I have cropped and rearranged your post to highlight the parts where you seem to be replying to a different Kotatsu, who in turn seems to be presenting a quite different line of argument that I am.
learn every little detail of how to distinguish one bug
it is not always possible for every single person to instantly recognise the particular species of bug they are looking at.
performing a detailed analysis of every single bug they happen to come across.
spend all your time learning about it.
going into as much detail as physically possible is not necessarily useful or appropriate in every situation.
the detailed taxonomy, description and behavioural habits of every single creature I ever see or here about.
This other Kotatsu apparently asks you to be able to identify every taxon on Earth at the drop of a hat, something I don't agree with at all. I would ask you to, when responding to that other Kotatsu, refrain from actually quoting
this Kotatsu, as that might give the unwary observer the impression that I am actually
that Kotatsu, and hold his ludicrous views.
If this is not the case, I can only draw the conclusion that you are, perhaps unconsciously, trying to make it look as if I am arguing something else than what I actually write.
I've seen bugs that looked exactly the same as a stick, are you seriously trying to claim that they can't be camouflaged because they're not in the same family?
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Of course they can both be camouflaged, and of course they can both be camouflaged in the same way, making them very hard for a non-expert to place in the correct order. I do not in any way deny this. I do make the claim that these cases, where an insect that is likely to found casually is hard to place in the correct order by someone ho has had minimal training, is comparatively rare. This, you will remember from the post you quoted, was mentioned like this, previously:
But telling apart different orders of insects, well, there are just a comparative handful of cases where that would be impossible with only one day's self-teaching in the field.
Again, there are a handful of exceptions, but these are typically not things that this so-called "normal" person would be likely to encounter anyway.
Of course there will be tricky, usually tropical, species that are not as easy to place, but in the general case, all orders of insects are easy to tell apart, as are many families.
The part about how what you termed "normal" people are unlikely to encounter most of the examples where it is hard to tell insects from arachnids also applies, but to a somewhat lesser extent, to within-Insecta examples as well.
If I happen to see a bug in the garden, why the hell should I suddenly drop everything and run to the library to pick up a textbook on bugs?
I have no idea, and have not argued for this, either, at any point.
Hell, even if I do know exactly what it is, what exactly is wrong with calling it a bug?
There is nothing wrong with it at all, as both Shrike and I have stated. That is, I claim that there is nothing wrong with it in a general context, but is likely to lead to misunderstandings in a scientific context. Madurobob cited a homepage from a governmental department working with biology. I would expect such an agency to prefer to use a scientific definition of a term, if this differs from the colloquial definition, and to inform the general public that there is a difference, and that the scientific definition is used on this homepage. That seems to be the case here.
If you think it's arrogant to use words to mean what everyone understands them to mean, I seriously recommend you get a dictionary.
Yes, I do believe that it is as arrogant of the layperson to expect a scientist to use the colloquial definition of a term in a scientific context as it is for the scientist to expect the layperson to use the scientific definition of a term in a colloquial context.
I have several dictionaries, in several languages, but please feel free to recommend one that you find useful, and if it is clearly superior to the ones I have and use most often, I will switch.
And since we're specifically talking about the non-scientific context, what the hell does that have to do with anything? In case you've forgotten, here's the actual quote:
As I have stated before, I do not agree that this quote is in a non-scientific context, as I expect governmental agencies to as far as possible use science as a basis for their interaction with the people. Therefore, in cases where a term has a colloquial definition and a scientific one, I would expect these agencies to use the scientific one, but to explain the difference clearly, to avoid misunderstanding. As I see it, this is exactly what has been done in the present case. The Missouri Department of Conservation explains that there is a difference between the colloquial term and the scientific term, and at least hints to the reasons behind this, in what I take is an effort to make the readers of its homepage appreciate that there is more diversity in the arthropods than just bugs, and that there is a difference between the two definitions of "bug".
Interesting you should mention worms. I just found out the other day that slowworms are actually lizards, not snakes. You know why I didn't know that before? Because I have better things to do with my time than look up the detailed taxonomy, description and behavioural habits of every single creature I ever see or here about. Call that arrogant and ignorant if you like, but if that's seriously what you think then I'm not allowed to post what I think of you.
Well, call me what you like; if you would like to express your opinion without being stifled by the rules of this forum, my email address is daniel . gustafsson @ zool . gu . se. Alternatively, you can find me on skype under Kotatsu_no_Leo, I believe. I use it almost daily, and I get a small sound alarm when I get new mail, so there should be no great delay, regardless of the method you use.
Because I
do believe not knowing that sort of thing
does make you ignorant of biology, in the same way that I am most certainly ignorant of the vast majority of physics and maths, and a whole range of other subjects. While I do feel a certain pride in my knowledge of biology, I do not feel very much shame in my ignorance of math and physics, because I know that I have never had very much time to study these things. I am certainly not proud to be ignorant, but I realize that I would never have time to study all the things I would like.
But seriously, are you really trying to claim that we shouldn't call fish fish as well now? The bug thing is kind of funny, but if you really struggle that much using the same language as everyone else, I really feel sorry for you.
I don't struggle with this, as my primary language is not English, but one in which there is no equivalent of "bug", and we thus don't have this particular problem. The only similar term in my language is "insekt", and apart from children, I don't think I have ever heard anyone call any of the arachnids we have here "insects". However, I do admit that if someone shows me an animal -- almost regardless of what it is -- I do have a tendency to tell that person what it is, to as low a taxonomic level as I can get, or admit that I don't know what it is.
What I am claiming is that "fish" is a parallel case, where the colloquial definition is not the same as the scientific definition.
I think that what people are worried about is that perhaps those who use the word "bug" somehow think that arachnids are insects, or that all "bugs" are closely related biologically and thus don't require differentiation. But clearly that's not something that's necessarily the case, nor is there any reason to believe that by using the word "bug" someone is going to become more ignorant of biology.
I generally agree, but would like to add that I believe that if a person encountering a "bug" calls it a "bug", and leaves it at that, that person, if already ignorant of biology, is likely to remain so, whereas the person who tried to find out what it is is less likely to remain ignorant.
) time of the year around here.