I think words like “goat” should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.
A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.
All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean “member of genus Capra”, you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you’re out of luck.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
True in that it’s a fruit botanically and a vegetable culinarily (or, less arbitrarily for the latter, that it’s a part of a plant consumed for food).
A carrot, as another fun example, is a root botanically, a vegetable culinarily, and, in the European Union, a fruit legally as a carve-out for laws about making jams.
Doplphins and beavers don’t act or look like fish to me. Dolphins maybe I could understand if you were an ancient person who lived inland, but beavers?
But I guess part of crowdsourcing is that you get some really stupid people on the project.
“fish” is perhaps a bad example to make your point with, given that that’s a non-technical term that doesn’t refer to any particular genetic branch of the animal kingdom - hence the podcast “no such thing as a fish”. So I’d say that calling a mountain goat a goat is supported by the idea that many unrelated animals are called fish.
A mountain goat is a goat, it’s just not in genus Capra.
Fun trip and interesting trip through taxonomy, though, in addition to the gags. A collection of wikipedia articles would be a nice companion.
That’s definitionally what goats are. It’s close, being in the same subfamily, but then so are sheep.
I think words like “goat” should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.
A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.
All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean “member of genus Capra”, you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you’re out of luck.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
True or false: The tomato is a fruit and a vegetable.
True in that it’s a fruit botanically and a vegetable culinarily (or, less arbitrarily for the latter, that it’s a part of a plant consumed for food).
A carrot, as another fun example, is a root botanically, a vegetable culinarily, and, in the European Union, a fruit legally as a carve-out for laws about making jams.
Same with peppers, zucchini, and all forms of squash.
Also, strawberries aren’t fruit, botanically speaking because the seeds aren’t inside
Also this post is a joke, as King Bird isn’t taxonomically defined.
Wait until you find out what a fish is.
Either everything is fish, or nothing is
Nice ouroboros definition
Logic like this is why people used to consider mammals like dolphins and beavers as fish. Stop it.
Doplphins and beavers don’t act or look like fish to me. Dolphins maybe I could understand if you were an ancient person who lived inland, but beavers?
But I guess part of crowdsourcing is that you get some really stupid people on the project.
“fish” is perhaps a bad example to make your point with, given that that’s a non-technical term that doesn’t refer to any particular genetic branch of the animal kingdom - hence the podcast “no such thing as a fish”. So I’d say that calling a mountain goat a goat is supported by the idea that many unrelated animals are called fish.
Ahh so thats what Capra Demon is
Capri Denim!
Context is what matters, I agree, except in contexts where the difference is important (conservation, biology, ecology)