I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don’t always agree.
Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they’re not taxonomically “true bugs”(which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits…but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.
So…colloquially,“plants” sorta means,“macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing,” but taxonomically it’s something else.
Similarly,“a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.
BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.
Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.
It has been argued that the definition is problematic because it depends on the location of the body: if a Mars-sized body were discovered in the inner Oort cloud, it would not have enough mass to clear out a neighbourhood that size and meet criterion 3. The requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium (criterion 2) is also universally treated loosely as simply a requirement for roundedness; Mercury is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium, but is explicitly included by the IAU definition as a planet
That’s not even addressing the issue of rogue planets which were ejected from their star system. Many estimates say they outnumber the stars. Obviously when a planet is ejected it doesn’t just disintegrate but by that poor definition it’s no longer a ““planet””, so it’s clearly a problematic definition.
If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.
From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.
afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?
I think an issue here is that taxonomic and colloquial definitions don’t always agree.
Spiders are colloquially bugs, but they’re not taxonomically “true bugs” (which is itself a colloquialism for Hemiptera). Tomatos are colloquially vegetables but taxonomically fruits…but afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.
And as someone else in the thread mentioned, colloquial berries are not always taxonomic berries.
So…colloquially, “plants” sorta means, “macroscopic multicellular living non-animal thing,” but taxonomically it’s something else.
And literally anything is a fish if you try hard enough
I mean, probably not bacteria or viruses.
Any vertebrate at least. A boney fish what likes a-bonin’
Similarly, “a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.
BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.
I like bananas
Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
And in that same article:
That’s not even addressing the issue of rogue planets which were ejected from their star system. Many estimates say they outnumber the stars. Obviously when a planet is ejected it doesn’t just disintegrate but by that poor definition it’s no longer a ““planet””, so it’s clearly a problematic definition.
If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.
From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.
I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?
but what about berry club? which things count as berries now?
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b4e8bc8c-ba51-40f2-9ff2-538c3d7ea526.jpeg
very well said
I hate the word colloquial
Colloquialism is the best word.