PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
I knew asparagus reminded me of something!
When a bug is not a bug
- Thread starter madurobob
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bugs entymology
And they're all Scottish!
And what if we don't actually know what it is? If there's something flying around my head, or crawling around in a corner where I can't quite see it, do I have to hunt it down and perform a detailed biological inspection before I'm allowed to refer to it in any way? Why shouldn't I just point out that there's a bug there? There isn't a single person, other than the aforementioned pedantic biologists, who would be in any way confused about it.
Unless it's a wasp. Or maybe a hoverfly.
Unless it's a cricket.
Ultimately, the word "bug" is essentially the same as the word "woo". Many of the things they refer to have very little in common in a technical sense, but they share a few distinct traits that mean it can be useful to lump them all together as a group. For the former, that's being small, annoying, and having too many legs. For the latter, being a steaming pile of *********. The fact that there are more specific terms available if you happen to know/care more about one in detail doesn't mean the more general term has no use.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Agreed, but the part that disappoints me is that regular participants in the JREF should be dedicated to the knowing/caring, and they generally are, except when it comes to putting names to animals. (In my experience, potential confirmation bias acknowledged.)
That doesn't mean we all need to take entomology (I never have), but are we really suggesting that there's no value (except for entomologists) in using more specific terms like bee, wasp, beetle, butterfly, spider, tick, ant, etc., when we have seen the thing being described?
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Bit of a straw man there... Nobody has suggested we never use specific terms. The main objection is that a long established, generalist term has been co-opted for a much more specific purpose, and then those using it in the general way are castigated for using it in the general sense. It causes confusion and alienates people from science (IMO).
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
My buddy says it is best to eat them right after they emerge and the exoskeleton hasn't hardened yet.
Pedantry has its place, and in a discussion with biologists or entomologists, I would assume "bug" probably referred to hemiptera, just as in a discussion with physicists, I would assume "theory" referred to an explanation rather than an hypothesis.
But it's not misplaced to recognize that these two words also have perfectly valid "ordinary speech" meanings. It's up to the pedant to clarify when using the terms, because it's unrealistic to expect a non-professional audience to know what is likely meant during casual mention. It's not unreasonable for the average educated person to think that "bug" is a synonym for "critter."
And, as others have mentioned, even in scientific circles, "bug" has more than one valid meaning. Both viral and bacterial infectious agents are referred to as bugs.
But it's not misplaced to recognize that these two words also have perfectly valid "ordinary speech" meanings. It's up to the pedant to clarify when using the terms, because it's unrealistic to expect a non-professional audience to know what is likely meant during casual mention. It's not unreasonable for the average educated person to think that "bug" is a synonym for "critter."
And, as others have mentioned, even in scientific circles, "bug" has more than one valid meaning. Both viral and bacterial infectious agents are referred to as bugs.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
As someone who has taught electronic music in a conservatory, I take great exception to the casual -- nay, willful -- use of the term "techno", when here at the JREF -- committed as we all are to the value of terminological precision -- and in general, education, we should distinguish between Dark ambient, Breakbeat, Big git, Dubstep, Drum and Bass, Silly git, Electroclash, Folktronica, Electro pop, Eurodance, Gabba, Yabba, Doo, Goa, Psychedelic Trance, Happy hardcore, Dirty Hardcore, Hard Hardcore, Soft Porn Score, Harcore techo, Four on the Floor, Acid House, Ambient House, White House, House Mouse, Electro House, UK Garage, IDM, and of course the -- to my exquisitely sensitive ear -- obviously distinct genres of Trance, which fall under the broad subcategories of Acid, Classic, Euro, Hard, Hardstyle, Progressive, Tech Uplifting, and Vocal; and it wouldn't be splitting hairs to add Rave, Techno (as such) Downtempo, Glitch, Industrial "music", and Progressive Electronic; nor should we succumb to some Caucasian/Euro-centric hegemonic selection bias by ignoring Alternative hip hop, Crunk, Dirty rap/Pornocore, East Coast hip hop, Gangsta rap, G-funk, Grime, Wanker, Horrorcore, Hyphy, Latin rap -- not to be confused with Chicano rap, an entirely different genre -- Miami bass, Miami Vice, Midwest hip hop, Chicken Scratch, Calling the Chickens to Roost, Rooster Core, Political, Rap Metal, Rap Rock, Sheet Rock, Southern hip hop, Christian porno acid Satire-Core, Chutney, Bollywood ambient, Panir-Cheena, Compa, Mambo, Black Mambo, Big Dumbo, Merengue, and a host of many others, as long as they are all played, with reverence, on a DX7.
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,483
madurobob
Philosopher
They're a lot easier to catch then, too.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Who's been castigated? The poster in the OP expressed surprise at learning that chiggers are not bugs, and that "bug" has a specific definition. I suspect, now that he's learned the difference, he'll more likely use the specific term when appropriate, as will other readers of this thread. That's education, and it's a good thing.
Re: eating cicadas - yes, they can be delicious. I've had them pan-fried with garlic, salt, and olive oil.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Yes, it is a good thing to have more knowledge. Nobody denies that. As have have said over and over again, it is one specific thing I am objecting to. In the article in the OP, the biologist has a piece of information that "Many people people think that chiggers are bugs" and then goes on to explain why they are not. But in doing so he is conflating the two definitions and assuming that the lay person is simply misusing/misunderstanding the specific definition when in fact they are using a different definition all together. He is making the lay person out to be more ignorant than they are, when in fact, to me, it is his/her ignorance of language and/or arrogance that the specialist definition is the *only* one that counts, that stands out for me.
