You must log in or # to comment.
Strawberry seeds are designed by a malevolent god to stick perfectly in human front teeth.
Raspberry seeds make fun of strawberry seeds.
I have a chia seed from 1973 in the back of my mouth.
strawberries are accessory fruits, not nuts.
But they’re covered in nuts
Kinda like your mom last night
👈😎👈
To me arguing over which fruit belongs in which category is a prime example of people arguing over shadows in Plato’s cave. Not that it’s a waste of time or anything but sometimes people act like tomatoes won’t grow if you call them vegetables. Like at the end of the day it’s just humans developing a system to make sense of nature rather than discovering an inherent, pre-existing system.
Like at the end of the day it’s just humans developing a system to make sense of nature
The core of the matter is that we have multiple, mutually incompatible schemes sharing in part the same terminology. Biology is not cooking, both fields care about vastly different things thus the categorisation scheme is different, that’s the end of it. Culinarily, tomatoes have too much umami to be fruit. Botanically peppermint is an aromatic, I recommend you not put any into your soffritto.
EDIT:
Tomato is also dominated by oxalic acid, not malic, citric, (typical fruit acids) or acetic (fermented/overripe). Oxalic acid is in parsley, chives, spinach, beans, lettuce, that kind of stuff. “It’s sour” isn’t sufficient to describe a taste profile, our tongues may not tell them apart but our noses definitely do.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesn’t tell you anything about the “why” but it’s definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
Oh, this is actually a perfect example of the arbitreity of mapping systems!
A looong time ago on reddit, I got into an argument with someone who was doing that thing where you confuse the map for the object itself. We were mostly talking about the chemistry table. But anyway, he just could not see how a change in motivation, that is what the map designer finds useful, could change how the map is arranged.
I mean, I don’t think this would convince him: he would just say the culinary version isn’t real. But still, I really like it.
I mean that’s a pretty big difference right?
Like, the periodic tables mapping isn’t arbitrary or alternate.
Like you can’t actually map the periodic a different way and it’s in a sense “self evident” in a way arbitrary mappings aren’t.
The periodic table itself is a kind of proof of quantum theory, or at least, strong supporting evidence. While it can be displayed differently, actually couldn’t be arranged differently and the things we know about physics hold true.
Ah, there he is!
Just kidding.
The extreme usefulness of the one periodic table as we know it is why this is so hard to talk about. Philosophically, it isn’t any different: it is arranged by human values for human consumption. I think there is likely a strong reason that alien values would converge here, but that doesn’t really affect its arbitreity. The elements don’t have value unto themselves, they just are.
And there are plenty of different ways to arrange it. For one, if all you care about are the metals for some reason, you can arrange the nonmetals out of it completely. You could keep a linear, alphabetical list because whatever work you’re doing is derived from chemistry but does not actually care about atomic values.
yeah. you don’t understand the periodic table. this is the same cliff that both post-modernists and fascists have pushed themselves off of.
You are mistaking relativity for subjectivity and the two things are not equal. Human experience is not the arbiter of truth, and you couldn’t have picked a possibly worse example than the periodic table. To put a finer point on it: No. There aren’t other ways to construct the periodic table. Its construction has nothing to do with human perception.
You should’ve spend the time to go read about it before you use it as an example.
Wow, there he is. Like, for real.
It’s okay, man. You majored in some science field, you don’t care much for philosophy; we don’t have to be at each other’s throats here. I’m not questioning the validity of the periodic table, it’s simply a way of thinking about it.
Dude I understand what you think you are saying and you are quite simply wrong. You don’t understand what the periodic table is if you think it could be constructed in some other way or that it’s organization is arbitrary or subjective.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
No wonder you got the piss taken out of your in that other place.
You need to put an exclamation mark (!) before you insert the image, like this:
Microsoft feigning innocence with cutesy trivia to distract us from their highly unethical business practices. Screw Microsoft. Use Linux 🐧.
- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.I’ve heard every combination of “[food] is actually [plant part]” so any time anyone says this type of sentence, I just roll my eyes.
