Miscellaneous desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

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.

July 21[edit]

Photo albums for film photos[edit]

I use the type with the piece of cellophane that closes on a sheet of adhesive, and you put your pictures between the two. The problem is, after a few years, whenever I pull the cellophane back to add or access a picture, the adhesive forms little balls on the cellophane. Is there any way to avoid this ? Is there another type of photo album that works better ? (Obviously I can scan them all, but that's not what I'm asking about.) StuRat (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"plastic enclosures made from uncoated pure polyethylene, polypropylene or polyester (also called Mylar D or Mellinex 516)" per http://www.archives.gov/preservation/family-archives/storing-photos.html 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem appears to be with the adhesive, not the plastic. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The adhesive is on the backing, fixing the photos and the transparent cover to it, right? You can solve your problem by leaving the photos in the same place instead of moving them over the years. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean every time I find or take a new batch of photos, I'd have to get a new album. Then there's also the issue of wanting to read what's written on the back to find out who these strange people are. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sell clear plastic photo albums with pockets for the photos. Problem solved. μηδείς (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen those, but will look for them. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I don't know if you'll find a good solution with those adhesive pages. I've found that the adhesive dries out and as the years go on, the pictures slide and fall out and the plastic no longer sticks to the page. Dismas|^(talk) 14:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's what I suspected, that the basic design is flawed. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Pyramids will one day erode into dust and blow away in the wind. That must mean their basic design is flawed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously be making such a fallacious argument. A product meant to preserve photographs for more than a couple years should not be degrading after a couple years. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu mentioned "a few years" and Dismas talked of "as the years go on". Any way you cut it, that's definitely more than your "a couple years" (= 2 years). Dismas's point was valid: namely that, like most things, there's a time beyond which it becomes unreasonable to expect adhesive to still be working the way it was when it was first applied. It would be helpful if Stu could tell us exactly what the timespan is in his case. It may be the quality of the adhesive used, rather than an issue with the design of the album per se. Even the best quality adhesive has an inherently limited lifespan, although it's still longer than that of most animals. To get half a century's use out of something as fragile as less than a gram of photo adhesive is not my idea of a "basic design flaw". But maybe they deliberately choose lower grade adhesive to save costs up front, and to create opportunities for repeat sales. If that's their plan, it seems to be working beautifully. No basic design flaws there, either. The basic flaw would be someone expecting, contrary to the weight of a massive amount of evidence, that items of this nature would be made to the same quality as they were made 50, 30 or even 20 years ago. Haven't you heard, we've had a whole lot of progress since then. It's in all the papers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current photo album is abut 10 years old. I certainly expect it to last longer than that. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would too, but I think you're missing my point. We conclude that some system/artefact has a "design flaw" when it doesn't work the way, or as long as, or as efficiently as, it was designed to. But how it was designed to work, and what the consumer expects of the product, are not necessarily the same things. Unless there's some warranty or guarantee to protect you, you take your chances. It isn't like the good old days, when quality was taken for granted. Now, quality has become the exception to the rule - and you'll pay for it, don't think you won't pay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this is pretty obvious; I think it's a little snippy to start invoking the pyramids. Everyone knows buyer beware; Stu was just complaining because the quality was poor. I'm not sure saying, "but maybe it was intended to be crappy" really adds much to the discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, StuRat was complaining about the basic design being flawed, and Jack was quite rightly pointing out that it's not flawed. "Flawed" implies that the manufacturers made some kind of mistake; as Jack says, there was no mistake – it was meant to be like that. --Viennese Waltz 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point was that any design using an adhesive is apparently inherently inferior, in that it can't possibly last as long as the pictures, rather than being a sound design, but just using a cheap adhesive. From the POV of the customers, who clearly want it to last as long as the pictures, this constitutes a design flaw. I suspect, if they were aware at the time of purchase that such photo albums will only last a decade or so, they wouldn't have bought them. (I'd rather just keep them in a box.) StuRat (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last sentence, but I don't think you have any right to convert "This product did not meet my expectations" into "This product has a design flaw", unless you have some insight into the mind of the designer. The corollary would be that the designer has an insight into the minds and expectations of the consumers, and always makes things to match those expectations as exactly as possible. I need hardly point out that that would be an equally fallacious position.

Why not just experience your disappointment, learn something new about how closely your expectations match reality, adjust them for the future, and leave it at that, without going the extra mile into making unjustified assumptions about how thing was designed to work?

