Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 March 12

= March 12 =

Vegetable
The Vegetable page writes, "In everyday usage, a vegetable is any part of a plant that is consumed by humans as food as part of a savory meal. The term vegetable is somewhat arbitrary, and largely defined through culinary and cultural tradition. It normally excludes other food derived from plants such as fruits, nuts, and cereal grains, but includes seeds such as pulses. The original meaning of the word vegetable, still used in biology, was to describe all types of plant, as in the terms 'vegetable kingdom' and 'vegetable matter'."

I prefer the biological term. At least it is specific and descriptive. I have no problem with the historical meaning and the historical interpretation of vegetable, but I have a problem with automatically saying that a vegetable is any part of a plant, whatever "plant" means in this context. Fungi are not plants. They belong to their own kingdom/domain. I believe the Wikipedia article should say, "A vegetable is any part of a plant, fungus, or algae that is consumed by humans as food as part of a savory meal." But Wikipedia has made the article uneditable, and no one cares about the Talk page enough to discuss the matter. I've tried editing it in the past, but it's always reverted, as if my modifications were useless. Please tell me why the fungus and algae parts should be removed. I personally view plants, algae, and fungi as all vegetables, because plants, algae, and fungi are scientific terms, while vegetable is mostly a culinary term. Even when used scientifically, it is used specifically for the plant kingdom, not for algae or fungi. Therefore, to avoid confusion, I believe that adding algae and fungus will actually make the article clearer. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you brought this up on the article talk page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Though, it's not a high-traffic webpage. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would ping WT:WikiProject Plants and post a short summary and link to that talk page, asking for others' input. Optionally same for WT:WikiProject Food. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That article is very clear that it is about the concept of a vegetable in nutrition. There is a full discussion in the article about what is included in the concept (including mentions of fungi and algae). However, the key to understanding it is in the first three words "in everyday usage." As a trained biologist I know that fungi are not plants - but I would still expect to find them in the vegetable aisle at the supermarket. Many people without scientific training would, in everyday usage, happily call fungi, and seaweed, plants - because they are not animals, and for most people living things are either plants or animals. Wymspen (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Plants, in common usage, mean something different than scientific usage. I wonder if, in common usage, lower animals, like earthworms and maggots and beetles and snails, are more ethical to eat, because the empathetic response in humans is much lower. Killing a higher animal, like a dog or cow or any kind of cute and cuddly mammal, yields too much of a negative emotional response and disgust, so that's why killing higher animals is wrong. Killing lower animals and injuring plants and fungi produce less of an empathetic response, and hence eating those things is ethical. Having morality works, because it protects humans from self-destruction. Some humans really do suffer emotionally, when they see a chicken gets slaughtered. So, for those humans, eating chicken is unethical. A human who bears no empathetic response will gladly kill a chicken and eat it as a source of food, also seeing nothing wrong with it. Killing the chicken just doesn't produce an empathetic response. The mirror neurons are not firing when observing a slaughtered chicken. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your philosophy of vegetarianism. Are you happy that the article reflects everyday usage?    D b f i r s   16:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now, I am satisfied and mentally relieved. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "scientist"
Wikipedia and other sources don't seem very clear about the meaning of "scientist". A scientist may be a person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge about the natural world. But my father doesn't do that. He mostly writes research papers on a computer and has other people working for him in the biochemical laboratory. His formal job title does not say "scientist" at all. It's more like "research professor". He also shares the knowledge to his student assistants. The dictionary says a scientist is someone who is trained in science and uses science to acquire knowledge. Well, I can say that I am one who is formally trained in science and graduated with a BS degree in a science field and use the scientific method to acquire knowledge, but I spend too much of my leisure time reading research papers in the sciences out of enjoyment (the Methods section is always my favorite part, because it has the most action) like how some people enjoy novels and poems. I think the meaning of scientist should include "getting paid" and "having a recognized job title by human resources", because most people who use the term seem to have such a meaning of literally doing a series of behaviors in a controlled environment or natural environment, not the behaviors of analyzing the collected data and generalizing the data and applying the data elsewhere only to ask new questions and start the process all over again. So, is "scientist" really a term to describe a group of educated professionals who follow the protocol that's prescribed by professionals who write the protocol and gather the evidence from the actual workers of science? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia follows mainstream sources. It does not dictate to sources how they should define their terms.  This is not a forum for debate.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are so many words and definitions in the world that it's hard to keep track of who's meaning what, and sometimes I wonder if my interpretations of someone else's words are the same as their own interpretations of their own words. You point out that Wikipedia follows mainstream sources. "Mainstream" should be common or easily found or generally accepted or not technical. With that in mind, I have that cleared up. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "science" covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are PSA's on TV here where kids perform simple experiments and say "I'm a scientist !". That made me wonder if they are just pretending to be scientists or if they really are.  That is, is a formal degree required, or does anyone who follows the scientific method qualify ? StuRat (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A scientist is a person who does science. It doesn't matter if they're paid, or amateurs, or retired, or whatever. The purpose of a science degree is that it helps you prepare to do science. But I know people with science degrees who no longer do science, and there are people without science degrees who do good science. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's anyplace where "scientist" is a licensed profession, as with doctors and lawyers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Googling licensed scientist brings up some interesting options. I didn't see anything about scientists in general, but it seems that scientists working in a clinical setting, such as where they edge into medical fields, often do need licenses. Here are a few. Matt Deres (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It turns out many scientific fields require licenses - here's some stuff on becoming a licensed geoscientist in Quebec if you're interested. Matt Deres (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"You're gonna need two hands" sentence construction
Is there a formal term for this type of sentence construction?


 * You're gonna need two hands.
 * You are going to need two hands.
 * You need two hands.

I think the first sentence is a colloquial contraction of the second sentence. The second sentence seems to be in future tense (You are going to), and the third sentence is in present tense (You need). Semantically, is there a difference between the second and third sentence? I found this on the McDonalds sandwich box. That provides the context. So, given the context, what is McDonalds trying to say? Is it trying to say that I need two hands to eat the Grand Mac or that I am going to or will need two hands to eat the Grand Mac? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BK's slogan is/was "It takes two hands to handle a Whopper." McD might not want to say exactly that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that "gonna" is slang for "going to", while "you're" is a proper contraction for "you are". As for which would be used for ads, the shortest form that gets the message across is usually the best. They wouldn't be that concerned about future tense versus present tense.  But, they might use all 3 forms, since changing a message slightly calls it to our attention more than just repeating the exact same message. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP is confused by the third sentence, because it's also kind of slangy. It's short for "you TO USE two hands." There's a built-in assumption that you already have two hands. (Really, the "to use" part is understood in all three examples.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The first one could also be a play on the famous line from Jaws, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)