Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13[edit]

Myth(s)/Mythology(s)[edit]

Peeps,

Q:

The words Creation myth, Origin myth and ‘Founding’ myth are used to subdivide a myth and or mythology, am I right?
How shall I consider the word ‘mythology’? A collected set of myths or the modern term i.e. mythology word means “1” mythology, ‘mythologies’ mean several/plural/more than one mythology. Y

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You may find the word origins useful.[1] It doesn't quite say this, but I would think the term "mythologies" would have to do with several sets of mythology from various cultures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, a myth is "a traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.", whereas a mythology is a "collection of myths of a people". For example, the story of Daedalus and Icarus is a single myth. The whole body of ancient Greek myths is the Greek mythology. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article Mythology too. I was curious as I recalled reading it somewhere. Thank you for the clarification friends. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I would thinking a "creation" myth would have to do with the creation of the world itself, while a "founding" myth would have to do with stories like Romulus and Remus. It's a little-known fact that while Romulus was running around in a frenzy trying to get his city built, Remus was more laid back: "Take it easy, Romulus - Athens wasn't built in a day, you know." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the idea... (I guess). Thanks. I do have a feeling that they can be used to subdivide a mythology... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't follow the "subdividing". Mythology is a collection of myths for a given culture. Unless you mean "categorizing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yeah, that's the word. Am I right? P.S - Thanks, learnt a new way to define something. Words don't come to my mind easily when I write something... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

What logical fallacy is this?[edit]

Prompted by the question above Communist_influence_in_America_since_60's, what fallacy or fallacies are involved in the argument: "Communism means the government owns all property. Control over something implies ownership. Therefore if the government can regulate what you can do with "your" property, that means it owns it. Therefore the govenrment is Communist". Is that a slippery slope fallacy? False dilemma? Straw man? Something else? All of the above? Iapetus (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

non sequitur ? Widneymanor (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The error is in the assumption that only a Communist government owns "your" property. The only conclusion you can draw is that the government might be Communist. Which is a fairly useless conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Affirming_the_consequent, with a non sequitur thrown in. The argument you typed up logically goes like this:

C->OA
K->O
GK->OA
GK
OA
C

Where C is "communism", OA is "owns all", K is "control" O is "ownership" GK is "government control." There's no literal non sequitor if you want to think that GK->OA is derivable from the assumption K->O. But K->O is non sequitor if GK->OA is considersd as a premise. Of course there are many ways to convert natural language to logical formalism, your mileage may vary, etc. :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having just typed that, there's another way to look at it, where there is no actual logical fallacy

C<=>OA
K->O
GK->OA
GK
OA
C

In this form, the argument has logical validity, which is to say that the consequent is entailed by the premise. That's because I replaced the logical implication in the first claim with a biconditional. However, logical validity doesn't say anything about truth! For that, we have to look at the truth value of the premises. In this interpretation, the argument is fine in terms of its logical steps, but the premise K->O is screwy. I can control the wind when I turn on my fan or even just exhale. That doesn't mean I own the wind. Also keep in mind logical fallacies are fun, but pinning one on a statement made in natural language is almost always debatable, due to the vagaries of natural language and the myriad logical interpretations. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Indeed, the crucial point is the premise K->O. How absurd it is can be shown with an example closer to the original question: Every traffic light controls my car (even directly so, if it's autonomous), but that doesn't mean that the car isn't owned by the lights. That leads us back to the original question: Does using a wrong premise count as a fallacy (I could not see anything about wrong premises in that article - the closest that artice gets is in § Intentional fallacies, but we can't assume any intention here), or is the original question itself a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, because there can be causes outside of the reasoning that render a statement wrong? — Sebastian 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical logic is only concerned with the way from the premises to the conclusion, and, strictly seen, is not concerned with the meaning of individual components. "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore Socrates is mortal" is just as valid as an argument as "All colours are red. Green is a colour. Therefore green is red". Most people would agree to the first conclusion, but you'd have more of a discussion with the second. And even if someone starts talking about politics and water melons, they will likely not accept the first premise of the second argument. Logic only guarantees that you can get from valid premises to a valid conclusion. If your premises are invalid, many things can happen. And if your premises are inconsistent (not the same thing), everything can happen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'll add that, if we take the interpretation of my second post, then there is certainly no logical fallacy, though we could consider it an informal fallacy (note this doesn't mean "casual", it means that the fallacious conclusions are not the result of the formal logic deployed). I would say that my second interpretation is arguing from False_premise - but it is not a logical fallacy in the strict sense (this is a confusing statement in its own right, so @SebastianHelm: and anyone else following along should make sure they grok it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chissano[edit]

