User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 2

Latin translation needed - please.

I assume this is Latin and would like an English translation:
Eidos de lego to ti en einai hekastou kai ten proten ousian. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Latin to me, however I'm not sure what language it is in. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is quite definitely classical (Attic) Greek, transliterated into the Latin alphabet.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, I wasn't sure myself what language it was. In English is it close then to:
"Eidos - meaning the essence of each thing and its primary substance." (?) --Doug ^talk 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a possible translation. I think the original Greek must have been

Eἶδος δὲ λέγω τό τί ἦν εἶναι ἕκαστου καὶ τὴν πρωτὴν οὐσίαν

and this more or less fits word to word. More literally: "By eidos I mean ...". The Greek word eidos can mean "shape", "appearance", "form" – literally, that which you can see, but in this context most likely chosen by the philosopher, presumably Aristotle, in contrast to "matter". "Essence" seems a fair translation.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps.--Doug ^talk 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitions: "agalma" and "plotin"

Looking for further detailed definitions for these words. They don't seem to be common words. Context #2 here under definition of dialectics. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The OED flags "agalma" as Greek, and obsolete in English. "An honour, ornament, statue, picture. Found in Dicts., but never used in Eng." The word Plotin is shown in your source in brackets and small caps, and I assume it stands for Plotinus. If you Google both "Plotinus and "agalma" you will find a few suggestions as to what he meant by it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the answer. I also was stumped by "plotin" - which I do now believe you are correct as to meaning Plotinus; as I also found "Platon" using your Google suggestion. Platon and Plotinus apparently mean the same thing, and related dialectical mythology of "PROCLUS" of similar meaning. Thanks for clues.--Doug ^talk 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Platon" or "Platoon" is (transliterated) Greek for whom we call Plato. This was a very different person than the Neoplatonist Plotinus (in Greek "Plotinos" or "Plootinos"), who lived about six centuries later. The latter is also not to be confused with any of several Roman people named Plautinus, on none of whom we seem to have an article.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Lambiam for clearing this up. There are three figures here of Plato 428 - 348 BC and Plotinus 205 - 270 AD and Proclus 412 - 485 AD.--Doug ^talk 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivation or Etymology

I know names have meanings because this site has a database of all first names and their meanings and pronounciations: http://www.behindthename.com. However, I do not know what does the name "Eragon" mean. What does this name mean? What language is it? Is it hebrew? Keturah in Keturah and Lord Death is a hebrew name, meaning "incense". 69.216.16.151 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this Eragon: it's just a made-up name and has no more significance than, say, Frodo or Gereth.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an anagram of the name of a fruit. A.Z. 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is the anagram of the name of a fruit, then I think the fruit's name is orange. That's the only fruit I know that has those letters. On the other hand, Eragon may have a derivation from "Aragon", or the place name of Catherine of Aragon, the first wife of King Henry VIII. 69.216.16.151 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the name did not derive from anything. It's fictional. The study of Etymology tends to look at small changes in a word appearing over time as people moved across physical distances and socio-economic journeys. This is, instead, the mind of a fantasy writer. The note about Frodo is spot on. -M^ask? 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just guessing, but it looks to me like Dragon+1. --Reuben 08:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also an anagram of the name of a species in the horse family and a siege weapon, and it resembles paragon and Eradan. And Alagaësia sounds like a painkiller, which is what the makers of the Eragon film must have needed after seeing its critical reception. But Reuben is spot-on above: quoting the author himself:

I use several techniques for inventing the names of characters and places. Sometimes I write lists of interesting sounding names, switching syllables and letters until I find ones that I like. Names such as Eragon and Saphira incorporate a bit of wordplay: Eragon is dragon with one letter changed (it also means era-gone, as in a time gone by).[1]

 --Lambiam^Talk 12:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Information Lost in Time

I am looking for the word or term for when information in general (i.e. ancient history) goes from one generation to another and each time this happens a bit of information gets lost in time. Ultimately (i.e. 1000 years - 5000 years) enough information gets lost in time of the "little bits" that some important historical facts are no longer in the history books of modern times (i.e. detailed construction of the Colossus of Rhodes or the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza).What is this "term" or "word"? Is there a term for the opposite of this where then the "original" information is found again (i.e. detailed engineering plans for the construction of the Great Pryamid of Giza found in the center of the structure carved into the walls of a hidden chamber) or another example might be the Rosseta Stone of different languages to be able to then read Hieroglyphs, a skill (knowledge), once lost in time, is then retrieved. This "term"?--Doug ^talk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost knowledge, no? - Nunh-huh 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lossy compression? —Tamfang 07:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You would think there would be a particular word (or term) for this LOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEKS, for example. Perhaps the recovery of this "Lost Knowledge" might be called the Renaissance, which I understand was a term not actually used by the humanist in the Fourteenth Century. What was the word or term used then for this "rebirth" of knowledge lost of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, etc.- that was recovered ("Found Knowledge") around the 14th to 16th centuries.--Doug ^talk 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have arcanum/arcana, recondite or abstruse. — Gareth Hughes 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I believe you are correct.--Doug ^talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have observed. When I go to older encyclopedias (i.e. 1914 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 old Catholic Encyclopedia, other older encyclopedias ("Cyclopedias") 50 - 100+ years old, there seems to be bits of knowledge that are no longer in the "modern" versions (for whatever reason). Is this just my observation or is there such a phenomenon? Why so?--Doug ^talk 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly such a phenomenon. It's also entirely possible (particularly on short timescales like you're describing) that the bits have been intentionally omitted for a variety of reasons rather than having been accidentally lost. — Lomn 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Is there then a term as related to this of "intentional"?--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The amount of stuff that could be put in an encyclopedia increases each year. Publishers of encyclopedias understandably want to limit the total size. —Tamfang 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it - Wikipedia! (paperless)--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The information has become non-notable. Given enough time, all information will eventually become non-notable, and Wikipedia administrators will roam the world with enormous firepower in order to enforce ignorance. -88.109.200.188 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"memore of his ristrettezze"