It comes down to what I said before: If you want quality, you have to be prepared to pay for it. Quality items are almost always available ... just, not necessarily at the bargain basement prices we all tend to want to pay. As we often tell our OPs here, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. In "too good to be true" I include a photo album you pay $5 for and expect to last for 50+ years. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that that is the price you paid; I'm just using it as an example, because a lot of people do buy cheap goods but still expect them to somehow magically not be "cheap".) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just my expectation, it's every consumer's expectation that a photo album should last. (There are plenty of things I don't expect to last, like combs, and others which have far outlived my expectations, like a 50 year-old fridge I have.) What words would you use to say "the design inherently will not work as consumers expect it to, regardless of the materials chosen" ? StuRat (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests a scenario where there's massive fraud or at least incompetence going on. If that were so, your complaint would hardly be the first one. What we've been discussing is not that. We've been talking about something that was designed to work, and the consumer has a reasonable expectation of that, but a particular single purchase turns out not to work very well. One faulty album does not give you any evidence to believe that they are all faulty, or that none of them could possibly work. Lemons can turn up anywhere. Before immediately fingering the designers, who typically have zero role in the item's construction, wouldn't you first look to the assemblers or manufacturers? Some things are shipped in parts and assembled on the shop floor by the vendors (probably not the case with photo albums, but nothing would surprise me these days). And there could be other middle-persons who bear some responsibility. No, the designers would be the last ones you look to, not the first. (Next time you buy an apple that seems ok on the outside but has a big juicy maggot inside, best of luck with taking the matter up with the Designer. I'd be interested in knowing His response.) :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if my pics only last as long as the pyramids. I'll just have to settle for that. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mother keeps copious photo albums. My sister died in the mid nineties, and all the pictures she has of her are falling out of my mother's glue-backed albums. My mother thinks this is just another proof the universe is out to get her. I think it is a good argument for buying the albums with the clear plastic pockets. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Law is Always Right" Logical Fallacy[edit]

Is there a specific logical fallacy which applies to statements that say "the law says this, and since it's the law, this position must be the best/most valid one"? An example of this would be someone saying that "absolute bodily autonomy/integrity is the best/most valid position out there because the law supports this position and because there is no legal precedent for another position on this issue". I'm thinking that argumentum ad populum could work for democratic countries, since the people (indirectly) determine laws in a democracy. Another good logical fallacy which might apply for this example is the appeal to tradition. Is there a specific logical fallacy that applies to what I'm talking about, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to authority? Seems to me that you're dealing (hypothetically, I hope) with a difference of axioms, rather than a formal fallacy. —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that one. That could also work--I have a question, though--does appeal to authority apply to politicians as well, since they are the ones determining our nation's laws here in the United States? Futurist110 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. StuRat (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not debating this individual myself--I just saw what she wrote on the comments to a particular blog article. She appears to justify her support of abortion by saying that the law does not allow anyone else to ever use someone else's body, and she keeps restating this belief numerous times, without ever explaining why she believes that the law is right in this case. Thus, she is (also) guilty of the proof by assertion logical fallacy. Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's see if I can get my pregnant friend arrested for false imprisonment. Card Zero (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your comment. Please elaborate. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion, "the law does not allow anyone else to ever use someone else's body" could be taken to mean that since the fetus is using its mother's body, pregnancies are illegal, therefore Card_Zero seems to doubt that his friend can be prosecuted accordingly, and I agree. :-) --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was an error in my typing. I meant to say that she said that "the law does not allow anyone to use anyone else's body without the other individual's consent". Sorry for the error and the confusion. Also, her statement that no country in the world allows bodily compensation is an example of a logical fallacy called appeal by common practice. Futurist110 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it the other way round - that the mother is using (imprisoning) the body of the fetus, without its consent. Card Zero (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related concept: Legal fiction. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Eternal[edit]

