4 ms·
Why would you need to know anything about taxonomy in order to know fish are animals? Sorry, but no one I've ever known has made any distinction between the two
by hydrok9 3y ago
Why would you need to know anything about taxonomy in order to know fish are animals? Sorry, but no one I've ever known has made any distinction between the two.
I think maybe there is some overlap with op and the idea that "fish" is different from "meat." That's something that basically everyone said at some point.
- maxbond 3y agoFish and animals are taxonomic categories (as are meat and fish, the food). If fish aren't meat but are animals, it should tell you how arbitrary these distinctions are.
- hydrok9 3y agoFish is meat. It's just that people are used to associating "meat" with "red meat". But if you press people, they are not going to say that in no way is fish flesh considered meat. They just don't generally use the same word to describe both things. You don't need to know any details of taxonomy as a discipline to know that fish are animals. For the record, the original meaning of "meat," was just food, in general. So we have sweetmeats, mincemeat, etc.
- maxbond 3y agoThe exercise you're talking about, is an exercise in taxonomy. (Though I agree it doesn't require special expertise to engage in taxonomy.)
- hydrok9 3y agoIt only requires a working brain to look at two similar things and categorize them similarly. You don't need to have any familiarity with any kind of scientific field or terminology. You just need to be familiar with fish, and other types of organic life.