any sense if all the sudden, all the intelligent people just disappeared for like over 1,000 years!184.97.227.164 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As our article (Dark Ages (historiography)) says, modern historians have revised their view of the concept of a "Dark Ages" and the term is no longer widely used in academia, because it is so flawed. Nonetheless, a large portion of the literate world was badly affected by the collapse of the Roman Empire and the anarchy that followed it. Someone with potential as a scientist born in, say, an area of eastern England affected by the Viking raids, is not going to have his potential developed simply because patronage for the sciences flourishes in Arabia. The Renaissance was led by people wanting to recapture the glories of the Roman era, as the name "Renaissance" itself implies, see Renaissance. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In Ireland the monks were the ones who helped with their engineering knowledge in the construction of things like ports and irrigation works, t wasn't just religious works they kept alive. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass shooters killing themselves

With the Columbine High School shootings, Virginia Tech shootings, the Colorado theater shootings, and now the Connecticut school shootings, a question that had been bothering me for such a long time popped up again: exactly why do almost all shooting perpetrators (at least in the United States) commit suicide at the end of their shooting spree? I asked a similar question to this a few months back (in the wake of a shooting at the Empire State Building), but that was about if shooters plan their suicide from the start, not the reasons why they do so. And in mass shootings outside the United States, are perpetrators killing themselves common? I asked this since the perpetrator of the mass shooting in Norway a few years back didn't commit suicide, and IIRC he's now in prison. And have ever been studies or investigations as to the reasons why mass shooters commit suicide? For example, during the investigation into the Columbine High School massacre, did the investigators investigate why the perpetrators killed themselves? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To avoid punishment is the first thing that comes up to my mind, but who knows, as an American I must say that our society is in a moral uproar and I don't understand why. Keeeith (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"They want to appear to be superhuman and controlling and powerful, to go out in a hail of bullets... The whole thing is a suicide even though you are killing people in the process. Suicidal people often internalise their anger, but with murder/suicides, the anger is turned outwards as well as inwards." forensic psychologist Dr Keith Ashcroft quoted in this news report; The Psychology Behind Mass Killing Sprees. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MASS KILLERS by Dr Raj Persaud. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally (from me), a news report; The Depressive and the Psychopath: At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

By killing themselves they frustrate the entire society, which wants to know why, and there will be no satisfactory answer. My guess is that if the perp could articulate it, he would say, "Why? Because I can." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the shooter is in Norway, he can expect to spend a long time in prison or to be executed. Suicide seems to be a much better alternative. Obviously, a perpetrator could also decide whether to kill nor to commit suicide, but they don't seem to be the most rational thinkers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My take on it is that basically the psychos know it'll never be as good again and don't fear death, and the saddos are just expressing their rage and frustration before killing themselves anyway. It is the psychos who stay alive like the one in Norway that are strange,but he seems to be a bit delusional as well and thinks he can write his own Mein Kampf and is destined to lead the Norwegian people. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a frustrated suicide by cop (they expected someone would come kill them but didn't so they do it themselves), sometimes they plan to suicide and the Norway shooting didn't plan suicide because he apparently doesn't think he did anything wrong. Many different reason in different incidents. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A person without empathy has problems understanding what 'wrong' means except insofar as it affects them badly. Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody linked it: Murder–suicide. Staecker (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Suppose someone decides that there is no place for him in society - that all the good resources of the earth are taken by the wealthy, popular, those somehow connected to them, and he doesn't have a decent way to live, and he doesn't want to endure whatever indignities are heaped upon him. Well, if things have reached the point where he feels he doesn't have a right to live, why should anyone else? How can a person choose to commit violence against himself and not commit violence against those who he feels have driven him to that point? What mystifies me is not that some suicides take on this form, but rather that some do not. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The motivations for suicide are many and various; take for example the perception that it is oneself, and not the world, that is out of step - that one is somehow useless or unworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooting in Norway was different from the general wave of school shootings, since the former was politically motivated and thus in effect constituted terror. It was more akin to something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where the perpetrators didn't commit suicide but was killed by the police, with the exception of one who has apprehended. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Anders Breivik may be delusional, but he played his role with an evil brilliance, sadly. For him, being captured alive was what one expert termed "the media exploitation phase", where he got to preach his warped ideology to the world, and forcefully profess his sanity. Slobodan Milosevic may have not planned to spend his final days in a courtroom, but he used a similar tactic, forcefully arguing his moral innocence against charges of mass murder. 58.111.175.170 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In a way, it's the ultimate troll: perform a horrible act of violence then, by killing themselves, remove the ability for society to learn why. For someone who may feel powerless, this is one hell of way to take control of an entire society for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Most people who did this kind of stuff are apparently CRAZY. They want to kill themselves as to challenge the society and they probably also think it is the best way out. After committed such a terrible act, it is better to just die than to live. There are just a hell lot of more trouble to live, everyone will despise you and many more consequences... Before those crazy people did those things, they probably got to the point where living isn't matter to them anymore. Suicide seems to be the best way out for those kind of crazy.184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing such behaviour as crazy is just to disengage your intelligence. As the OP says there is an evident pattern which implies that it is not crazy as in random. People do not normally do things they don't want to do so why would you think they would want to die because of having done what they willingly do? They either want to do it or it is just part of something else they want to do. Some might be told to do it by their voices but as far as I can see that's not frequent. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

