2.4M views · Jun 11, 2014 · 2:36 · 1 HN recommender · 4 mentions · discussed 2020–2021
A short clip from the British panel show QI in which the panel discusses why there is no such thing as a fish as a biological category.
Why Hacker News points people here: Linked in threads about fuzzy categories, such as fish, trees and fruit, as the origin of the phrase and a fun illustration.
“I like this clip from a QI episode where they discuss if there is such a thing called as fish”HN comment, 2020
“I like this clip from a QI episode where they discuss if there is such a thing called as fish”
Panel discussing whether fish exist as a category
I like this clip from a QI episode where they discuss if there is such a thing called as fish (as per Stephen Jay Gould) Particularly like David Mitchell and Sean Lock (or as a comment spells his last name Locke) this video
Reminded of it by fruit versus vegetable definitions
I think you are right. Vegetable has only a culinary definition, not a botanical one. And I don't think many people would classify watermelons as a vegetable, except that watermelon skins are sometimes used for cooking. On the other hand, watermelons are definitely fruits, in both the botanical and culinary sense. This is reminds me of this video: [No Such Thing As A Fish]( this video )
Origin of the phrase 'no such thing as a fish'
In addition to the sibling comments, I'd point out that the article is sort of an extended riff on the phrase, "There is no such thing as a fish," which was a sloppy QI paraphrase [0][1] of a principle elucidated by the 20th century paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, and later became the title of QI's well-known podcast [2]. And of course, fish do exist, just not in the simplistic way that many of us were taught as children, that they are one of five genetically discrete, self-contained, non-overlapping taxonomic classes: Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals. The author is arguing that if you are going to say that about fish, you can say it about trees, fruit, and plenty of other things. That may be true, but unlike with fish, I don't ever recall being given the impression that trees and fruit were genetically discrete self-contained scientific categories. Fruit just seemed like something that some plants have, without any sense that fruity plants were necessarily more closely related than non-fruity plants. I mean, "biped" is also a category but nobody ever claimed that birds and humans are genetically discrete from the other four, six, eight, etc. legged animals. Still, it's a fun and interesting conversation, even though the author may have been forcing the fish analogy a bit. [0] QI ("Quite Interesting") is a long-running British trivia/humor related game show [1] this video [2] link
Cited as pop-science on categories being fuzzy
> It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0]. Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose. > For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against? > I could go on and on. Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make. [0]: this video [1]: link