What does this mean in plain simple English?--Doug ^talk 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Literally: mindful of his restrictions (or straits, economic difficulties, e.g.). Ristrettezze could possibly also refer to ristrettezza di veduta in which case it would mean mindful of his narrow-mindedness. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in reference to an inheritance that Petrarch gave to Boccaccio "to Giovanni Boccaccio, memore of his ristrettezze, fifty fiorini of gold in order to buy one winter garment to be worn while studying during the night hours"; so mindful of his economic difficulities might apply or mindful of his straits or mindful of his restrictions might also apply. Now my understanding is that Boccaccio was not hurting ("economic wise"), so perhaps the later two would be more appropriate.....??? Any guesses further what exactly it might mean? I do not think mindful of his narrow-mindedness applies. What do you think further on this? Would mindful of his restrictions or straits apply to money then? It seems to me that "50 fiorini of gold" would have been in excess for a simple winter coat then. The same amount was given to Giovanni Dondi dall'Orologio (scientist and physician) for a "small finger ring". In comparison I see he gave his brother Gherardo a sum of 100 florins or 5 - 10 florins annually (whichever he wanted). This would be like a winter coat and a finger ring for a total inheritance to his brother or a tenth of a winter coat for an annual income. Was 100 florins a large sum then or a small sum? --Doug ^talk 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This table lists the value of 1 florin as equivalent to 300 ducats in 1337, when Bocaccio was in his early twenties. So 100 florin would be worth about 30,000 ducats, or the price of a "Luxury townhose (sic) with courtyard". In other words, quite a lot. But I don't know how reliable this table is, whether it applies to later decades in the 14th century, and where it takes this information from. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Petrarch could be mocking Boccaccio. Tesseran 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The money makes sense to me. This would be then equalivent to a $300,000 townhouse in the United States (except perhaps for California). Many places you can get a "Luxury townhose with courtyard" for this in the United States (perhaps even Europe). Then the annual income of one tenth this or $15,000 - $30,000 would make sense, since this is an amount one could live on each year. So "50 fiorini of gold" would then be worth (in equivalent approximate today's dollars) about $150,000 = an excessive amount for just a winter coat. A "finger ring" could cost $150,000, especially for a scientist and physician. Also if I am correct, Boccaccio had lots of money so this would not necessarily be a great benefit to him. I do not believe Petrarch was mocking Boccaccio, since he was a very close friend. What do you suppose "a winter coat to be worn while studying and working during the night hours" meant then?--Doug ^talk 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedis

Can someone give me a good definition for "dedis"? I believe it to be an old English or Middle English word.--Doug ^talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a context? It doesn't look Old English, but I can imagine it could be a Middle English spelling of deeds. It's not in my CD-ROM version of the OED, though. —Angr 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The context would be "Dedis of the Apostles" as in Acts of the Apostles, written as John Wycliffe (Middle English) as he wrote it. Looking for a more defined definition than perhaps just "acts". Deeds sounds correct! The word "actions" perhaps comes into play. Any other guesses?--Doug ^talk 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED entry for deed gives the following entry:

†c. Deeds of the Apostles: the Acts of the Apostles. Obs. c1380 WYCLIF Wks. (1880) 195 Peter saiþ in dedis of apostlis..þat to him neiþer was gold ne siluer. 1382 — Acts (title), Heere begynnen the Apostles Dedes. 1533 GAU Richt Vay (1888) 37 In ye xx c. of the dedis of the Apostlis.

So, everything said above looks correct. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for confirmation. Acts of the Apostles is then "Deeds of the Apostles", which makes sense to me.--Doug ^talk 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Greek name Ihsous