was the mach 3 turbo razor changed?

simple question. was the mach 3 turbo razor changed by Gilette (for example, after fusion or fusion proglide came out, so as not to be as good anymore so people will upgrade). I bought new cartridges and think they're much worse than they used to be (also a different color, grey like the fusion head which does not match my black mach3 handle). It could just be me though, so I'd like to know whether it was materially changed. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be you bought a non-genuine cartridge, which turned out to be much worse. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's assume I didn't as I bought it at a very respectable chain (Douglas). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's possible. However, they certainly wouldn't announce such a strategy publicly. So, only an independent lab could analyze them to determine what, if anything, is now worse about them. I doubt if that will happen anytime soon. So, my suggestion is that you go with another brand. I use disposable razors, so I don't make any investment in any given company beyond that package, and can change brands without losing any money. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm asking about actual reality not a hypothetical. I assume enthusiasts would have blogged about it or something (after all, it's not a "post experience good") but could you find references like that? I couldn't. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, there seems to be a short-coming in any transaction which requires a proprietary device to be "resupplied". If only that company is allowed to provide them, it seems like the rates, quality, and duration of the resupply should be stated up-front. Otherwise, they can raise the rates dramatically, lower the quality, or simply stop supplying anything at all for the device. For a more expensive purchase, consider PC operating systems, like Windows. At some point Microsoft will stop supporting that O/S, but they don't state what that period is up-front. That this isn't required is a defect in contract law, in my opinion. The contract basically comes down to "I will pay you X, and in return you will provide me Y, for as long as you care to." Even mobile home rentals work that way, where they rent you the land under the mobile home they sold you, for whatever rates and period they choose. There the theory is that you can move the home elsewhere, but the cost is prohibitive and the new landlord will just raise the land rental rates again. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stu, I'm asking about whether this has happened recently with this particular product. Your philosophical observation remains highly valued. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I still wouldn't discount the possibility of a counterfeit. If it were from ebay, I'd even take it for granted. But even in Douglas, which is a franchise, that's possible. Who knows what the owner of a concrete store does to increase its profit. Make pictures of the product and package and ask Gillette what they think about and what problems you'd have with it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nativity scene components

I spotted this scene while walking around in Richmond, Indiana two days ago. To my surprise, this was all there was: the fence at the bottom of the photo surrounded an area of bare grass, and nowhere around could I see any statues or 2D images. Is it appropriate to call this a nativity scene, or is there some other term that's better? Note that there's some problem with the image; it sometimes loads and sometimes doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's not finished yet. They may also only display the "good stuff" at certain times and dates, to minimize the risk of theft and/or vandalism. The only other names I know for a nativity are a "crèche" or "manger scene", but those terms include everything, as well. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be a joke? --Dweller (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like one to me. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My favourite "No room at the inn" joke: A small boy is furious that he has been denied the male lead of Saint Joseph in his school Nativity play, and is given the walk-on part of the Innkeeper instead. On the day of the performance, Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem. "Is there any room at the inn?" they ask. "Of course there is!" says the Innkeeper with a big grin, "Come right inside and make yourselves at home." Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)