3 ms·

I'm not arguing that animal isn't a useful term, but if you're dividing eukaryotes into the major groups, it's not one of them. > More personally speaking: wha

I'm not arguing that animal isn't a useful term, but if you're dividing eukaryotes into the major groups, it's not one of them. > More personally speaking: what am I missing out by using the four kingdoms? Like, how could that possibly ever backfire in a way that slightly impacts my life negatively, or impedes the scientists studying genetic lineages? Sure, where does kelp fit in? How about slime molds? Also, I'm not suggesting we teach children all the nuance of phylogeny. I'm suggesting we don't teach a version that we've proven to be objectively wrong. Eventually, the four-kingdoms system will go away, and it will sit next to the "animal, vegetable, mineral" system in the annals of scientific history.

bbor 2y ago
Interesting, thanks for elaborating! Still not sure I understand sadly, but maybe it’s just different worldviews on how to play language games. Like, you say we don’t need to teach nuance, and that animal is a useful term — but then what does it denote, if not a group of creatures? To me, this discussion should center around utility — “objectively wrong” is assumed to apply to basically everything we ever say on some level (what are the chances we happen to live at the End of Science?) so I hesitate to adopt such a binary framework. In this light, taking a stand against “animal, plant, fungus”—which sums up an overwhelming majority of how laypeople interact with the world—seems of dubious value. Re:examples, kelp are plants and slime molds are molds, and therefor fungi. Boom. Does that capture 100% of their characteristics on a genetic level? Presumably not (and TIL kelp are technically like flexible coral colonies, not vascular plants)! Is it more useful for 99.9% of usage than “they’re their own things, somewhat unlike anything else”? Definitely, yes. P.s. animal vegetable mineral also seems to have held up okay…? It’s a culinary thing AFAIK, not an exhaustive list of all objects.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > animal vegetable mineral also seems to have held up okay…? It’s a culinary thing Interesting - Linnaeus (and possibly contemporaries and predecessors) were maybe biased too look at the world through eating: The hunted, the grown, and the mined. (Completely speculative, of course.)

bbor 2y ago

Interesting, thanks for elaborating! Still not sure I understand sadly, but maybe it’s just different worldviews on how to play language games. Like, you say we don’t need to teach nuance, and that animal is a useful term — but then what does it denote, if not a group of creatures? To me, this discussion should center around utility — “objectively wrong” is assumed to apply to basically everything we ever say on some level (what are the chances we happen to live at the End of Science?) so I hesitate to adopt such a binary framework. In this light, taking a stand against “animal, plant, fungus”—which sums up an overwhelming majority of how laypeople interact with the world—seems of dubious value. Re:examples, kelp are plants and slime molds are molds, and therefor fungi. Boom. Does that capture 100% of their characteristics on a genetic level? Presumably not (and TIL kelp are technically like flexible coral colonies, not vascular plants)! Is it more useful for 99.9% of usage than “they’re their own things, somewhat unlike anything else”? Definitely, yes. P.s. animal vegetable mineral also seems to have held up okay…? It’s a culinary thing AFAIK, not an exhaustive list of all objects.

mmooss 2y ago
> animal vegetable mineral also seems to have held up okay…? It’s a culinary thing Interesting - Linnaeus (and possibly contemporaries and predecessors) were maybe biased too look at the world through eating: The hunted, the grown, and the mined. (Completely speculative, of course.)