I recently read about a living whale that had a late 19th century harpoon stuck through its head. I didn’t fact check it, but if true, furious sea gods feels like a valid reinterpretation
that’s a dumb way to categorise things, like it’s an attempt to create a categorisation system that works against how we use language. it’s less “either everything is a fish or nothing is a fish” and more “we decided to take the meaningful word “fish” and devoid it of meaning for the purpose of making our graphs make sense”, what about the definitions of the word “fish” that aren’t based entirely on one specific point of view of a subgroup of scientist?
yeah i get that this perspective can be helpful in specific contexts, what annoys me is that it’s presented as universal, “no such thing as fish”. i would appreciate added clarity as to the point of view of the speaker, so such statements don’t come off as general words everyone should just accept as truth
1400s: Whales are furious sea-gods
1600s: Whales are big fish
1800s: Whales at not fish, they are mammals
2000s: Whales are big fish
2200s?: Whales are furious sea-gods
I recently read about a living whale that had a late 19th century harpoon stuck through its head. I didn’t fact check it, but if true, furious sea gods feels like a valid reinterpretation
https://www.sciencealert.com/actually-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-fish-say-cladists
that’s a dumb way to categorise things, like it’s an attempt to create a categorisation system that works against how we use language. it’s less “either everything is a fish or nothing is a fish” and more “we decided to take the meaningful word “fish” and devoid it of meaning for the purpose of making our graphs make sense”, what about the definitions of the word “fish” that aren’t based entirely on one specific point of view of a subgroup of scientist?
we use language in different contexts. In the food store “fruit” has one meaning, while in a botany paper, it has another.
This doesn’t say theres no such thing as fish generally, it says there is no useful definition for it in a biological setting.
yeah i get that this perspective can be helpful in specific contexts, what annoys me is that it’s presented as universal, “no such thing as fish”. i would appreciate added clarity as to the point of view of the speaker, so such statements don’t come off as general words everyone should just accept as truth
Or, conversely, mammals are fish https://theconversation.com/the-absurdity-of-natural-history-or-why-humans-are-fish-69384