Is Joaquim Alberto Chissano, former Mozambican president, related to Alberto Chissano, the Mozambican sculptor? Neither of the Wiki articles on the two men reference each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.192.158 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Chissano" is not an unusual surname in Mozambique. In the absence of information to the contrary there is no reason to believe that the two are closely related. Both are originally from Gaza Province in the south of the country, so it is not impossible that they are distantly related, but there is no reason to believe that they are. RomanSpa (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandora Tower?[edit]

I'm revisiting an old and rather sparse article that I created; Battle of Mandora (Egypt, 1801). I'm having trouble locating the exact location. The battle took place between Abu Qir and Alexandria; in those days there was an isthmus between the sea and "Lake Maadie" which seems to have been drained at some time in the interim. The only accounts of the battle that I can see online were written in the early 19th century; the most detailed is Wilson, Robert Thomas, History of the British Expedition to Egypt, London 1803, which makes mention of "Mandora Tower" (p. 19). Does this feature still exist? Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A variant of the spelling Mandora in the accounts of the battle is Mandara; there is a neighborhood called Mandara in present-day Alexandria, but it seems too far east to match the battle maps I found. The key would be to locate the Roman "camp" near which the battles of Mandora and Alexandria seem to have taken place. I found this map and this map which show the camp as "Camps des Romains" and "Camp romain".--Cam (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be worth studying this map, which locates the 13th March battle at point 7. I suspect the ruin marked at point 9 is the tower, based on a reading of p.290 of Wilson. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was interpreting that structure at point 9 as the "Roman camp" of the French maps linked above.--Cam (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. We're talking about the same structure. This text by Sir Archibald Alison ties the two together, somewhat, talking about the army camping in front of the tower, and later being confident in part because of their position in front of the roman camp. Some publications seem to refer to the battle as "Roman Camp" - see, for instance, 28th_(North_Gloucestershire)_Regiment_of_Foot#Battle_honours --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 19 & 20 of this 1911 expatriate description of Alexandria may also help. Or confuse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks everyone; you did much better than me. I'll pore over the results tomorrow. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the written accounts in conjunction with the maps, especially the Faden 1801 map posted by Tagishsimon, it seems that position 6 on the Faden map is the location described in Wilson as "Mandora Tower... where they encamped in three lines" (p.19), or Alison (p.564) which uses almost identical phrasing; both accounts describing the situation on 12 March. Mandora Tower is perhaps the square feature to the north and east of the British position at 6 on the Faden map. Position 7 shows the British advance on 13 March, towards position C, which shows the French line on the same day, "in front of an old Roman camp" according to Alison (also p.564). Alison later describes this as "large and magnificent ruins of a Roman palace within fifty yards of the sea" (p.566). Whatever the location of either the camp/palace or the tower, Google Maps shows that the whole coastline is now smothered by a forest of modern high-rise buildings. Thanks again for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Shame we couldn't find any more direct reference to the tower :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite tower is Faringdon Folly, which once had a sign saying "Members of the public committing suicide from this tower do so at their own risk". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Edith Grove Road[edit]

Edith Grove Road is located on Pleasant Lake in Harwichport. Can you tell me who Edith Grove was, I have been unable to find an answer with the historical society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Rifkin (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Rifkin: Sadly no. Who is Catherine Rose, and was there a Duke Ballem and a Captin Jack? Ditto Edward, James, Wallace, Elizabeth, et al. Do you have any clue when the settlement of that area dates from? A satellite view shows what looks like a reasonably large-scale development of fairly homogenous houses ... I wonder if these names are associated with the family of the property developers - supposing that the whole place has been developed by a company which assumed naming rights for the roads it created. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Captain Jack (and Catharine [sic] Rose) is that they were indeed the parents of the developer, Robert E. Kelly, who died in October, 2016. I don't know about the Duke. --JFLohr —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing here, but it may not be named after a person at all... there is a street in the Borough of Chelsea (London, England) named Edith Grove (The Rolling Stones band members lived at 102 Edith Grove for a while) and the road in Harwichport may be named after that street. Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The The London Encyclopaedia (3rd Edition) says that the Edith Grove in Chelsea " is named after one of Robert Gunter's daughters". Our article on Mr Gunter says that Edith "died of scarlet fever aged eight". "Grove" is a fairly common name for a well-to-do street or avenue in London. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]