A peach contains a single seed but you don’t call the whole thing a seed. The pips of a strawberry are called “achenes” which is a type of dry fruit. It doesn’t matter at all for general use but it is botanically significant.
An apple contains many seeds, but you don’t call each seed a fruit.
I mean, I knew a strawberry wasn’t a berry, but your counterexample was completely irrelevant.
Edit:
When people downvote but nobody responds, I have no idea what people are downvoting about.
Nothing I said was inaccurate, and it illustrated why their example was inapplicable, so what do downvotes mean here?
But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.
I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.
I mean, it is totally valid for a layperson to criticize scientific classification since, after all, it is just a definition. Facts derived from definition can be true or false, but just putting something in a box doesn’t make the box true. It’s just the box the thing happened to be put in.
That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.
So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?
A peach contains a single seed but you don’t call the whole thing a seed. The pips of a strawberry are called “achenes” which is a type of dry fruit. It doesn’t matter at all for general use but it is botanically significant.
An apple contains many seeds, but you don’t call each seed a fruit.
I mean, I knew a strawberry wasn’t a berry, but your counterexample was completely irrelevant.
Edit:
When people downvote but nobody responds, I have no idea what people are downvoting about.
Nothing I said was inaccurate, and it illustrated why their example was inapplicable, so what do downvotes mean here?
“Each containing a single seed inside” does not mean “those are the seeds” and I provided a counter-example to illustrate my point.
Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.
But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.
I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.
You are being downvoted because you argue your personal interpretation against a factual scientific classification.
If the experts in the field have concluded that a tiny fruit that contains a tiny seed is still a fruit, then arguing against it is inaccurate.
Unless you too are an expert in the field and have some substantial arguments otherwise that are more relevant that a gotcha.
I mean, it is totally valid for a layperson to criticize scientific classification since, after all, it is just a definition. Facts derived from definition can be true or false, but just putting something in a box doesn’t make the box true. It’s just the box the thing happened to be put in.
That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.
So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?
It means “I’m dumb. There’s a lot of dumb people in this comm. And mods aren’t doing their job”
Edit: see those down votes. Even more dumb people who don’t know what the down vote button is for…