I understand the transliteration of Ihsous is Iesous (Ιήσους) which is pronounced EE-AY-SOOS. Is the "EE" like a long "eeeee" and the "AY" like the English letter "I" or is it closer to "AH" (like in: Ah, now I get it!)? I understand the Latin pronunciation however was still identical to the Greek "ee-ay-soos" or "Ee-ay-sous." Would the pronunciation then of this be like that of E-I-SOOS even though the English spelling by Wycliffe was IESUS? I understand the letters "ous" they turned into "SOOS" because of it's similarity to the name Zeus. --Doug ^talk 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Koine Greek phonology gives a good explanation of the pronunciation of the Greek used in the Old Testament. The section on the phonology of Egyptian Greek in the early 1st century explains the pronunciation of Greek around the time of Jesus. Per this section, Ιήσους would have been pronounced /iesu:s/ in IPA, or roughly eeaysoos (in which the "ay" is pronounced as in "say", but without the "y" offglide), though the initial "ee" could have been so brief that the word would have sounded like "yaysoos". By the 4th century, the pronunciation would have been closer to "yeesoos" in English. In Latin, "i" before another vowel was regularly pronounced like the consonant "y" in English. So the Latin "Jesus" would have been pronounced like "yaysoos" in English (again, "ay" is pronounced as in "say", but without the "y" offglide). By the way, neither the Greek nor the Latin pronunciation would have rhymed with the pronunciation of Zeus, which would have been pronounced in 1st-century Greek as /zews/ in IPA, which would have rhymed with something between the upper-class English pronunciations of "close" and "house". Marco polo 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an apparent belief among some recent obscurer religious trends that the English name "Jesus" (crude pronounciation indication DZHEE-zuhs) was maliciously altered from the original source (Hebrew/Aramaic Yēšū`) in order to rhyme with "Zeus" and introduce a "J" unknown to antiquity, but that is actually most definitely not the case.

To start with, ancient Greek Ιησους or Iēsous was actually the closest possible adaptation or borrowing of the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic name Yēšū` (yod-shin-waw-`ayin ישוע) into Greek which the rules of the sound-system and morphology of Greek would allow, since the ancient Greek language did not have any voiced pharyngeal `Ayin consonant or palatal sibilant [š] ("sh") sound, and insofar as a [y] consonant sound existed, it was just a non-phonemic variant of the [i] vowel. So there were simply no separate Greek letters for `Ayin, "sh", or "y". And in late Hellenistic Greek, omicron-ypsilon was pronounced as a simple long [u] vowel (the [u] in Yēšū` is also long). And finally, if a noun or name was to be "declined" in Greek (i.e. have distinct forms for at least some of the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative morphological cases), then it needed to have appropriate Greek grammatical endings added on at the end -- and "s" was an extreemly common nominative singular ending for masculine signular nouns. So Iēsous (crude prononunciation indication "yayssooss") was the nearest that ancient Greek could get to Hebrew and/or Aramaic Yēšū` while obeying the rules of ancient Greek grammar. (As "Marco Polo" said above, Iēsous did not in fact rhyme with Zeus in ancient Greek.)

Then Latin Iesus or Jesus (5th declension) was a perfectly normal transcription of Greek Ιησους (with the same basic pronunciation "yayssoos"; note that "I" and "J" were not distinguished as separate letters in the Latin alphabet until around the 18th century). The Latin form would have appeared in a monumental stone inscription as IESVS, but is usually transcribed as "Jesus" in modern use, in accordance with normal conventions. The changes from Latin IESVS to the modern English pronunciation ("y" to "dzh", "s" to "z" indervocalically etc.) are in accordance with the usual historical sound changes affecting words borrowed from Latin through old French to Middle English. - AnonMoos 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just a side remark - Iesus isn't 5th declension, or really any normal declension in Latin, it's kind of a strange 4th declension with only 3 forms (Iesus, accusative Iesum, and Iesu for for genitive, dative, and ablative). Adam Bishop 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant 4th declension (always get the 4th and 5th confused). It's a Greek-inflected noun, but most resembles the 4th declension among the native Latin inflection patterns. AnonMoos 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the very detailed answers. Read over carefully and will be studing this further. As an observation I see Zeus of Greek has a genitive: "Dios." This then looks to me combined as E-I-DIOS. Isn't there a Greek word EIDOS? It has something to do with the Theory of forms. This is something like the word nous which also has something to do with the Theory of Forms as well as The Form of the Good. Is there (or could there be) a relationship or connection here? It so happens that the word "Nous" is pronounced to rhyme with "house" (as well as other English languages close to upper-class English of "close"), similar to how Marco polo pointed out of /zews/.--Doug ^talk 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous didn't rhyme with Zeus in ancient Greek. Zeus/Dios comes from an Indo-European root Dyew- or Deiw- (meaning "sky, heavens, god"), while Eidos comes from an Indo European root Wid- / Weid- (meaning "to see", or in perfect verb stem, "to know"). AnonMoos 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Doug, you can't just go adding in letters as you feel like, and then saying "Isn't there a connection?" The similarity between 'dios' and 'eidos' is 'd', which isn't much! (The '-os' in 'eidos' is grammatical ending). In some circumstances metathesis can play a role, so two sounds are swapped between related words (such as 'three' and 'third'), but not usually a vowel and a stop consonant. --ColinFine 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Paying for Church service

