There is no such thing as a fish

[Beckys_Mom]

I'm a fan of the TV show - QI...I saw this once

There is no such thing as a fish

"After a lifetime of studying fish, Stephen Jay Gould decided that there was no such thing as fish. The terminology of fish tells nothing about its biology. Biologically speaking, a salmon is more related to a camel than a hagfish. Just because they are sea-dwelling creatures, doesn't mean they are more or less related to each other."

Please watch video..its only a few mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdNEN4rUOTA

What do you guys think?

Edited May 28, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[SilverCougar]

Tuna.

[Voyager10]

Not Plato but Aristotle, Law of Identity is that if A=A, then A can't equal B. If Fish=Fish, then Fish cannot equal Bird. If there is no fish, then the term is useless to the discussion. It's like E=mc2, but if "E" doesn't exist, then its back to the drawing board because your equation is wrong. Well maybe not wrong per se but not really useful.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Voyager10

[Pookie666]

okay, so if there are no such things as fish, what the hell have i got in my fish-tank...oops, I said fish...

[Kelbie25]

Love QI (Although I like him, why is Alan Davies on every week?)

Also did you know that a banana is actually a berry?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Kelbie25

[Kelbie25]

You may also like these 25 QI animal facts.

1. ANGLERFISH

The male deep-sea anglerfish is much smaller than the female. But he has giant eyes to look for a suitable female and enormous nostrils to sniff out her pheromones.

Having found her, he latches onto her with his teeth and then starts to disappear. Scales, bones, blood vessels all merge into those of the female. After a few weeks, all that's left of the male are the testes hanging off the female's side, supplying her with his genes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3634153/Gorillas-can-talk...-and-24-other-QI-facts.html

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

So what do we call what we reel in out of the oceans, lakes, rivers, and so on, then?

[Soul Kitchen]

Not Plato but Aristotle, Law of Identity is that if A=A, then A can't equal B. If Fish=Fish, then Fish cannot equal Bird. If there is no fish, then the term is useless to the discussion. It's like E=mc2, but if "E" doesn't exist, then its back to the drawing board because your equation is wrong. Well maybe not wrong per se but not really useful.

I think the whole idea is that different Fish aren't necessarily both A, unless you mean that A represents everything that is has 'fish' in it's name, in which case you would also be counting things that don't fit the conventional definition of a fish.

If there are no Fish, that does not render the term useless, because we have known them as fish prior to the discussion and so we will continue to refer to them as such while discussing how many 'fish' may not actually fall under the same biological category.

So, mathematically, it's more like A and B represent to fish. People used to think A equals B, but it turns out that A equals C and B equals D, while A does not equal D and B does not equal C, therefore Fish aren't the same as each other, therefore 'Fish' isn't a valid category, therefore, in a sense, there is no such thing as fish.

[Taun]

So what do we call what we reel in out of the oceans, lakes, rivers, and so on, then?

According to PETA they are "Sea Kittens"..

[Beckys_Mom]

Love QI (Although I like him, why is Alan Davies on every week?)

Also did you know that a banana is actually a berry?

I think they like to have Alan on there.. Stephen Fry loves to poke fun... "And Alan goes"---***some soppy tune***

I love the show... the things you find out from watching is amazing

[Beckys_Mom]

So what do we call what we reel in out of the oceans, lakes, rivers, and so on, then?

He means Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a fish

[Blue Lizard]

Some people are stupid.

This is a question of semantics. We name things to make it easier for us to refer to.

We say that certain heavenly bodies are "planets" but how certain are we that they are different from the rest to be in a different class?

We call certain groups of organisms "species" because they cannot mate to produce a viable offspring with another related species. Yet, we make hybrids from two different plant species. Again, another example of semantics.

We can name an animal a "pig" but here is the breakthrough idea- it is not really a "pig" but just what we call it.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Blue Lizard

[Blue Lizard]

He means Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a fish

Actually he is wrong about this again. The phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis and not a theory. So biologically, we cannot conclude anything until we get it right. This video is just a waste of time by people who don't really understand these concepts.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Blue Lizard

[Beckys_Mom]

Some people are stupid.

