Humanities desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

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.

May 12

Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark

How was Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark physically disabled or is never described in history?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was he? When I feed the Danish Wikipedia version of his article through Google Translate, I find nothing to indicate he was injured or disabled in any way, and the statement in the English Wikipedia article has no source. Given that, I would slap a "cn" tag on it or remove it unless and until someone comes up with a source. --Jayron32 03:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Danish sources he is often characterised as being "skrutrygget" (round-shouldered), short of growth and generally of a weak physical condition (for example Ulrik Langen, Den afmægtige - en biografi om Christian 7., 2008, p. 72). He was definitely not a pillar of health, in 1784 he was twice in a direct physical confrontation with the also smallish and frail teenage crownprince Frederik (6), and he lost both times (Langen, p. 425 and 442). He died in a relatively young age as well, but it does seem that characterising him as being disabled is taking it a bit far. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking."

I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, and in the preface Diamond states that "[s]ound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." He supports this claim by 1) arguing that psychologists have been unable to convincingly establish that, say, whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, and 2) appealing to his personal experience in Papua New Guinea.

Well, argument 2) is just anecdotal evidence, so I can't really take it seriously. As for 1), my understanding is that most psychologists acknowledge that the observed IQ disparity between blacks and whites is partly genetic in origin. I'll find a quote from the APA if you want. So given this, what is the current status of Diamond's claim? 65.92.6.9 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would appreciate the quote. My understanding from general browsing/ limited scholarly reading is that this debate is far from settled, and a claim about "most psychologists" should be qualified rather carefully. If you search Google scholar for "racial differences intelligence", you will find plenty to go on. IBE (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After digging around, I realized that I strongly overstated the consensus of psychologists on this matter, and as you said the debate is still controversial. 65.92.6.9 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

65.92.6.9 -- There are whole long convoluted articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Race and intelligence if you feel like looking at them. I don't think that Diamond actually cared about "race" in the conventional sense too much; it was enough for his argument that plenty of high-intelligence people existed over time in all the main quasi-continental regions relevant to the thesis of his book (the Americas, Eurasia + North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia + New Guinea etc.). In any case, conventional IQ tests do not have much validity when applied to people of strongly-diverging cultures (illiterate hunter-gatherers vs. modern city dwellers, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether there are broad differences in human populations in the area of intelligence. There may be, though finding ways to test for this which take into account class, prejudice, and whatnot has proven to be pretty tricky. There is no a priori reason to assume that on average there aren't some slight differences (as there are with lots of genetic traits), though we also know that a huge, significant portion of actual observed intelligence has to do with development as well as the genetics, and since what we're talking about are development disparities, this quickly becomes a case of begging the question over and over again. But hey, it's not crazy to wonder if there aren't some differences between populations in this area, since it would be kind of strange if there weren't a few, since there are so many others.

But that's not really Diamond's argument. His argument is that there is no evidence that these small, population-based differences (that is, slight differences in the population averages or outliers) translates into the massive differences in technological aptitude. Another way to say this is, even if one wanted to believe that Native Americans (or New Guineans, or whomever) were, on average, 2% less smart as Europeans (something there isn't really any evidence of to my knowledge, but whatever), why would that translate into the major technological disparities? Keep in mind that every population is going to have dullards, geniuses, and "mostly average" people, and, again, that we're talking about tiny statistical differences for the population as a whole, not for individuals within the population. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, thanks.65.92.6.9 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse Mr. 98's summary, though I might have used "technological development" instead of "technological aptitude"; I would be concerned that the latter formulation could be misunderstood to mean that these populations were somehow inherently less competent at applying technology. (A core principle in Diamond's book is that these less-technologically-advanced societies were held back by restrictions imposed by their environments—a society, no matter how intelligent, cannot gain the advantages of domesticated crops and animals – agricultural surpluses which allow concentration of populations into cities – if there are few or no domesticable species in the first place.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies of homo sapiens

