5 ms·

Is a hotdog a sandwich? What is it about humans that make us categorize things and then argue about the categorization? Categories are imperfect shortcuts to th

Is a hotdog a sandwich? What is it about humans that make us categorize things and then argue about the categorization? Categories are imperfect shortcuts to thinking about a problem.

peterthehacker 5y ago
Categories and abstraction generally is essential for solving a problem. Furthermore, how we categorize disciplines as scientific or pseudoscientific is very important. From the article: > But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
- dataviz1000 5y ago
  Yes. We use categories to describe a system. We categorize an engine into a the ignition system, cooling system, air intake system, ect.. We describe node.js by its categories -- errors, file system, streams, ect.. Systems are cyclic which means humans can pretty well make assumptions of a future state of a system by the current and past state of that system. If we want to know a future state, we need to first describe the system. I really like Robert Pirsig's idea of an analytical knife from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" to cut up systems into categories or category trees, there isn't a one way to do it but rather many ways to describe a system in categories that are more and less useful.
- okareaman 5y ago
  The slippery slope argument. If we don't hold the line, pretty soon we'll be calling astrology a science. Psychology has the potential to be a science, but it's early and we don't know enough. Electricity wasn't a science until Michael Faraday made it one. On the other hand, astrology has no potential to be a science.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when slipping down the slope doesn't actually happen (or can't possibly follow from the described beginning state). Some slippery slopes do actually exist. For example, if you put your weight over the line, you can literally slip down a slippery slope. On the subject of categories, they cease to be useful when the contents of the categories can no longer tell you anything about the category itself. The further you get down this axis, the less useful the category is. So any dilution of the strength of a category by overly broad inclusion should be scrutinized.
cies 5y ago
Sure. Another post on the front page now is about trees[1]. Where's the line between a short tree and a bush? We humans see the difference, but biology (a hard science) shows that using their classification rules there is no difference between a tall bush and a short tree. [1]: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...
- snet0 5y ago
  This is simply conflating terms, though. If your field re-defines a commonly used term to mean something very precise, obviously you're going to encounter problems when you try work backwards. "Tree" in the meaning of "some phylogenetic categorisation that contains elements x, y, z" may not exist in biology, but "tree" in the meaning of "big leafy thing made of wood" exists as sure as anything. Drawing lines is for scientific language, not general-purpose language.
Swizec 5y ago
Everyone knows a hot dog is a type of taco.
infimum 5y ago
> Is a hotdog a sandwich? Depends on whether the bun is cut in half. If yes it's a sandwich otherwise it's a pizza. /s Arguments about categorizations can be productive in as far as they allow you a glimpse into the thought-process of other people (=
im3w1l 5y ago
Let me answer your question with a story about Jaffa Cakes > In the United Kingdom, value added tax is payable on chocolate-covered biscuits, but not on chocolate-covered cakes.[14][15] McVities defended its classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes at a VAT tribunal in 1991, against the ruling that Jaffa cakes were biscuits due to their size and shape, and the fact that they were often eaten in place of biscuits.[16] McVities insisted that the product was a cake, and allegedly produced a giant Jaffa cake in court to illustrate its point.[16] > The court discounted the expert evidence, as it went beyond the capacity of an ordinary purchaser.[17] The product was assessed on the following criteria:[18][19] * The product's name was regarded as a minor consideration. * The ingredients were regarded as similar to those of a cake, producing a thin cake-like mixture rather than the thick dough of a biscuit. * The product's texture was regarded as being that of a sponge cake. * The product hardens when stale, in the manner of a cake. * A substantial part of the Jaffa cake, in terms of bulk and texture, is sponge. * In size, the Jaffa cake is more like a biscuit than a cake. * The product was generally displayed for sale alongside other biscuits, rather than with cakes. * The product is presented as a snack and eaten with the fingers, like a biscuit, rather than with a fork as a cake might be. The tribunal also considered that children would eat them in "a few mouthfuls", in the manner of a sweet. The court was adjudicated by Mr Donald Potter QC, who found in favour of McVitie's and ruled that whilst Jaffa Cakes had characteristics of both cakes and biscuits, the product should be considered a cake, meaning that VAT is not paid on Jaffa cakes in the United Kingdom.[14][20] Mr Potter QC also expressed that Jaffa Cakes were not biscuits.[21] The Irish Revenue Commissioners also regard Jaffa cakes as cakes, since their moisture content is greater than 12%. As a result, they are charged the reduced rate of VAT (13.5% as of 2016).[22]
karaterobot 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but I think this is an example of when it's okay to dive into semantics. When we urge people to "trust the science", as we've been doing a lot in the last little while, it matters a great deal how we define science.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Is a hotdog a sandwich? What is it about humans that make us categorize things and then argue about the categorization? Categories are imperfect shortcuts to thinking about a problem.

