11 ms·
>arbitrarily classifying things into categories Most things have continuous features. Any kind of classification is of course arbitrary then. It's arbitrary t
by carlmr 5y ago
>arbitrarily classifying things into categories
Most things have continuous features. Any kind of classification is of course arbitrary then.
It's arbitrary to distinguish these 3 types of T-Rex as well as it being arbitrary to draw a line between chicken and velociraptors.
Of course there's some point where most people agree that a classification makes sense, because there's a "well d'uh" kind of difference, like the chicken and the velociraptor. At the other extreme you'd classify every individual, because they're all unique. People will endlessly argue where to draw this line. There just is no answer to the question how far we should go.
Simpler classifications are useful to enable communication on a broad level. I'd be disappointed to go to a hip-hop concert even though I expected techno. If you told me some subgenre from hip-hop however I might not have understood what the music is they played, because it's not my thing.
Fine classifications are useful to enable communication between enthusiasts/experts. The hip-hop heads will have their subgenres, and the techno people, too. There are distinctions which don't matter to outsiders, but they do matter to insiders.
The finer the classifications are, the less useful their distinction, and the more likely that your communication partner will not understand you though. Techno now has so many subgenres, that I'd be hard-pressed to explain a lot of them.
The problem is that nobody can meaningfully draw a line.
- knighthack 5y agoYou stated: > Of course there's some point where most people agree that a classification makes sense, because there's a "well d'uh" kind of difference, like the chicken and the velociraptor. At the other extreme you'd classify every individual, because they're all unique. People will endlessly argue where to draw this line. There just is no answer to the question how far we should go. > > ... > > The problem is that nobody can meaningfully draw a line. Your statement makes no sense. Anyone can draw a line between a chicken and a velociraptor. Anyone who argues that no line can be drawn between two etxremes are either deluded, insane, or with an agenda. For purposes of scientific classification, the lines may blur sometimes. But the evidence at hand and discussions among experts does not seem to justify 3 different species. If so, one can only presume that those who wish there to be 3 species are finding ways to inflate/publish a paper and to claim a scientific stake, rather than there being some genuine need for classification.
- carlmr 5y ago>Your statement makes no sense. Anyone can draw a line between a chicken and a velociraptor. Anyone can draw lines, that's not what I was saying tough, the chicken and velocitaptor example was exactly to show one of these very obvious distinctions. The problem is rather where and how many lines to draw. No number of classifications is "correct" since a classification is only one of almost infinite possibilities to choose from.