> But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.
On the subject of categories, they cease to be useful when the contents of the categories can no longer tell you anything about the category itself. The further you get down this axis, the less useful the category is. So any dilution of the strength of a category by overly broad inclusion should be scrutinized.
> In the United Kingdom, value added tax is payable on chocolate-covered biscuits, but not on chocolate-covered cakes.[14][15] McVities defended its classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes at a VAT tribunal in 1991, against the ruling that Jaffa cakes were biscuits due to their size and shape, and the fact that they were often eaten in place of biscuits.[16] McVities insisted that the product was a cake, and allegedly produced a giant Jaffa cake in court to illustrate its point.[16]
> The court discounted the expert evidence, as it went beyond the capacity of an ordinary purchaser.[17] The product was assessed on the following criteria:[18][19]
* The product's name was regarded as a minor consideration.
* The ingredients were regarded as similar to those of a cake, producing a thin cake-like mixture rather than the thick dough of a biscuit.
* The product's texture was regarded as being that of a sponge cake.
* The product hardens when stale, in the manner of a cake.
* A substantial part of the Jaffa cake, in terms of bulk and texture, is sponge.
* In size, the Jaffa cake is more like a biscuit than a cake.
* The product was generally displayed for sale alongside other biscuits, rather than with cakes.
* The product is presented as a snack and eaten with the fingers, like a biscuit, rather than with a fork as a cake might be. The tribunal also considered that children would eat them in "a few mouthfuls", in the manner of a sweet.
The court was adjudicated by Mr Donald Potter QC, who found in favour of McVitie's and ruled that whilst Jaffa Cakes had characteristics of both cakes and biscuits, the product should be considered a cake, meaning that VAT is not paid on Jaffa cakes in the United Kingdom.[14][20] Mr Potter QC also expressed that Jaffa Cakes were not biscuits.[21]The Irish Revenue Commissioners also regard Jaffa cakes as cakes, since their moisture content is greater than 12%. As a result, they are charged the reduced rate of VAT (13.5% as of 2016).[22]
Depends on whether the bun is cut in half. If yes it's a sandwich otherwise it's a pizza. /s
Arguments about categorizations can be productive in as far as they allow you a glimpse into the thought-process of other people (=
[1]: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...
If your field re-defines a commonly used term to mean something very precise, obviously you're going to encounter problems when you try work backwards. "Tree" in the meaning of "some phylogenetic categorisation that contains elements x, y, z" may not exist in biology, but "tree" in the meaning of "big leafy thing made of wood" exists as sure as anything.
Drawing lines is for scientific language, not general-purpose language.