Humanities desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 16[edit]

Thomas Kuhn and the Replication Crisis[edit]

Has any research been done to connect Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to the Replication crisis? I know that a new edition was published in 2012. Was there an added introduction that discussed it? Have any scholarly works been published that explore the connection? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 03:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhn's work is about the evolution of scientific theory, whereas the replication crisis is the result of uncouth but common practices in scientific methodology. Remedies for the replication crisis do not entail any modifications of scientific theories, so one should not expect explorations of a connection that does not exist. --Lambiam 08:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam is correct. For a fairly simple and entertaining introduction to one factor behind the replication crisis, see the classic xkcd cartoon #882, which is explained in detail here... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Covid vaccine myocarditis risk on professional sports[edit]

Some Covid vaccines have a risk of myocarditis, so people are advised to avoid intense physical activity for 1-2 weeks after each jab. What is the impact and disruption to professional sports? Do they have to postpone or cancel games (which also happens when players test positive), carefully schedule the doses (so each team only has to rest 1-2 players at a time or do jab during off-season) or choose different vaccines for professional sports players? (Also, any professional sports players actually got myocarditis shortly after their jab?) -- 04:58, 16 December 2021 219.75.107.21

"advised to avoid intense physical activity for 1-2 weeks" Big ^{[citation needed]} here. --Bumptump (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks with IV & IIII united[edit]

The Zwölferturm in Sterzing, South Tyrol, combines a (mechanical) clock with Roman numeral IV and a (sundial) clock with Roman numeral IIII. Is there any other tower or fixed location in the world with this combination? --KnightMove (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a photo from 1912 which seems to show IIII (and not IV) in the upper mechanical clock face. It is a bit fuzzy, but I certainly read this as IIII. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you're right. Another puzzle to solve. --KnightMove (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The clockface (the modern one) is signed in the bottom right, and dated 1989. The sundial is also, but dated 1962. Card Zero (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1962 sundial may be a replica of a much older one that was lost. The inscription has erneuert, which can mean "renewed" or "renovated". The use of IV on the clockface, where the inscription has restauriert ("restored"), shows that its design is more modern. The three coats of arms, next to that of Sterzing also featuring prominently on the sundial, may define a time bracket. --Lambiam 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good fun. Servus aus Wien! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites five different theories as to why IIII is often used instead of IV on clocks and sundials. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IIIII theories or V? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

"Romans did want to offend and upset Jupiter": Genuinely wondering if this is a typo or not, enphasis added. 176.247.162.178 (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

However, it is not exactly known why clock makers chose IIII at a time when IV was already widely known and accepted. This hardly makes sense; "widely known and accepted" doesn't mean "widely accepted as the superior option." Plenty of scribes were still using IIII well into the late Middle Ages and beyond. Why, I don't know, any more than I know why 4 is closed to a point in this font I'm reading on the screen but has an open top in the alphabet painted onto my keyboard keys. Two forms for the same thing is nbd. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman_numerals#Variant_forms seems to be the most promising section of the article in this reguard. The article has also a source about clocks adding the King Louis XIV theory (Washington post, probably not the best one out there in this area) and something about Isaac Asimov and Juppiter. This doesn't really answer the question about similar cases, but I guess practical/economical reasons played a bigger role in the past (or just as big as now, just in different ways) and/or when big fancy clocks are considered, and looking for renewed/updated clocks seems to be the easiest way to find similar examples. 176.247.162.178 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have absolutely no idea if this were the reason (but neither does nobody has any idea what the real answer to this question is, and we are all wildly guessing), but IIII is objectively easier (i.e., faster) for humans to decode than is IV. Now, this exact match- up has not been scientifically tested, but it is the only possible outcome following similar scientific research that was proven. We humans are able to look at a grouping of objects/symbols/marks/etc, of four or less and instantaneously process the number of them; however, for any grouping of five or more, we cannot do so without eye movement and arithmetic processes. So that would, to some degree, explain why IIII but VIIII not nearly as common. (This also serves to explain tallying). The experiment design was to flash a clustered group of dot-shaped lights at a subject for a fraction of a second, then have them try to count how many there were based on the "ghost dots" left behind on their field of vision (thus not being able to count by moving their eyes over the dots, because the dots moved with their eyes: they were always able to identify the exact number if it were four or less, but failed if it were 5 or more.

so therefore, IIII, like III II and I, can be instantly decoded by all humans. No need to prove that IV holds no such magical property; to claim otherwise would deny that dyslexia exists :D. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E915:C0E7:63E2:3E2C (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But in any case surely no-one, perhaps apart from small children just learning, actually needs to read the figures (whether Roman or Numerals) on a normal circular clock face to tell the time; the relative positions and values of the notional 12 figures, however they are marked, are easily (and unconsciously) learned. Many timepieces, especially wristwatches, mark all but 12, 3, 6, and 9 (however written) with dots or similar non-graphic marks, and others have only dots. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.206.74.27 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the interesting thing about this clock, though - it's not like that at all! Because it's a sundial. -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]