Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

eukaryotewritesblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#21

Post by boxed »

jxjnskkzxxhx wrote: post #3

What is this "there no fish" thing? The blog link takes to a British show.

Cladistically you can decide:

a) There are fish. Sharks are fish. Trout are fish. So therefore humans are fish as we are more related to trout than we are to sharks. This is basically saying that "fish" is roughly the same as "any vertebrate" or "any vertebrate with teeth" (depending on where you draw the line).

or

b) There is no such thing as a fish. There are THREE things: sharks/rays, ray finned fishes, and lobed finned fishes (which includes humans)

That's the joke in the name of the British show.

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#23

Post by boxed »

netruk44 wrote: post #4
jxjnskkzxxhx wrote: post #3

What is this "there no fish" thing? The blog link takes to a British show.

Edit: Removed. I would delete but I can't, because there's a reply now.

Even though you might not want the answer to the question you only accidentally asked, I think it's useful to answer it for others.

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#24

Post by voidUpdate »

boxed wrote: post #19
voidUpdate wrote: post #7

There's no such thing as a fish, there's no such thing as a tree, there's no such thing as a vegetable, there's no such thing as a man, there's no such thing as a woman. Biology is weird and blurry and doesn't fit into well-defined groups

You lost it a bit at the end with women and men. Those aren't phylogenic groups, so not even closely related to the concept. It's a bit like saying "there's no such thing as granite" because not all granite is the product of two other pieces of granite having sex.

I mean granite is just an arbitrary group we've made by saying that a rock that falls within certain percentages of quartz, feldspar, mica etc. Outside that, you get into the granitoids. The amounts are completely fluid and continuous, so the boundary is completely arbitrary. I guess in a way, there is no such thing as granite either

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#25

Post by eesmith »

keiferski wrote: post #9

It’s occurred to me before (and I’m sure to someone thinking more seriously about it) that our way of categorizing organisms seems to be ultimately based on their origin, and not on something…more beneficial to the human experience, or more in-line with aesthetics and colors, or in some other way. In other words, it is a deliberate choice to “taxonomize” organisms by their origins, and not by some other thing. This s…

Biology is fundamentally based on evolution, so when viewed through a biological lens, a classification based on evolution is appropriate.

We know of course that taxonomy is only one way to group organisms. People use plenty of others, including ones more beneficial to the human experience.

We group plants by the hardiness zones they can tolerate, for example. If you go to a plant shop they'll likely have plants which thrive best in sun outside, while others which need shade are inside or covered.

A zoo might group animals by where they are found, with zebras, ostriches, elephants, and giraffes together in the savanna section, rather than place all of the mammals together and the birds elsewhere.

As others already mentioned, "fruits" and "vegetables" are culinary definitions, not biological ones. Far more people use the culinary term "vegetable" to describe a tomato than the botanical term "fruit".

We also have religious classifications, like the Biblical prohibition: "“Nevertheless, these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof: as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.”

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#26

Post by voidUpdate »

sshine wrote: post #20
voidUpdate wrote: post #7

There's no such thing as a fish, there's no such thing as a tree, there's no such thing as a vegetable, there's no such thing as a man, there's no such thing as a woman. Biology is weird and blurry and doesn't fit into well-defined groups

But "there's no such thing as a fish" is a different statement than "there's no such thing as a man". First off, "man" is not a biological category, but a human social category. Biologically, "boy" and "man" are both "male". And there is such a thing as male in biology. There is such thing as a fish, just not phylogenetically: all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a group that includes all t…

Indeed. A fish is a category that we have made up to make it easier to communicate the concept of a wiggly thing that lives under the sea, in the same way that man is a social category we made up to communicate the concept of someone who presents in a male way

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#27

Post by willguest »

throw929283 wrote: post #17
voidUpdate wrote: post #7

There's no such thing as a fish, there's no such thing as a tree, there's no such thing as a vegetable, there's no such thing as a man, there's no such thing as a woman. Biology is weird and blurry and doesn't fit into well-defined groups

There is such thing as a men and women. Gender has nothing to do with biology!

