this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
358 points (94.5% liked)

Science Memes

11012 readers
4042 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 127 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If 90% of the population call them seagulls, and 99% of the population understand what you mean when you say "seagull", then yes, they are actually called seagulls

[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 55 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

It's like what I say to bother botanists:

If half of the fruits with "berry" in their name don't fit your definition of berry, you need a new definition

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pretty sure botanists are aware that the same word can have different meaning outside of their scientific field. The people actually bothered by this are pedants who read about it on the internet, not people who studied botany.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A slight distinction:

The people actually bothered by this are the friends of pedants who read about it on the internet, not people who studied botany.

The pedants aren't bothered, they're elated they get to display faux superiority, I'm the one bothered by them!

Lol

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago

Well, no, there's nothing wrong with the definition of berry, but there would be something wrong about a botanist being annoyed with someone using the colloquial definition of berry.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What if I told you that words can have different meanings in different contexts? Just because the same word can be used to refer to different things depending on whether its used in everyday or scientific speech doesn't mean either usage is "wrong".

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Context specific definitions are the bane of my autistic existence. Figuring out context is a waste of brainpower that could be better used having anxiety over situations that aren't going to happen.

/Completely serious, but not quite as strongly as worded here.

[–] groknull@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

So I take it no one should mention that in astrophysics anything heavier than helium is a metal

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah well, people aren't computers and language always has multiple levels of ambiguity. I understand if that is difficult to grasp if you can't understand it on an intuitive level like most people. On the other hand it's not that hard to understand on an intellectual level.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Doesn't change that it was a bad idea to borrow a generic term for small sweet fruits to refer to a specific botanical feature. Not just bad, but completely unnecessary and frankly, simply, a bit stupid.

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Annoy naturalists with these other animal names too: Jellyfish, crawfish, starfish, Killer Whale, Canadian Geese, and American Buffalo.

[–] azi@mander.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The buffalo thing pisses me off the most. Entire cultures are defined by that animal and it's incredibly significant to the history of the prairies and the continent as a whole. So it seems to me pretty disrespectful to go to these people and go "um actually what you've been calling this animal for centuries is wrong actually because Linnaeus or whatever"

[–] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago
[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Killer whale is orca which is a predatory whale.

[–] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

wtf who's beefing with starfish

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Nikls94@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Typical customer service annoyant?

[–] Machinist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Crawdads. Tasty with some hot sauce.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Should we add an exception when it comes to technical discussions?

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you're an ornithologist writing a scientific paper, you'd presumably be using a genus + species in Latin rather than any colloquial name anyway, while still acknowledging that they fall under the umbrella term "seagull" for most people. But I'm a descriptive linguist, rather than prescriptive, and that's really what this meme is about (it's not about seagulls)

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Birds actually have scientific common names and it's completely acceptable to refer to them with those names. They even have standardized bird abbreviations using those names, like Red-tailed Hawk is RTHA. They of course use the latin names too, and those have their own abbreviations (Buteo jamaicensis is BUTJAM) but the common names are handier.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Klear@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow."

Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.

So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.

Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Noooo then how are we going to get memes like this?

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

I enjoy having semi-serious discussions about nonsense like this, so I appreciate RubberElectron's reply calling me out