scav comments on Concepts Don't Work That Way - Less Wrong

57 Post author: lukeprog 28 September 2011 02:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (88)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CG_Morton 27 September 2011 01:48:01PM 5 points [-]

I think this is a little unfair. For example, I know exactly what the category 'fish' contains. It contains eels and it contains flounders, without question. If someone gives me a new creature, there are things that I can do to ascertain whether it is a fish. The only question is how quickly I could do this.

We pattern-match on 'has fins', 'moves via tail', etc. because we can do that fast, and because animals with those traits are likely to share other traits like 'is billaterally symetrical' (and perhaps 'disease is more likely to be communicable from similarly shaped creatures'). But that doesn't mean the hard-and-fast 'fish' category is meaningless; there is a reason dolphins aren't fish.

Comment author: scav 28 September 2011 02:01:52PM *  3 points [-]

there is a reason dolphins aren't fish

It may not be a very good reason. To quote Wikipedia:

Because the term "fish" is defined negatively, and excludes the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) which descend from within the same ancestry, it is paraphyletic, and is not considered a proper grouping in systematic biology. The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification.

In other words, there are probably fish that are more distantly related to each other than one of them is to a dolphin (or you).