In not being a church goer I don't understand why one must give money for Church service. To me it looks like one must give money to clergy (i.e. Pastor or Priest) to interpret the Bible and for other "services". Why? Who determines how much one should give? Is it something like how you would give money (i.e. tip) to a waitress for "service" (the better the service, the better the tip)? How would one know they are getting a good product or the correct service for the hard earned money given to the church? --Doug ^talk 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is based on the assumption that the clergy have expenses - church maintenance, food, housing on a continuing basis and that they are also usually attemoting to coordinate the promotion of their faith - usually a costly exercise. The church attenders are assumed to be in favour of the institution and its aims and thus this provides an easy mechanism to contribute to the running costs. If you had a church costing $100,000 a year to run, with a congregation of 100, then to break even they would need $1000 from each attnder per year or $20 a head a weekend. There are many references to tithes which are always (often?) 10% of income. -- SGBailey 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be like a tip in the way that you phrase your question. The purpose is to support the church and its activities such as evangelical missions and such things. The idea is for the parishiners to support the churches programs so that the word of their god can be spread and the non-members of the religion may thus be saved. Although, some people use the money for their own luxeries and comfort. Dismas|^(talk) 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like yet another provocation. Doug: please see tithe for information. No one "pays for church service." No one. Once upon a distant time, there were things like chantry, but those days are long, long gone. Utgard Loki 13:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people do pay for some church services. While I know of no requirement to pay to attend a typical Sunday service in a Christian church, people do pay for special services such as weddings or funerals. - Eron ^Talk 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, special services have expenses, but that is paying for the rearrangement of the church and the minister acting in, frankly, a civil role. One pays a JP for a marriage or the county/parish for a funeral as well. Our provocateur's question was about "pay to pray," and no one does that. Besides, he should see tithe if he wants a full discussion in an NPOV manner. Utgard Loki 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Charging someone for religious services such as hearing confession or a prayer or a mass was long considered a violation of Canon law and was referred to as Simony. But a church would function about as well with no income as a restaurant, hotel or theater would. A church could meet in someone's home with an unpaid pastor. Many start out this way, then decide to construct a church building to make provide an atmosphere more conducive to worship and to extend the mission of the congregation. To purchase property and build a church seating hundreds of people can cost millions of dollars. In the U.S., the government does not directly support churches as was done in some European countries with established churches, and does not collect a church tax from members or from all citizens as is done in some countries. The indirect support is that since the church is a not-for profit religious establishment, it does not pay the property tax that it would if it were run for profit, and as a 501c-3 charity, donations to a church are deductible on the tax return. Some states allow churches to buy lower cost "charitable" plates for church-owned vehicles. A church has to maintain the "bricks and mortar" and usually has a property committee. It may cost about 1% of the construction cost for long term annual maintenance. The structure usually starts with a mortgage which must be paid, and then there are improvements, such as adding a parish hall or fellowship hall, and perhaps an educational wing for sunday school. Volunteers can paint and such, but construction companies do not build churches for free. The pastor, secretary, janitor, and music director are often paid workers. The gas, electric and water bills must be paid. Some churches are finding that to make an old building handicapped accessible, it may cost half a million dollars for an elevator and accessible bathrooms. Cities require a church kitchen to be built to the same standard as a restaurant kitchen, with state of the art commercial appliances. Some give a tithe, but in the U.S. giving by members averages closer to 2 or 3% of income. And averages are deceiving: some feel that a dollar a week in the collection plate is plenty, while others give over $100 a week. It is often 10% of the members who give over half of the offerings. Many churches pass along a significant fraction of their receipts to charities and to the national church body to supprt their work and seminaries to train ministers. Edison 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all these great detailed answers; appreciate them! It looks like a "business' to me; perhaps a very lucrative one based on some church structures. I have noticed in some cities a nice large Bank building on a corner, however on the next block an even bigger church. Apparently there is much money to be made in the religion business. I won't remark on the scandals of some people. Even though many churches pass along a significant fraction of their receipts to charities (which is a very nice thing to do to help people in need), apparently also there are similar problems in the religion business as in the corporate world when money is involved. Thanks again for the detailed answers. --Doug ^talk 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some churches do quite well, yes. Especially those with large congregations in affluent areas or with a televised ministry. Small rural churches in poor areas losing population tend to be quite poor, however, and are closing their doors one by one. StuRat 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is quite frank about charging for "spiritual auditing" services ([2]). To each their own, I guess. --TotoBaggins 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do "hunches" come from?

Hunch can be defined as:

• suspicion (an impression that something might be the case)
• a guess or feeling not based on known facts at that moment.
• an intutive reckoning that an "impossibe" is really possible.

Where do "hunches" come from? Is there a "storehouse" someplace full of Ideas and then a "hunch" is where we get a "connection" to an Idea (perhaps one that is unknown at the time: example being Edison and his electric lamp)? --Doug ^talk 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it's a combination of intellect, judgement and instinct. It is not 'feminine intuition'; it is my intuition. Clio the Muse 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Lockean psychology (sorry for referring to John Locke twice in only a few minutes), these are 'rhymes' or 'harmonies' of disparate ideas that jingle with each other according to the fancy of the mind. Judgment then takes over to test whether these likenesses are valid, and then imagination works out how they can be real. Despite 300 years, this remains generally how intuition is understood: one idea jars with another, one bit of dormant memory kicks, and some similarity not apparent on the surface strikes one, and then one begins to weigh, assess, and project. The electric light isn't very much a random thought, but the safety pin might be, or the zipper. Most of these intuitions are described in memoirs as starting with an observation that "strikes" one a particular way and brings out other thoughts. These ties and connections can be at any level, from simple linguistic ones to shapes or colors or properties. Utgard Loki 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can mention John Locke as often as you wish, Utgard Loki, without apology! Clio the Muse 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