Are there any Scientific studies conducted by muslim scientists in (books or any sources) past or present which classified muslims and non muslims as separate Subspecies of Homo sapiens. I am not asking about religious views but scientific study like searching for genetic differences between muslims and non muslims and thereby claiming that muslims and non muslims are separate Subspecies of homo sapiens. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Islam is one of the proselytizing religions, that one can convert to Islam simply by "sincerely" stating that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God", and that as a result the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab in origin, any serious research into this direction would be very surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon7968 -- Why would anyone think that made sense? In any case, sub-species status usually means a trinomial Linnean name (Felis silvestris lybica for the African wildcat as opposed to Felis silvestris silvestris for the European wildcat etc.), but such trinomial names are not generally currently used by scientists to refer to human races... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking of Pseudo-scientific research. Like I saw in a documentary of a artwork Hitler used to justify that Jews and aryans are different. I do not remember the exact details. But are there this type of scientific justifications of difference between muslims and non muslims. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure crackpots could believe almost anything (including polygenesis), but I'm not sure why a person even minimally in touch with historic reality would try to posit that Muslims are a sub-species... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Islam, Judaism is not a religion spread by conversion, so the idea that many Jews may have common inherited characteristics is not wholly ridiculous. The idea that Muslims would is absurd, unless one a adopts some form of radical neo-Lamarkian model of inheritance according to which "Muslimness" could be passed on physically in some way. In the early 20th century the idea that different "races" were like subspecies was far more widespread (it was even argued that racially mixed couples had lower fertility, and were more likely to produce infertile children!), so the claim that one could identify differences between 'Semites' and 'Aryans' was not considered wholly beyond the bounds of scientific possibility. But that was long ago, and even in the 1930s such views were marginal. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus in the 1700's. That's not a time when the Muslim world was known for scientific innovation or commentary on Western science. There are other terms like dhimmi, or kafir and the Dar al-Harb by which Muslims divide themselves from humanity as a whole. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I am by the way not a Muslim (a Hindu from India) but your logic is very absurd. Infact in 1700 India held 25% of Global economy. And there was nothing called western science then (Even Newton's Gravitation was anticipated by Bhāskara II 500 years ago) It largely started by the Industrial Revolution. You are right Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus but that was only a systemic study. Mankind has the basic knowledge of it since time immemorial. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not excuse you. Name any important Indian evolutionary biologists of the 1700's you wish. Link to them, even. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1700 all Indian centres of learning were being destroyed (In Europe opposite was happening at that time) by a mad man Muslim fanatic king called Aurangzeb. In that point it was not possible for any Indian to study evolutionary biology. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern man is Homo sapiens sapiens (H. s. idaltu, the only other subspecies went extinct circa 160,000 years ago). Also, 'Muslim' is a religion, not a race. Did you mean 'Arabic'? However, not all Muslims are Arabic (Malaysia is majority Muslim), and not all Arabic-peoples are Muslims. Are you trying to characterise all the human races as different sub-species? CS Miller (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if such a Muslim Scientific point of view exists. I am no scholar or expert that is it. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that this would be incompatible with both science and Islam, as has been shown above, it would seem unlikely that such a point of view is widespread. It is of course possible that someone believes it. People can believe all sorts of nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon7968 -- Linnaeus published from about 1735-1768, a time when western science was in fact strongly advancing (though not as professionalized and institutionalized as it would later become). There was relatively little advance in scientific knowledge in the Muslim mideast after the 13th century (Ibn Khaldun being the last strikingly-original and lastingly-influential non-theologian Arab intellectual for many centuries). The vast majority of Muslims were strikingly uninterested in European Christian societies until consistent European military victories started to change this, starting in the late 18th century. I don't know what Bhāskara did, but unless he explained both cannonball trajectories on earth and the orbits of the planets with a single unified mathematical equation, he did not rival Isaac Newton's work on gravity. AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhāskara anticipated some aspects of calculus. Solomon7968 appears to be confusing that with the theory of gravity. Though frankly, what this "we came first/no you didn't" playground stuff has to do with the question is beyond me. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ?

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article at Velakkathala Nayar, but it's not very detailed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country and religious base

Details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country ( all world ) and in all religious base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be a question. Even if it was a question, I'm not sure it would have a sensible answer. Just because a community worked mainly as barbers in the 19th century or whatever, doesn't mean their descendants still do so in the modern day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a brief (four lines) article on Velakkathala Nayar. The two references in this article may be of help. --178.191.52.193 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Whoops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish people not trying to gain new converts (contrary to Christians and Muslims)

How does it come that Jewish people do not try to gain new converts to their faith? Who, when and why took this decision? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, see Proselytism#Judaism. Answering the question will also get into the problem of defining Judaism. For example, when Saul of Tarsus was converting people to Christianity he had competitors who tried to convince gentiles to follow the Torah, including undergoing circumcision. Was this Judaism that they preached? Judaism and Christianity was not so very distinct in the first century after Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When one reads at Proselytism#Judaism that "Some groups, however, will encourage nonobservant Jews to be observant, such as Aish HaTorah or Chabad", is that really "trying to gain new converts"? Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, yes. For further info on that, see Teshuva (hmm, that's a redirect; shouldn't be) and Baal Teshuva (that should be a redirect). It falls well outside the scope of conversion to Judaism. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting read: [1] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather basic biblical "history". Jews are the descendants of Jacob. Their god made a special, in Christian terms, Old Covenant with them as his chosen people. There was no law passed by the Knesset deciding this. There are an endless number of illustrated children's bibles at Amazon, and must be at least one at a local library. The Apostle Paul was the one who came up with the idea of bringing the New Covenant to the gentiles. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent non-fiction work: Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs & Rituals. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I'm sure someone might have guessed by now, it's not quite as simple as "Judaism is not a proselytizing religion." There were the God-fearers, gentiles around the turn of the common era who sought out the unique religious practices of the Jews and became attached to synagogues, without full conversion. There's little evidence that there was much hostility towards these non-converts from Jewish leaders, and many of the earliest gentile Christians likely came from this group. If you're interested in full-on attempts to convert gentiles en masse, you'd probably be interested in reading up on the Himyarite Kingdom, a nation whose royals, for complex political reasons, attempted to convert their citizens to Judaism during the fifth century AD. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, however, Jews are not fond of proselytizing gentiles, especially in comtemporary practice. I believe the rabbinic maxim "קשים גרים לישראל כספחת" explains the sentiment behind this: converts (at least insincere converts) are considered to be dangerous to Judaism, so every attempt is made to dissuade all but the most sincere applicants. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can those of us who don't read Hebrew get a translation of that better than they offer at google? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Converts are as hard on Israel [i.e. the Jewish nation] as a blight" is one common translation. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote, incidentally, is from the Talmud (Yevamot 47b). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That word (גר ger) has a very interesting (and slippery!) history. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the use of ger in the above-mentioned quote corresponds to the subject discussed here, as is obvious in its Talmudical context. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]