This is a question of semantics. We name things to make it easier for us to refer to.

What you call some people, do not toss stones at glass houses

Yes, we do name things as a whole to make it easier, but why is that a problem of being semantics?? Why are you making a big issue out of this?

We say that certain heavenly bodies are "planets" but how certain are we that they are different from the rest to be in a different class?

Yes, we know there are different classes of planets, but we group them altogether and give the name - PLANETS...What is wrong with doing that?

The video and the info I added... Is only about biology and what it says is true... Biologically speaking the salmon is more related to IE the camel.. than it is to the hag fish..........It is scientific fact <-- and here you are in to call it stupid

Actually he is wrong about this again. The phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis and not a theory. So biologically, we cannot conclude anything until we get it right. This video is just a waste of time by people who don't really understand these concepts.

Listen up, at the end of the day, Stephen Fry is a smart cookie, the researchers that work for the show QI< who find out all this info for the show are indeed smart people as well. They talk to even smarter people, who actually work in the field of the topic that is being discussed on the show, so along come some pleb calls himself blue lizzard from NY, who tells me how stupid all these people are, I am sorry but you need a lot more credibility for me to believe you

[Blue Lizard]

What you call some people, do not toss stones at glass houses

Yes, we do name things as a whole to make it easier, but why is that a problem of being semantics?? Why are you making a big issue out of this?

You just answered your own question that was asked in the video. You understand the flaw in your understanding but you cannot piece it together.

[Hint]

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata. - Wikipedia

And you are asking me what does semantics have to do with this video?

Yes, we know there are different classes of planets, but we group them altogether and give the name - PLANETS...What is wrong with doing that?

Again, you fail to attach this understanding with what is going on. We name things to make it easier but that does not in anyway need to make logical sense in reality.

The video and the info I added... Is only about biology and what it says is true... Biologically speaking the salmon is more related to IE the camel.. than it is to the hag fish..........It is scientific fact <-- and here you are in to call it stupid

Again, phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis. Do I have to keep repeating the same things? Do you not understand what scientific facts mean? A lot of people throw around the word "fact" but have no idea what that means or includes. Not everything that involves science are facts. Hypothesis is not a scientific fact. Please read the definition if you do not understand, rather than make a fool of yourself by quote the people in the video that don't know these concepts themselves.

Listen up, at the end of the day, Stephen Fry is a smart cookie, the researchers that work for the show QI< who find out all this info for the show are indeed smart people as well. They talk to even smarter people, who actually work in the field of the topic that is being discussed on the show, so along come some pleb calls himself blue lizzard from NY, who tells me how stupid all these people are, I am sorry but you need a lot more credibility for me to believe you

Oh yeah because we believe scientists depending on whether they are well known. Yeah we don't check facts, nor do we try to reason with it. We just believe it. You forgot the part where this is field is called "science" and we don't just believe things but we question and check our "facts" constantly. What you are looking for is religion, in which you can just follow priests and do what they say because they are holy and got the message from God. In science we like to reason and question people, no matter how smart or holy they are. People like you make science into a bad thing, as you guys don't question it if it comes from the Almighty smart scientist.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Blue Lizard

[The Caspian Hare]

Yes, we know there are different classes of planets, but we group them altogether and give the name - PLANETS...What is wrong with doing that?

Nothing... and I think that was blue lizard's point.

[Blue Lizard]

Nothing... and I think that was blue lizard's point.

Yep.. exactly.

[Voyager10]

I think the whole idea is that different Fish aren't necessarily both A, unless you mean that A represents everything that is has 'fish' in it's name, in which case you would also be counting things that don't fit the conventional definition of a fish.

If there are no Fish, that does not render the term useless, because we have known them as fish prior to the discussion and so we will continue to refer to them as such while discussing how many 'fish' may not actually fall under the same biological category.

So, mathematically, it's more like A and B represent to fish. People used to think A equals B, but it turns out that A equals C and B equals D, while A does not equal D and B does not equal C, therefore Fish aren't the same as each other, therefore 'Fish' isn't a valid category, therefore, in a sense, there is no such thing as fish.