that reminds me, i forgot to tivo LOST. thanks. the_undertow ^talk 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur is credited with saying "Fortune favors the prepared mind." [3]. Thomas Edison and a team of assistants did thousands of experiments over many months to come up with the first practical light bulb in 1879: He perhaps had a hunch at the beginning of the work that he could make a successful incandescent lamp from a thin strip of platinum heated by electricity in open air with a regulator to prevent the temperature from reaching the melting point, but the eventual first practical lamp was notable for a carbon filament of very small cross section, to make it high resistance, so that it could be supplied with electricity from a distance, in a one piece glass bulb with an extremely high vacuum and with the metal leads well sealed where they passed through the glass. Hunches had surprisingly little to do with the successful research program, and exhaustive tireless empiricism had everythng to do with it. 10,000 hunches, 9,999 dead ends, one success. And in the proces, the invention of the vacuum tube in the form of the Edison effect, which was used a few years later to launch the field of electronics. Edison 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison answering this question, other editors answering questions on the nine Muses and on Marco Polo. I have a hunch that it's time to re-read WP:COI. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the 10,000 experiments and the 9,999 dead ends, it looks to me that at least one was an intelligent "hunch" that it might work then. Somebody (one or more of Edison's assistants) had the "idea" that with this combination you described above, that it would produce an incandescent lamp that would work on electricity. It did not happen by accident! Initially it must have been Edison that had this "hunch" before he set in motion many of his assistants to perform thousands of experiments. This was not a casual decision and cost a lot of money. It must have been a "hunch" that ultimately it would pay back profits; since he was willing to pursue it to fruition. Or was it a darn good guess? To me it looks like these experiments were just the mechanics of bringing his "hunch" to fruition. Did he somehow "connect" to this "storehouse" of Ideas and already know that it would work and that it was then merely the mechanics of putting it together; since nobody else had ever done anything like this before him. How did he know it would work? --Doug ^talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were electric lighting apparatuses before Edison (just not as good as his). AnonMoos 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he must have had an intelligent "hunch" that he could make a superior long lasting incandescent lamp. Where did he get that Idea from? --Doug ^talk 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good business idea? X is a nice thought, but it's impractical. I bet I could sell Improved-X for lots of money! Edison bought out older patents on primitive light bulbs and experimented until he produced a commercially viable one. You may find Occam's Razor of interest, as your suppositions seem to introduce lots of unneccessary and untestable notions to explaining the idea of invention. — Lomn 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his work and inventions, Edison said "None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.". - Eron ^Talk 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! This is approximately what I am saying. In this quote it looks like to me he is able to "see" that it was doable, then it was just the mechanics = "make trial after trial until it comes." If he did not even have an intellegent inclination it would work he would not have invested this large amount of money and time to bring it to fruition. It looks like a "hunch" to me, being then some sort of inside information that ultimately it would work. Where did he get this "inside information"? This notion of an intelligent "hunch" could be brought over also to the Wright Brothers and their invention of a heavier-than-air controllable airplane. While many others invested much more money to make this come about, they failed. However apparently they were able to get better "hunches' and with a limited budget (a fraction of others) they were successful. Where did they get their "hunches". --Doug ^talk 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a parallel here with arguments regarding intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Just as there are those who argue that some natural systems are too complex to have arisen spontaneously, you seem to be arguing that some ideas are too good to have arisen spontaneously. I can't say as I am any more convinced by the latter argument than the former. Complex natural systems arise from millions upon millions of organisms living, dying, and evolving. For every human eyeball that arises, there are thousands of genetic and evolutionary dead ends. In the same way, for every Edison and every light bulb, there are a thousand toilers in a thousand basements, trying out other ideas that fall short of success. But we never see or hear of them; bad ideas (well, most of them) are lost to the ages. We see only an almost unbroken string of successful inspirations, not the undoubtedly larger number of failures. - Eron ^Talk 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A hunch can be a flash of holistic understanding in the prepared mind, an epiphany. Then the other half of the brain sets out to work the "hunch" through logically. See Charles Darwin's "hunch" during The Voyage of the Beagle. --Wetman 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See also lateral thinking. --Wetman 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sciences, hunches often come from analogies and symmetries. —Tamfang 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for these great answers....--Doug ^talk 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena which might hold great scientific or commercial promise are often ignored by the "unprepared mind." Penicillin for instance. There is not much proof of Thomas Edison buying predecessor lamp patents. This seems to be grasping on the part of fans of earlier unsuccessful researchers, whose bulbs drew excessively high current at low voltage and burned out in an hour or two. The really early patents (like 1845) had expired, and his successful lamp did not use patented features of previous efforts, as the courts finally decided, when there were only a couple of years left on his patent. Edison was optimistic that he could find a way to "subdivide" the electric light, with leading scientists and earlier experimenters saying it as impossible and he was on a fool's errand or was a charlatan. Edison 05:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This of Edison being "optimistic" is what I am alluding to of a "hunch". He spent a lot of money, time, and energy in developing a lamp that would be commercially viable. Somehow he knew information that others didn't have and was willing to spend all this time, money, and energy; since he knew he would prevail. As was determined, he did not use patented features of previous efforts. He must have had a "hunch" he had inside information. Obviously he knew information that the others didn't have, since he was successful and the other were not. His was definitely a prepared mind. He had enough information (wherever he got it from) to be optimistic that he would be successful = "hunch".--Doug ^talk 12:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Kekule's dream about the Ouroboros, that led him to discovering the benzene ring. Or his vision of dancing atoms and molecules that led to his theory of structure, which he said happened while he was riding on the upper deck of a horse-drawn omnibus in London. JackofOz 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The [[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfly (talk • contribs) 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