In William craigs formulation of the kalam cosmological argument, the first premise states that "Whatever 'begins to exist' has a cause', this invalidates the objection about God or a first cause having a cause because it is eternal. question is besides god, is there other things that exist but didnt 'begin to exist'? 203.112.82.128 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, time itself. Logically, God could not have existed before time itself existed. If time began to exist at a given moment, then God must have begun to exist either at that moment or later. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be argued that time 'began to exist' at the moment of big bang, hence the second premise of KCL "Universe began to exist", so is there anything else that is independent of time that exist but didnt 'begin to exist'? 203.112.82.2 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming one accepts the argument (and I personally don't, but I understand it well enough), then nothing that is not a property of God existed outside/before the Big Bang. (I say 'outside' because I am well aware that there is no meaningful 'before'.) So one might look at Proverbs 8, and see Wisdom saying "I was in the beginning with God" - but here, Wisdom is merely an attribute of God that the author has chosen to personify. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no meaningful 'outside' either. Just as talking about 'before' the big bang involves attempting to extrapolate along the temporal dimension to the point earlier than the existence of the temporal dimension itself, talking about outside the universe involves attempting to extrapolate along any one of the spacial dimensions to a point beyond that dimension. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I placed 'outside' in quote-marks because I'm well aware that the exact same argument applies to it as to 'before'. I was trying to convey a more general (metaphysical) sense in which a timeless God might be considered to be other than the physical universe - apart from it, conceived of as a self-sufficient reality in itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" does NOT imply that all things that exist* began to exist. (* includes things that are believed or perceived to exist) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats correct and no one is implying that. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and that is the main point of my question. can you give me examples of things that exist but didnt began to exist. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic models and Steady State theory are examples from cosmology of things which never began to exist. Although obviously we don't know for sure if they're true. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for the much more likely ekpyrotic universe cosmology which shares characteristics with both as well as big bang cosmology. Quantity is an example of a simple concept which is often said to exist apart from time and its own conceptual formulation. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching a lot of WLC debates recently. I'm really getting into the philosophy. I'm completely on the same page here:) SO! I think you are right, there is NO "other thing" which exists, but never begun to exist. You can not definite an entire category where the sole member is the thing you are trying to justify! That is called special pleading. I came up with an equally valid premise: "That which did not begin to exist, does not exist." It is just as logically valid. Using the same justification, to disprove the premise you would need to demonstrate something which did not begin to exist, it's impossible.

Another BIG problem I have with WLC's argument: He says, "some people posit that "something" can come from the nothing in the vacuum of space, but if they say that, they don't really understand "nothing": The vacuum of space is a quantum foam fluctuating thing, it's not nothing".. Well, my reply to that is that some people posit some sort of "supernatural realm" where god can "exist", well they don't really understand "nothing". Nothing means NOTHING, no quantum foam and no secret supernatural realm for God to hide in.

I think the point WLC is trying to make is something cannot come from nothing, so you're objection is just an agreement to his point. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're quite getting the point. One of WLC's premises that the argument relies on is that there was NOTHING before the big bang. He says this is supported by science. He says that anyone who thinks matter and antimatter can form from the vacuum of space counts as "something from nothing" doesn't really understand what "nothing" is. BUT then he says that God is somehow exept from this rule, because God is "transcendednt". Well I don't buy it, put simply: DID God exist before the big bang? If WLC's answer is yes (which it no doubt is) then there wasn't NOTHING, full stop. The argument fails. Any additioal argument is special pleading. Vespine (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what i understand, he believes that something cannot come from "nothing" which is in-line with his argument that universe is caused by a "transcendental being". in think when he says nothing, its literally nothing (not the nothingness that physcicist talks about) and his "something" is not limited to the things inside universe, wlc talks about unembodied mind and numbers. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's constantly saying NOTHING existed before the big bang and then saying God did exist before the big bang. Well sorry: law of non contradiction, not even God can exist and NOT exist at the same time. Craig says God is "timeless and changeless", more nonsense! How can anything CAUSE something without time or change? It's like WLC thinks that the rules of the universe are like rules of the road, like speed limits, and God is a Policeman so the speed limit doesn't apply to him, he can go down the highway as fast as he likes. But of course, before the big bang there just was no highway for God to drive down! Vespine (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've mentioned you watched WLC debates recently, do you know what argument he use to say that the "cause" in his KCL argument is GOD? because from what i understand, even if we say that KCL is TRUE, it only proves that a cause is needed to start the universe, this cause is logically suppose to be changeless and timeless, but i see no reason why we can equate this "cause" to "god". 203.112.82.128 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are spot on. WLC says he makes a cumilative case for the existance of God. Three or four arguments which together give a "whole" picture. He says that you can logically deduce some of the qualitites of this first cause. So he uses, in my opinion, some pretty weak reasoning to say that the first cause must be: transcendent, spaceless, timeless,(because there was no space or time) uncaused, eternal (because you can't have infinite regression) personal and powerful (becuase, and this is the weakest of all, to "cause" something it has to be able to make a "choice".). Now that still doesn't really leave us at Christian God, so he goes on to use the fine tuning argument, the moral argument and the ressurection of Jesus to justify why he thinks it is actually the God of the Christians. Interesting to note actually, there is a Muslim debater called Hamza who has been doing the rounds and he's basically ripped off WLC's cosmological arguments wholesale. All he does is basically trade the ressurection of Jesus argument with "the miracle of the Quran", therefore: Allah did it. Vespine (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating how vehemently they separate their religions, given how they all worship the god of Abraham. It betrays a rather anthropogenic nature of their beliefs. Unless of course, the deity has DID.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]