But how is it applied? If you put a sign on a lake that reads "no fishing," sooner or later you will have to specify which of A,B,C,D are included and which are not if you don't want people to fish there. Take those which are selected, and make them category E, and E will be fish.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Voyager10

[Copasetic]

Actually he is wrong about this again. The phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis and not a theory. So biologically, we cannot conclude anything until we get it right. This video is just a waste of time by people who don't really understand these concepts.

Well no he is not wrong. The word "fish" is useless in biology. Its certainly okay for common usage, but biologists don't use the word because it doesn't mean anything. Like was pointed out we are more closely related to some fish, in terms of coalescent point, than they are to other fish.

In biology "fish" is a non-starter of a term because the group "fish" is a polyphyletic group.

Secondly, the tree of life or "phylogenetic tree" (that's non-specific, I am assuming you are speaking of the tree of life where we can view the relationship between different types of "fish" and say other organisms, like mammals) is a model. It is different than a hypothesis.

That data that makes the model comes from many and varied sources including (obviously not limited too); genetics, comparative anatomy, evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo for short), biochemistry, functional RNA sequencing, proteomics, the modern synthesis, fossil evidence, comparative physiology, bioinformatics, etc.

I didn't watch the video, but according to the OP's caption its based on SJG's statements (which as I pointed out above is entirely accurate, the term "fish" is meaningless in biology, then again so are lots of common terms like "reptile"). If that is the case, then do you mean to suggest that Professor Gould doesn't understand biology? You might, at the chance of sounding foolish, want to seriously reconsider that line of argument.....

[Copasetic]

But how is it applied? If you put a sign on a lake that reads "no fishing," sooner or later you will have to specify which of A,B,C,D are included and which are not if you don't want people to fish there. Take those which are selected, and make them category E, and E will be fish.

I think the point we're talking about here is that the word "fish" is useless in biology. It is, read some ichthyology literature, no one says "fish"--They have to be more specific than that because fish isn't a monophyletic group of organisms. Nested in there are things like the mammals, the squamatas, the testudines, the dinosauriformes (including avians), etc.

Its like the word "reptile" in biology, as a descriptor of a group--Its useless as well. That doesn't mean people should necessarily adopt the language we use in science (in deed, that would the average joe a long time to learn such language). But it isn't a bad thing, that people understand the difference in scientific language and lay speak.

[Copasetic]

Again, phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis. Do I have to keep repeating the same things? Do you not understand what scientific facts mean? A lot of people throw around the word "fact" but have no idea what that means or includes. Not everything that involves science are facts. Hypothesis is not a scientific fact. Please read the definition if you do not understand, rather than make a fool of yourself by quote the people in the video that don't know these concepts themselves.

Well no again. If you are saying what BM said; that "a salmon is more closely related to a camel than to a hagfish" is a hypothesis. You would be incorrect.

Before you start accusing others of having "no idea what that means"--A reminder; a hypothesis is an explanation for observation in science.

The observation or fact, if you will, here we are discussing is the divergence of the ancestors for camels, hagfish and salmon. We can go into the lab, look at their genomes, measure mutation rates and ultraconserved coding regions etc, and actually see when those groups diverged. Of course there will be error in that measurement, but on the time scales we are talking it is minor and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We can further support when they diverged with fossils, RNA, proteins, comparative anatomy (all those things I listed above) etc.

The hypothesis in this case would be the explanation for that observation, or fact. Of course, its not a hypothesis that explains it--Its the modern synthetic theory of evolution which explains it--A scientific theory. You know what that is right?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Copasetic

[Blue Lizard]

Well no he is not wrong. The word "fish" is useless in biology. Its certainly okay for common usage, but biologists don't use the word because it doesn't mean anything. Like was pointed out we are more closely related to some fish, in terms of coalescent point, than they are to other fish.

In biology "fish" is a non-starter of a term because the group "fish" is a polyphyletic group.

Thank you for stating the same question as the video but with more complex terms for no real reason.