But why are you presuming that he knew he would prevail? He THOUGHT he would prevail. I question whether you can say with certainty he knew he would prevail. As others have pointed out, many people think they will prevail and think they know something others don't and spend lots of money, time and energy until their either prevail or they give up/die. The key thing here is each one thought they would prevail but we only remember the ones who prevailed. The ones who don't generally fade into obscurity. In retrospect, we may be able to see many ideas are just plain stupid but if you are looking at things from the view of an observer of the times, it's usually far more difficult to know which idea is a winner and which one is stupid. Edit looking at this [4] it appears that as one would expect Edison had failed ideas as well. It's likely in each case he equally thought he would prevailed, but he didn't always Nil Einne 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Force

Apparently there is a "mysterious force" that is emanated by a person when one is trying seriously to solve a problem. It then seems to attract (i.e. like a magnet) the answer from various "sources" and from other people. What would the term or word be for this phenomenon or "magnetic force"? --Doug ^talk 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence. - Nunh-huh 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention, if you are really really serious on solving the problem you can "connect" to this force (i.e. like connecting to the internet). And I dare to say that only those that have experienced this "force" will know the answer.--Doug ^talk 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter experience was described by Madame Blavatsky as connecting to the Akashic record.. - Nunh-huh 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! --Doug ^talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There, see what I mean. You found it for me! I was really really looking for this answer - and puff, there it came. Not only that, but I have sense found other answers for this. One being a Wikipedia article on Law of Attraction and similar "Laws" that have been written in various books by Brian Tracy, especially his book on The 100 Absolutely Unbreakable Laws of Business Success. I personally have experience this "force" many times. It works not only in finding research information like this, but in business as well. --Doug ^talk 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't come to you, "puff"! It came because you asked on a reference desk. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it did. There is no magic here. Clio the Muse 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are absolutely correct in that I did ask for what this was and I received an excellent answer. However nobody came up with Law of Attraction which I did not know was on Wikipedia until after I asked this question. I was then "attracted" to this answer by some "force". Had I already known this was on Wikipedia I would not have asked what this was called, since the answer would have been Law of Attraction. However now I have several answers that I didn't have earlier today. Thanks again for your great answers and responses. --Doug ^talk 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem easiest to assume that the "attraction" was a research interest and the "force" was clicking hyperlinks in relevant or related articles; otherwise, thinking of something and then hitting "Random article" a few times would seem to be superior to using the RD. I don't bring this up to mock but rather to point out that this has all the trappings of bad pseudoscience: untestable claims, answerable only by true believers, and the like. — Lomn 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF? dr.ef.tymac 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The excellent answer given to me was of Akashic record which is referred to as "a collection of mystical knowledge" which is approximately what I asked, which I referred to as a "Mysterious Force". I never mentioned magic, but did say it was "mysterious". Didn't set anything up as "trappings", but just trying to figure it out. Sorry. --Doug ^talk 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for answers, so please assume good faith. Not trying to make anyone believe anything (i.e. paranormal, religion, or otherwise), except for perhaps common sense "practical knowledge". However if you don't want to believe in that, its alright by me. I'll go by what works for me, you go by what works for you. My questions are just for finding out answers and are not any kind of "trappings". With that being said, I do believe that Brian Tracy has some excellent business common sense practical solutions that actually work. Not trying to make you believe them or even promoting any of his products (which most by the way you can get free at the library). He is about as far away from the paranormal as you can get and is about as close to practical applications as you can get. So when he talks of the Law of Attraction I pay attention. The book (ISBN 1-57675-126-0) I referred to above you can get at your local library free and it talks of this Law plus some 100 more. These mostly apply for business, however many apply to everyday applications. --Doug ^talk 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Trappings" refers to the outward signs or appearances of a particular thing or idea. It seems like you're interpreting the word to mean something along the lines of "trap". It doesn't, so Lomn's answer was probably not as antagonistic as you first thought. GreatManTheory 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, sorry. --Doug ^talk 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and the Bible

Common sense can be defined as:

• that which people in general "sense" in common as their common natural understanding (i.e. obey the laws of the land).
• that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment (i.e. stay healthy).

