• carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Say, cooks. They say: “These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads”. Botanists say “These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes”.

    Ok I can see where the problem is. You don’t know how narrowing and widening works.

    Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier. The proper application would be:

    Botanist says:" These things are fruits. We have tomatoes, etc. I can make fruit salad". Cooks ways:“A fruit salad is a type of salad. I have noodles I can make noodle salad. I use a wider definition of salad which encompasses fruit salads, noodle salads and a bunch of others”

    • barsoap
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier.

      Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said “you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes” they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for “fruit salad” (there’s no botanical definition of “fruit salad”, it’s a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

      On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down “fruit” to “tropical fruit” or “temperate fruit” and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to “banana” and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.

      • carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said “you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes” they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for “fruit salad” (there’s no botanical definition of “fruit salad”, it’s a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

        Yes we have a category error because you made it The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.

        On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down “fruit” to “tropical fruit” or “temperate fruit” and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to “banana” and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.

        Yes you’re right in this example the qualifier is tropical that narrows down fruits. In the previous example we talked about fruit salads. The category being salads.

        • barsoap
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.

          The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It’s also not a fruit salad.

          • carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It’s also not a fruit salad.

            Well duh, it’s because you made an error, you made the cook say it for some inexplicable reason in your thought experiment and I’m pointing it out to you.

            • barsoap
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The statement of the cooks, “these are fruits, we can turn them into fruit salad” is perfectly accurate. There’s no error in there. In my example it’s the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of “fruit” without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of “fruit salad” to become something different from what the cooks were saying.

              • carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                In my example it’s the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of “fruit” without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of “fruit salad” to become something different from what the cooks were saying.

                Indeed, you made the thought experiment and build this error into it (aka Strawman). I corrected the conversation to show how to correctly apply widening and narrowing in regards to “fruit salads”

                • barsoap
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I corrected the conversation to show how to correctly apply widening and narrowing in regards to “fruit salads”

                  What you should’ve done instead is apply it to Engels’s widening of the term “authority” to mean things that don’t fit into a fruit salad, any more.

                  • carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    What you should’ve done instead is apply it to Engels’s widening of the term “authority” to mean things that don’t fit into a fruit salad, any more.

                    Ok let me do it now since youre dense: Authority encompasses “granted authority”. Granted is the qualifier. Authority is the category. Authority being defined as:

                    Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.