2 ms·

This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas

This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.

barrkel 2y ago
This is only a problem if you mistake words for scientific classifications, instead of ways to convey meaning between communicating humans. Very few people using the word "berry" are discussing scientific classifications. It would be worse, not better, to make terms more scientifically precise. Berry refers to small juicy fruits, often in bright colors.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I was sticking with the context of the GP though. Maybe its pedantic to point out that many berries aren't technically berries, but that's much the same as the point that many nuts are actually seeds.
School-Cotton 2y ago
> stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries Yes they are > tomatoes and bananas are No they’re not. The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds). Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals. If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world. They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Chairs and OOP have nothing to do with each other. Fruits, seeds, etc are plants and fall into botanical definitions. I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't, but your comparison to OOP is apples and oranges.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't That wasn’t the point. The point is that they are berries, by the real definition of berries, which is not the different definition used by a tiny minority of mostly irrelevant people in a specific context. What reason is there to prefer the botanical definition to the common one (that says a berry is a small colorful fruit)? I can see none. On the other hand, I can see many reasons to prefer the common definition: it is older, it is used by far more people, and it more closely corresponds to what we care about in real life (because almost everyone spends more time preparing and eating meals than they do classifying plant parts, so the culinary meaning is more important). Scientists are not in charge of the whole human experience. They do not get to decide on behalf of everyone else that the salient defining characteristic of berries is not how they taste or what dishes you would use them to prepare, but rather what part of the plant they come from.
calfuris 2y ago
I disagree with this on multiple levels. For one, the word "berry" has multiple definitions, and I don't see why the botanical definition should be the only one that counts. If anything, the culinary one should have primacy, as that is the one that is far more relevant to far more people. Botanical jargon is useful to botanists but not very useful in general. And to descend to pedantry, blueberries should not have been on your list of examples. They are berries in both the culinary and the botanical senses of the word.

This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.

barrkel 2y ago

This is only a problem if you mistake words for scientific classifications, instead of ways to convey meaning between communicating humans. Very few people using the word "berry" are discussing scientific classifications. It would be worse, not better, to make terms more scientifically precise. Berry refers to small juicy fruits, often in bright colors.

_heimdall 2y ago
I was sticking with the context of the GP though. Maybe its pedantic to point out that many berries aren't technically berries, but that's much the same as the point that many nuts are actually seeds.

School-Cotton 2y ago

> stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries Yes they are > tomatoes and bananas are No they’re not. The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.

_heimdall 2y ago
You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds). Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals. If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world. They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Chairs and OOP have nothing to do with each other. Fruits, seeds, etc are plants and fall into botanical definitions. I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't, but your comparison to OOP is apples and oranges.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't That wasn’t the point. The point is that they are berries, by the real definition of berries, which is not the different definition used by a tiny minority of mostly irrelevant people in a specific context. What reason is there to prefer the botanical definition to the common one (that says a berry is a small colorful fruit)? I can see none. On the other hand, I can see many reasons to prefer the common definition: it is older, it is used by far more people, and it more closely corresponds to what we care about in real life (because almost everyone spends more time preparing and eating meals than they do classifying plant parts, so the culinary meaning is more important). Scientists are not in charge of the whole human experience. They do not get to decide on behalf of everyone else that the salient defining characteristic of berries is not how they taste or what dishes you would use them to prepare, but rather what part of the plant they come from.

calfuris 2y ago

I disagree with this on multiple levels. For one, the word "berry" has multiple definitions, and I don't see why the botanical definition should be the only one that counts. If anything, the culinary one should have primacy, as that is the one that is far more relevant to far more people. Botanical jargon is useful to botanists but not very useful in general. And to descend to pedantry, blueberries should not have been on your list of examples. They are berries in both the culinary and the botanical senses of the word.