Jesus taught common sense lessons (i.e. parables) in all four Gospels. There are other examples throughtout the New Testament given by elders. What is the closest term or word used in the Bible to "represent" the above definitions of common sense itself? --Doug ^talk 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In Old Testament terms it'd be "Tzedek". That's difficult to translate. It's a melange of righteousness, justice and correct behaviour. It cuts across man/man and man/God relationships. However, the concept of common sense is alien to the Old Testament. The whole dang thing is about how people aren't very good at creating their own moral codes and therefore should accept one pre-packaged for them. Interested to see New Testament answer - I guess the term would be Greek? --Dweller 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent answer as it pertains to the Old Testament. Most interested in the New Testament (especially as related to Jesus). What is this Greek term or word?--Doug ^talk 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't get a handle on this. Your description of common sense seems very close to conventional morality, and in the Gospels Jesus' teachings are presented as definitely unsettling to conventional morality. If you point to a particular example in the N.T. where the quality you mean is emphasized, I might be able to shed some light on the terms in which it is spoken of. Offhand, the closest I can offer is the parable of the virgins trimming their wicks (Matthew 25:1-13), where the ones who have the good sense (phronimoi) to prepare prudently come out better. You can see all N.T. usages of this word ("wise" KJV) by following this link. Wareh 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I do believe you have come up with a Greek word of what I am speaking about of that of Good sense being: phronimoi. Personally I am not looking at this from a morality viewpoint, however just took this definition straight off Wikipedia of common sense. Looking at it more from the viewpoint of Practical Knowledge. Your example is what I am refering to; others are:

• Parable of the Sower
• Parable of the Faithful Servant
• New Wine into Old Wineskins
• new cloth to patch old clothing Mark 2:21

Do you have the equivalent Latin or Italian word also? Are any of these words actually in the New Testament? --Doug ^talk 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prudentia", the source of our "prudence", can mean ";good sense" or "common sense" in Latin. According to this there are 63 occurences of prudentia in the Vulgate. Adam Bishop 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Is there another Latin word or Latin term (or even Italian) used in the New Testament that refers to that of what I am referring to of "practical knowledge" of the parables above other than the excellent example you gave me here? --Doug ^talk 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, beware this quest. In the case of parables, they were quite often misunderstood by their immediate audience, and Jesus upbraids his disciples and the crowd often enough for not understanding what He was saying. "Let those with ears, hear" and "You have ears but do not hear, eyes but do not see," as well as several instances where "the disciples took him aside privately and asked for the meaning of the parable" suggest that Jesus is appealing to a 'practical' understanding that He finds lacking at the particular moment. Therefore, it's unlikely that Christ would have used a long formulation for this complaint if there were a single word that conveyed all of the nuances of "common sense" in English. This is a separate question from whether the Romans and Greeks had a term for a) the sense that unites disparate concepts (the Lockean "common sense"), b) the sense of things that is inherent to sentience (the "common birthright sense of things"), or c) the sense of things established by human society (the "common person's sense of things"). They more or less did. Utgard Loki 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Eidos

Is it correct that the word eidos is the same as Platonic Ideas Theory of forms? Would this then have the same basic meaning as American usage of idea? Word origination or history. --Doug ^talk 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Greek word eidos means 'form, shape'. It's seen in English in, for example, kaleidoscope ('pretty-shape-viewer'). It's also an element in words ending in -oid; eg, rhombo-eidos becomes rhomboid, shaped like a rhombus. It's different from Greek idea, which is the word I presume you are thinking of in connection with Plato, though I think they are from the same root. Maid Marion 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doug ^talk 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, since you may have misunderstood my information on the Greek word idea above. This Greek word does not mean "idea" in any ordinary sense of the English word (other than the extremely rare reference to the Platonic "Ideas"). Therefore, when eidos (in one of its uses) refers to the Platonic Forms, this by itself guarantees that it does not mean "idea" in any ordinary non-philosophical usage (including "American usage"). Now I'm going to confuse things by pointing out something that is 99% likely to be irrelevant to anything. Greek eidos was (according to the lexicon, which see for the word's various meanings) used in the sense "specific notion, meaning, idea" by Aeneas Tacticus. But this is not in any way the basic, normal, or common sense of the word. Wareh 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous / Naus

I understand the word nous is an informal British term meaning "common sense" (intelligence applied in a practical fashion). Can you give me a typical usage of this or how it migh be used in a sentence? Is it used often or is it Old school? Word origination. --Doug ^talk 11:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-- (Sorry, this is meant to be a reply! dur - RA) An example culled from memory, from a TV interview with a male-to-female transsexual: "I suppose having the operation and the hormone treatment didn't affect your business nous?" I'd say it's used occasionally, with a mildly colloquial feel (appropriate in magazine feature writing, say). It doesn't suggest any particular class or age feel to me - I wouldn't be surprised to hear royalty use it, nor the bloke who's failing to mend my roof at this very moment.