peterthehacker 5y ago

Categories and abstraction generally is essential for solving a problem. Furthermore, how we categorize disciplines as scientific or pseudoscientific is very important. From the article: > But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

dataviz1000 5y ago
Yes. We use categories to describe a system. We categorize an engine into a the ignition system, cooling system, air intake system, ect.. We describe node.js by its categories -- errors, file system, streams, ect.. Systems are cyclic which means humans can pretty well make assumptions of a future state of a system by the current and past state of that system. If we want to know a future state, we need to first describe the system. I really like Robert Pirsig's idea of an analytical knife from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" to cut up systems into categories or category trees, there isn't a one way to do it but rather many ways to describe a system in categories that are more and less useful.
okareaman 5y ago
The slippery slope argument. If we don't hold the line, pretty soon we'll be calling astrology a science. Psychology has the potential to be a science, but it's early and we don't know enough. Electricity wasn't a science until Michael Faraday made it one. On the other hand, astrology has no potential to be a science.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when slipping down the slope doesn't actually happen (or can't possibly follow from the described beginning state). Some slippery slopes do actually exist. For example, if you put your weight over the line, you can literally slip down a slippery slope. On the subject of categories, they cease to be useful when the contents of the categories can no longer tell you anything about the category itself. The further you get down this axis, the less useful the category is. So any dilution of the strength of a category by overly broad inclusion should be scrutinized.

cies 5y ago

Sure. Another post on the front page now is about trees[1]. Where's the line between a short tree and a bush? We humans see the difference, but biology (a hard science) shows that using their classification rules there is no difference between a tall bush and a short tree. [1]: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...

snet0 5y ago
This is simply conflating terms, though. If your field re-defines a commonly used term to mean something very precise, obviously you're going to encounter problems when you try work backwards. "Tree" in the meaning of "some phylogenetic categorisation that contains elements x, y, z" may not exist in biology, but "tree" in the meaning of "big leafy thing made of wood" exists as sure as anything. Drawing lines is for scientific language, not general-purpose language.

Swizec 5y ago

Everyone knows a hot dog is a type of taco.

infimum 5y ago

> Is a hotdog a sandwich? Depends on whether the bun is cut in half. If yes it's a sandwich otherwise it's a pizza. /s Arguments about categorizations can be productive in as far as they allow you a glimpse into the thought-process of other people (=

im3w1l 5y ago

Let me answer your question with a story about Jaffa Cakes > In the United Kingdom, value added tax is payable on chocolate-covered biscuits, but not on chocolate-covered cakes.[14][15] McVities defended its classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes at a VAT tribunal in 1991, against the ruling that Jaffa cakes were biscuits due to their size and shape, and the fact that they were often eaten in place of biscuits.[16] McVities insisted that the product was a cake, and allegedly produced a giant Jaffa cake in court to illustrate its point.[16] > The court discounted the expert evidence, as it went beyond the capacity of an ordinary purchaser.[17] The product was assessed on the following criteria:[18][19] * The product's name was regarded as a minor consideration. * The ingredients were regarded as similar to those of a cake, producing a thin cake-like mixture rather than the thick dough of a biscuit. * The product's texture was regarded as being that of a sponge cake. * The product hardens when stale, in the manner of a cake. * A substantial part of the Jaffa cake, in terms of bulk and texture, is sponge. * In size, the Jaffa cake is more like a biscuit than a cake. * The product was generally displayed for sale alongside other biscuits, rather than with cakes. * The product is presented as a snack and eaten with the fingers, like a biscuit, rather than with a fork as a cake might be. The tribunal also considered that children would eat them in "a few mouthfuls", in the manner of a sweet. The court was adjudicated by Mr Donald Potter QC, who found in favour of McVitie's and ruled that whilst Jaffa Cakes had characteristics of both cakes and biscuits, the product should be considered a cake, meaning that VAT is not paid on Jaffa cakes in the United Kingdom.[14][20] Mr Potter QC also expressed that Jaffa Cakes were not biscuits.[21] The Irish Revenue Commissioners also regard Jaffa cakes as cakes, since their moisture content is greater than 12%. As a result, they are charged the reduced rate of VAT (13.5% as of 2016).[22]

karaterobot 5y ago

I get what you're saying, but I think this is an example of when it's okay to dive into semantics. When we urge people to "trust the science", as we've been doing a lot in the last little while, it matters a great deal how we define science.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]