I can't resist... Language is, in fact, a matter of common usage. A man is (or was) generally considered to the thing that is (or was) a male human. While I recognise that gender theory has challenged this notion, introducing the idea that gender is socially constructed, it can easily be understood (by those who have the intention of understanding) why this confusion might exist.

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#28

Post by [deleted] »

voidUpdate wrote: post #26
sshine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "there's no such thing as a fish" is a different statement than "there's no such thing as a man". First off, "man" is not a biological category, but a human social category. Biologically, "boy" and "man" are both "male". And there is such a thing as male in biology. There is such thing as a fish, just not phylogenetically: all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a group that includes all t…

Indeed. A fish is a category that we have made up to make it easier to communicate the concept of a wiggly thing that lives under the sea, in the same way that man is a social category we made up to communicate the concept of someone who presents in a male way

[deleted]

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#29

Post by [deleted] »

voidUpdate wrote: post #26
sshine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "there's no such thing as a fish" is a different statement than "there's no such thing as a man". First off, "man" is not a biological category, but a human social category. Biologically, "boy" and "man" are both "male". And there is such a thing as male in biology. There is such thing as a fish, just not phylogenetically: all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a group that includes all t…

Indeed. A fish is a category that we have made up to make it easier to communicate the concept of a wiggly thing that lives under the sea, in the same way that man is a social category we made up to communicate the concept of someone who presents in a male way

[deleted]

Re: There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) (2021)

#30

Post by mjburgess »

voidUpdate wrote: post #26
sshine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "there's no such thing as a fish" is a different statement than "there's no such thing as a man". First off, "man" is not a biological category, but a human social category. Biologically, "boy" and "man" are both "male". And there is such a thing as male in biology. There is such thing as a fish, just not phylogenetically: all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a group that includes all t…

Indeed. A fish is a category that we have made up to make it easier to communicate the concept of a wiggly thing that lives under the sea, in the same way that man is a social category we made up to communicate the concept of someone who presents in a male way

This is an analysis of the term "man" which is, at the very least, overly specialised to a technical reading in rhetorical or cultural analysis.

In areas of cultural analysis, terms are often read rhetorically, meaning as merely social actions with a persuasive or claim-making intent. E.g., to say "I know that ball will go in the net!!" isn't a claim involving actual knowledge, but something like a rhetorical act which appeals to the literal meaning of "know" in, say, something like an ironic/exaggerated/fabricated/social way. If one analysed the term "know" as-if this rhetorical context were its primary meaning, then one would conclude that all knowledge is merely a social presentation, knowing itself is no real thing in the world, only a game of making claims.

This is a deeply implausible primary meaning of "know", because it makes inexplicable why anyone would claim to know (ie., why would playing this game have any persuasive force?). It only makes sense if a literal meaning is available in which it is possible, and indeed quite common, to actually know things in an ordinary way. Then claiming to know, and being ironic/etc., makes sense.

It's no coincidence then that from this fields of analysis, in which any term whatsoever can take this merely rhetorical meaning, are terms like "man" given such a reading. However, the claim that this constitutes the only or even primary meaning of "man" is quite implausible. Since in the vast majority of cases, e.g., in biology, law, science, medicine etc. the authors are not taking "man" to be a kind of social rhetorical assertion. For example, pension ages differ in law across men/women -- its implausible to suppose that this law concerns itself with merely rhetorical actions of individuals insofar as they make claims to be men/women.

Indeed, as above, unless there is a literal meaning of "man" the social act of claiming to be one in a variety of non-literal contexts becomes meaningless. Consider eg., "I'm not really a man, I'm just playing one on stage with a lot of makeup". Here I'd suppose "man" has to have a literal meaning of having the characteristics of (human, adult) males in order for social claims of the sort, "I am a man!" to make any sense.

The very contemporary move to re-read these terms as primarily rhetorical claims might make some sense from a political/cultural perspective; but its quite important to remember that this cannot be their literal meaning -- or else a vast amount of derivative rhetorical meaning, and indeed existing law/textbooks/discourse/etc. becomes meaningless.

Post reply on HN