That is interesting because, as an American, I have never heard the word spoken and frankly don't know how to pronounce it. I've seen it in writing, I know that it is in fact a classical Greek word, and I would have thought that it was only used in very learned writing, maybe occasionally spoken by Oxford or Cambridge dons. Marco polo 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it several times in soccer coverage, so it can't be that high-falutin' anymore ("tactical nous" appears to have become a cliche). They usually pronounce it like "nooz" or "noos", if I recall. Recury 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing from Britain, I can confirm that the word is in quite common use, without any particular feeling of 'class' attached to it. As already stated, it is an Ancient Greek word meaning 'mind', and is pronounced like 'noose' when reading Greek (at least, that was the way I was brought up to read it in Greek). In English, though, it is invariably pronounced to rhyme with 'house'. Maid Marion 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

... and is sometimes written "nouse" - see this semi-reliable source, which has both spellings, and Nouse, the University of York student newspaper. Gandalf61 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common more in Northern British than in Southern British, and I can verify that it is always pronounced 'NOW-ss', to rhyme with 'house'.ScouseMouse - スカウサーUK! 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED has "nous: colloq. or slang. Intelligence, common sense, gumption. (Common from 19th cent.)" and includes the following contemporary illustrations: 1973 Times 22 Feb. 25/1 "If we had had a bit of nous we’d have probably discovered this earlier." 1975 Daily Tel. 29 Jan. 17 "The City, extraordinary as it may sound, has very limited political nous."--Shantavira 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doug ^talk 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition:

1. /'nüs also 'naus/ : MIND, REASON: as a : an intelligent purposive principle of the world b : the divine reason regarded in Neoplatonism as the first emanation of God
2. /'naus/ chiefly British : COMMON SENSE, ALERTNESS

I guess sense #1 is rare everywhere, whereas sense #2 is common in Britain but even less common than #1 in the U.S. I don't know whether British philosophers still use the Greek/U.S. pronunciation for sense #1. For British usage examples (sense #2), see 50 out of 56 matches from the British National Corpus, although half of these are false positives from French nous "we". jnestorius^(talk) 20:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quite common in Australia, where it's always pronounced "NOW-ss". JackofOz 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any background history on the word NAUS as it pertains to the Merriam Webster definition of "b" above:

the divine reason regarded in Neoplatonism as the first emanation of God

--Doug ^talk 22:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The medieval philosopher Bernard Silvestris called divine providence "nous" (or "noys") in his Cosmographia, if that helps. Adam Bishop 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For some background on Neoplatonic Nous, see Lloyd Gerson's SEP article on Plotinus (Nous is discussed under the name "Intellect" in the section "The Three Fundamental Principles of Plotinus' Metaphysics"). Also discussed under "The Intelligence" in this article. If you have subscription access to the Routledge Encyc. of Philosophy, see also here. (Plotinus is the fountainhead of Neoplatonism, which is why I'm referring to expositions of his ideas.) Wareh 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Word "Ideas"

What is the translated word for Ideas in

• Greek:
• Italian:
• Latin:

Thanks, --Doug ^talk 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek: ἰδέα, from eidon: I saw (from the article idea) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And the plural of that is ἰδέαι. The word was borrowed into Latin and Italian too; I'm going to guess [ideae] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) for Latin and [idee] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (three syllables) for Italian. —Angr 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the three languages, only in Italian does idea mean "idea." Although Classical Greek ἰδέα is the ultimate source of our word, it would translate English "idea" only in the case of the Platonic Ideas. English "idea" has many senses; fairly broad terms include Greek doxa (plural doxai) and noēma (pl. noēmata), Latin sententia (pl. sententiae) and notio (pl. notiones). (Follow the links for full dictionary entries describing these words' meanings.) Wareh 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doug ^talk 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Information Lost in Time

I am looking for the word or term for when information in general (i.e. ancient history) goes from one generation to another and each time this happens a bit of information gets lost in time. Ultimately (i.e. 1000 years - 5000 years) enough information gets lost in time of the "little bits" that some important historical facts are no longer in the history books of modern times (i.e. detailed construction of the Colossus of Rhodes or the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza).What is this "term" or "word"? Is there a term for the opposite of this where then the "original" information is found again (i.e. detailed engineering plans for the construction of the Great Pryamid of Giza found in the center of the structure carved into the walls of a hidden chamber) or another example might be the Rosseta Stone of different languages to be able to then read Hieroglyphs, a skill (knowledge), once lost in time, is then retrieved. This "term"?--Doug ^talk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost knowledge, no? - Nunh-huh 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lossy compression? —Tamfang 07:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You would think there would be a particular word (or term) for this LOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEKS, for example. Perhaps the recovery of this "Lost Knowledge" might be called the Renaissance, which I understand was a term not actually used by the humanist in the Fourteenth Century. What was the word or term used then for this "rebirth" of knowledge lost of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, etc.- that was recovered ("Found Knowledge") around the 14th to 16th centuries.--Doug ^talk 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have arcanum/arcana, recondite or abstruse. — Gareth Hughes 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I believe you are correct.--Doug ^talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have observed. When I go to older encyclopedias (i.e. 1914 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 old Catholic Encyclopedia, other older encyclopedias ("Cyclopedias") 50 - 100+ years old, there seems to be bits of knowledge that are no longer in the "modern" versions (for whatever reason). Is this just my observation or is there such a phenomenon? Why so?--Doug ^talk 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly such a phenomenon. It's also entirely possible (particularly on short timescales like you're describing) that the bits have been intentionally omitted for a variety of reasons rather than having been accidentally lost. — Lomn 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The amount of stuff that could be put in an encyclopedia increases each year. Publishers of encyclopedias understandably want to limit the total size. —Tamfang 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)