Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 9

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.

April 9

Traditions About Moving Into A New Home

I was wondering if there are some articles written on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul Miguel Rodriguez (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Feng shui is slightly related — not really on "traditions," but similarly concerning setting up a new architectural space for optimal benefit of the users of that space. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mezuzah. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Housewarming party? 83.81.42.44 (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

House blessing. —D. Monack ^talk 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Placing a silver coin in the champagne cork from the champagne you use to celebrate your new home 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Digging up your statue of St. Joseph at your old home and placing it in your new home. —Kevin Myers 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you're having trouble selling your old, pricey house in today's market, replace your St. Joseph, the patron saint of stepfathers, with a statue of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• 1)Change the locks. Costs under $8 to have a cylinder rekeyed. Previous owners, realtors, various workers may have keys. 2)Notify gas and electric companies, water utility you've moved in, to get meters read and account created, so utilities don't get shut off. People who failed to do these things have had unpleasant surprises. Edison (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are more like practical things than "traditions". To that end, before moving a box or a stick of furniture in, thoroughly clean the house, make sure everything's working in the infrastructure (plumbing, electricity, etc.) and look for any other potential problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presents of salt and bread - at least according to It's a Wonderful Life. Rmhermen (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's really new, as in, noone has ever lived there before, sacrifice a local animal and bury it somewhere in the centre, useful for good luck and you can see if the animals living there have some terrible disease that might make it actually a good place to avoid. 80.47.202.235 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Housewarming party?..hotclaws 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on epistemology

A common definition of knowledge ("knowing" a particular proposition) is "justified true belief". However, one would often hear something like "I know God exists". Simple analysis shows:

1. It's a belief
2. the one presenting this has justifications for it (in forms of scriptures or cultural values in this case)
3. The truth value of the underlying proposition ("God exists") is arguable (It has yet to be objectively shown to be true or not true)

Are such cases being included as "knowledge" as well (as in "justified belief not yet falsified" instead of "justified true belief")? If not, What exactly is "knowing" in this context? Also please direct me to the readings that are related. K61824 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You could be asking that in all kinds of ways. Knowledge, leap of faith, Plato's problem, and abductive reasoning all might be starting points. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Plantinga for one would say that you can know God exists in the same way you know other minds exist. He has other arguments as well, see Reformed epistemology.--Rallette (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gettier problem is of interest to your speculations about JTB.--droptone (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Epistemology is a topic in philosophy, not an established 'thing'. There are different theories about what constitutes proper 'knowledge' and proper 'knowing', and there is no real decisive statement on the matter. for instance, scientific epistemology works on a 'consensus observation' model - nothing is considered to be 'known' unless it can be collectively 'seen' in a simple procedural manner by multiple observers. many forms of religious and philosophical epistemology use a looser form which allows that something can be 'known' if it is 'understood' by a single individual through a process of introspection and contemplation. Someone who says "I know God exists" probably fails scientific epistemology, but may or may not pass muster in other forms of epistemology (depending on how s/he came to 'know' that). by the same token, someone who says "I know that I exist" also fails scientific epistemology - the perception of self is not something that is accessible to consensus observation. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For related reading, see this page. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a better link for the same book. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The author is Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people interpret the scientific evidence as supporting belief in God. [1] -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dutch people carrying passengers on bicycles - allowed in England, too?

In the Netherlands, it is either legal or tolerated that people carry other people on the pannier racks at the rear of their bicycles... which of the two is it? And in England, is it legal? I remember seeing kids carrying their friends via those things sticking out of the hubs on stunt-bikes, but not sure whether I also remember the police intervening. --84.13.85.158 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This page, [2] which I would suggest is pretty definitive, says "Cyclists are not allowed to carry passengers unless their cycles have been built or adapted to carry passengers". UK law. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Netherlands are concerned, the RVV 1990 (our rules of the road) article 58a 2e explicitly allows carrying passengers on the luggage carrier. Unilynx (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, a document called the Highway Code puts the laws governing road use into straightforward rules in plain language. "Rule 68: You MUST NOT carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one..." (Road Traffic Act 1988). Police in Britain have in the past tended to turn a blind eye to cycling offences like this, but are now being a bit stricter; although I get the impression that you're more likely to get a stern lecture for a first offence than be prosecuted. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

@Unilynx: I wonder, does that same set of regulations also define what properly constitutes a luggage carrier? Perhaps they insist that a luggage carrier meet some basic requirements that would also make it suitable as a basic seat (e.g. it's properly secured to the frame, it's not too weak, and it's got bits to hang onto)? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any legal definition of a luggage carrier. But I can find some requirements for carrying children younger than eight year: they need to have a proper seat, with support for their back, hands and feet. Unilynx (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hair styling: just what is meant by "strand by strand"? Is such literally possible?

The article Artificial hair integrations doesn't really help. This Youtube video seems to imply that it isn't really "strand-by-strand", but a bunch of strands. I read that a person has about 120 000 hairs on one's head. Suppose one got a crew-cut and proceeded to have, say, a 2 foot long strand of artificial hair glued to every stub of natural hair. At, say, 9 seconds per strand, it'd take about 300 hours--maybe less if a more systematic approach made it faster--and at 1/2" a month growth, would definitely take less than 4 years to grow it. Would it be as good, perhaps better, than natural hair? Could one comb, shampoo, and frequently swim in chlorinated pools of seawater with little or no damage? Would it be as tangle, mat, and dandruff free as natural hair? Thanks.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to change "glues" to "glued" took out another editor's answer to another Q, so be careful with your edits. If there's an edit conflict, it's usually best to go all the way out and start over, to avoid this. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:strand doesn't say, specifically, that multiple hairs are in a strand, but that's certainly my opinion. It does say a "group of wires, usually twisted or braided" is a strand, and I believe the same def also applies to hair. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that my idea is rarely, if ever, tried and thus the more inaccurately describe action is the defining one.Hmmmm.70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some good extensions are very good indeed and can be pretty much treated like real hair.They tend to tangle worse than real hair though.The real problem is, however extensions are attached to the clump of real hair, the real hair grows out and sheds.Eventually the extension will fall out or have an ugly lump matting a strand of natural hair together a few inches down from the scalp..Most full heads seem to take about 8 hours and in all honesty need to be redone every three weeks to look natural.A common shortcut is just to put extensions at the back of the head, making the hair seem fuller and longer but leaving the natural hair on top...hotclaws 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)