And people *are* castigated and looked down upon for using the common original definition all the time. Have you never heard someone talk about losing weight and have a scientist tut and say "actually, it is mass you are losing"?... The word weigh(t) was used - coming from the Old English - long before the scientists gave it a more specific technical definition. The people using the word in the common, non technical manner are not incorrect, they are merely using a different vocabulary set from the technical vocabulary the scientist uses. It is fine to educate people about what the technical definitions are, but you shouldn't imply that they are somehow better than the common ones and that anyone who uses it them the common sense is ignorant.
By the way, this is not an issue I have only with people using technical language, I have similar problems with people who are very prescriptivist about language and correct people for (eg) incorrect grammar, when in fact the grammar they espouse has been imposed on the language from without and is not better, per se, than the regional or common usage that predated it and persists despite it.
I've tried to explain this several different ways but it seems I am not being clear as people keep misinterpreting me, or extending from what i have said to a completely different opinion. So this is going to be my last attempt at explaining it.
Last edited:
autumn1971
Illuminator
Shouldn't biolgical scientists be specific enough to call a Hemiptera a Hemiptera and not care what the masses call 'em?
Isn't that the whole point of using scientific nomenclature instead of traditional common names?
Isn't that the whole point of using scientific nomenclature instead of traditional common names?
madurobob
Philosopher
Yeah. They got a little carried away when they put "(True Bugs)" after the Hemiptera. Not necessary nor useful, IMO.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
In which case it isn't a bee, and in which case Shrike wouldn't call it a bee.
In which case it isn't a grasshopper, and in which case Shrike wouldn't call it a grasshopper.
But as Shrike stated that there was a bee in the flower and a grasshopper in the field, your alternatives make no sense.
Or "modern music", which should be acceptable at any period in time when everything from the 1000s and onwards that happen to have a non-electric instrument in it can be referred to as "classical" music.
But in this case, wouldn't it be possible to argue that it is a misunderstanding between two sets of prescriptionists, each of whom are trying to impose their well-defined concept ("the Hemiptera to the exclusion of all other animals" vs. "all small, disgusting things with lots of legs") in a context where it is not necessarily useful to do so? In this case, "bug" used to have a wider meaning than "Hemiptera", but language evolved -- albeit only among a small group of people who saw the need in naming a group of organisms and took one of the names available -- and "bug" now does not formally mean the same thing?
The only difference I can see between the arrogance of the expert using the more limited definition of "bug", and the arrogance of the layman using the less restricted definition -- and they are both being arrogant -- is that while the former has made some sort of analysis of the situation, the latter is just willfully ignorant.
In this specific case, I would much more prefer if the Missouri Department of Conservation used the scientific definition of "bug" and tried to educate people about the fact that there is at least formally a difference between chiggers and bugs, than to have them use a vernacular definition which is, for all scientific purposes, useless. Whether the people who work there call things they find in their breakfast cereals bugs or not is uninteresting, but if a governmental department is to be seen as forming policy and so on based on science, I would expect them to use a scientific language.
Luckily, I live in a country where the local language does not have the word "bug", or indeed any equivalent apart from "insect".
Well there is that...
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
HappenS!
I'm being frivolous, here, of course.
I don't really care about the terminology referring to supposedly distinct styles of music, where the differences between most of them are actually trivial. They are 4/4 electronic dance music, mostly, with percussion.
In your example, it would be highly confusing to call all acoustic music after 1000 AD "classical music" because that term has been stable and well-understood to mean the music from just after Bach to early/mid Beethoven, when it's referring to an historical period. And it's also well-understood when it refers to a genre available to consumers, to distinguish it from jazz or rock.
Meaning is usage. Usage is 1) historical 2) traditional 3) technical 4) contemporary, or any combination of the four that is logically possible. Maybe there are more possibilities.
From a technical standpoint, having dozens of names for what is essentially the same thing obscures the possibilities that these popular styles don't explore.
These possibilities are many, involving different tunings, different kinds of organization, different kinds of metrical bases, different kinds of form.
I got some of that list from a Wiki page like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres
And what's depressing is that the differences between these styles are mostly contingent, and defined only by "where" and "when", with the vast majority being 4/4 dance music. For some reason, all the stuff I studied in school, and continue to enjoy as part of my listening, is under the heading "electronica". That's just something that someone made up in the last few years, and it's not well agreed on. (Check out how many of these pages are disputed. None of it really matters, of course.)
Now, none of this would bother me at all, except in these very pages -- the elite world of the JREF! -- someone was impressed with some music because that music supposedly shifted between 6 different genres in rapid succession.
No! John Zorn's music does that. This music, by contrast, merely referred to 6 kinds of popular music that are all basically the same, anyway.
That's like being impressed that you can put 6 kinds of toppings on your ice-cream.
This wiki page has an approach sort of like having 80 different words for "car", when they all have four wheels and run on gasoline, and this when we might be doing better to consider riding bicycles, or walking.
It's a kind of false catholicism.*
I speak as an embittered elitist wanker.
*eta: can't find a noun-form of "catholic", meaning "of broad scope". hmm.
eta2: I have a better simile. That wiki page is like calling the music of Samuel Barber "gay neo-romantic Pennsylvanian wino-classical", and actually calling that a genre.
Last edited:
Tatyana
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,701
The majority of insects are not vermin.