Secondly, the tree of life or "phylogenetic tree" (that's non-specific, I am assuming you are speaking of the tree of life where we can view the relationship between different types of "fish" and say other organisms, like mammals) is a model. It is different than a hypothesis.

Are you seriously just making up scientific concepts here? A phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis. There is no such thing as "model" in the scientific method. Seriously, we could keep arguing about this or you could actually just google it. I am sorry but I don't know if you are purposely making up stuff or you just happen not know that phylogenetic trees are. Either ways, just read on it.

Again to make it easier for you... I will post the definition to show why you are wrong about this and are unnecessarily complicating this.

A phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed to have occurred. - Wikipedia

That data that makes the model comes from many and varied sources including (obviously not limited too); genetics, comparative anatomy, evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo for short), biochemistry, functional RNA sequencing, proteomics, the modern synthesis, fossil evidence, comparative physiology, bioinformatics, etc.

It also changes like every few months. Do you understand what hypothesis means and why it is not the same thing as facts? Seriously, there is no point arguing about things that are set foundations of science. If you do not understand this, then you should just read on it than argue about it. It will save you and me some time.

I didn't watch the video, but according to the OP's caption its based on SJG's statements (which as I pointed out above is entirely accurate, the term "fish" is meaningless in biology, then again so are lots of common terms like "reptile"). If that is the case, then do you mean to suggest that Professor Gould doesn't understand biology? You might, at the chance of sounding foolish, want to seriously reconsider that line of argument.....

Are you saying that a "well known" scientist cannot be wrong? If that is what you actually believe then I sincerely feel sorry for you. Again, maybe you should look into understanding religion than spending time trying to learn science as religion is more about following blindly and not asking questions.

Again I never said that fish could not be an inaccurate word. All I am saying is that there is no point worrying about simple semantics and, especially when it is just a hypothesis. If this tree of life was the right one, then you would be right... but as of now it is not a fact and so it is meaningless to argue about it for more than one reason.

[Blue Lizard]

Well no again. If you are saying what BM said; that "a salmon is more closely related to a camel than to a hagfish" is a hypothesis. You would be incorrect.

Before you start accusing others of having "no idea what that means"--A reminder; a hypothesis is an explanation for observation in science.

Yes but it hasn't passed the scientific method and so it is not a fact. I am not wrong about this but you are just misunderstanding what terms actually mean. Just because the definitions have the term "science" in it doesn't mean it is the same as facts.

The observation or fact, if you will, here we are discussing is the divergence of the ancestors for camels, hagfish and salmon. We can go into the lab, look at their genomes, measure mutation rates and ultraconserved coding regions etc, and actually see when those groups diverged. Of course there will be error in that measurement, but on the time scales we are talking it is minor and not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We can further support when they diverged with fossils, RNA, proteins, comparative anatomy (all those things I listed above) etc.

The hypothesis in this case would be the explanation for that observation, or fact. Of course, its not a hypothesis that explains it--Its the modern synthetic theory of evolution which explains it--A scientific theory. You know what that is right?

Again, please read on this before you make yourself seem more foolish. Your last paragraph just said that a hypothesis is a fact. Again, read on this because this is not even worth debating as it is a basic fundamental thing about science that you can just google.

You also just said that an observation is a fact in your first paragraph. This is just a shame. Go google it seriously as science is not exactly what you think it is.

[Soul Kitchen]

But how is it applied? If you put a sign on a lake that reads "no fishing," sooner or later you will have to specify which of A,B,C,D are included and which are not if you don't want people to fish there. Take those which are selected, and make them category E, and E will be fish.

It isn't necessarily meant to be applied. It's just something to think about.

[Taut]

I think I love the Brits and the comedy they use in dealing with a broad, flat statement that is not qualified or quantified until later in the show. I just enjoyed the comedy. And while a good debate is also enjoyable..........

Arguing over semantics is a waste of time as all opinions are vanities based on a subjective interpretation of a subjective interpretation of a subjective interpretation of "facts". The "need" to be right and make others wrong is a function of the ego and demonstrates a severe lack of self actualization and balance.