My stubborn position is that all fruits are vegetables.
Anything that comes from a plant (vegetation) is a vegetable.
EDIT: Reading up on the case, they apparently didn’t treat fruits and vegetables as disjoint sets but rather with fruits as a subset of vegetables. So far, so good…
HOWEVER, they also apparently ruled that tomatoes don’t count as a fruit because they aren’t eaten for dessert…
Wow… just… wow.
Fruit is a scientific term. Vegetable is a culinary term.
Fruit is also a culinary term that is not identical to its meaning as a scientific term
That’s the one the SCOTUS used.
There we go. A tomato can be a fruit and not a fruit at the same time.
Oh cool, now we can namedrop Schrödinger into this to give an even more educated impression.
As a former worker at a steel plant, I concur.
Underrated comment 👏
Care to explain to this poor guy?
Anything that comes from a plant is a vegetable
former worker at a steel plant concurs
Implying that steel workers are brainless
Thank you kind human
Vegetables aren’t actually a thing though. Just a bunch of things we grouped because we like eating them.
There’s no such thing as a fish
*within taxonomy, I think most people can conceive of a fish in colloquial terms.
Whales are taxonomically fish.
No??? They’re mammals, where did you pull this information out of?
All mammals are taxonomically fish. Perhaps even all chordates. YOU are a fish!
After this conversation, I wish I was.
What they are trying to say: One cannot taxonomically group every animal we consider fish without also including all the mammals and i think even reptiles and birds. that’s because there are multiple taxonomic branches of fish that split off of the trunk before our ancestors started to walk on land, and not all of the fish in our branch decided to go on land, and continued their own branch. therefore yes: whales are fish and so are you. what does this mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
it is technically correct which is, of course, the best kind of correct.
They are correct. You’re not wrong, whales are indeed mammals. But “fish” isn’t a monophyletic grouping, meaning you either need to give up on using it as a category or you need to correct it by including everyone sharing the same LCA, meaning mammals would be part of your “fish” grouping.
Of course, that’s how it works within biological classification. Colloquially, you can call them anything.
Just gonna copy paste what I told the other guy:
I understand that and completely agree, but comparing taxonomical categories with common categorizations such as “fish” is also missing a big point. You can make better comparisons to get people to understand that taxonomy is made up and not reliable to follow religiously, barely even works as a guideline
Yes there is. Taxonomists aren’t the only people who give meaning to words
“Taxonomists aren’t the only people who give meaning to words”
Eloquently put! You’ve expressed a feeling that I have had for a while now and couldn’t quite put into the appropriate words! Thanks 🙏🏼
I’m officially calling this post misinformation. See the text of the opinion (emphasis mine). They literally say “Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine”. This is not about whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable according to specific botanical or common definitions, but about which definition to use for the purpose of the Tariff Act of 1883. It doesn’t say that tomatoes are a vegetable. It doesn’t say that botanically they aren’t fruits. It says that for the purpose of the Tariff Act of 1883 they are vegetables, not fruits.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)
[…]
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The single question in this case is whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as “vegetables” or as “fruit” within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883.
The only witnesses called at the trial testified that neither “vegetables” nor “fruit” had any special meaning in trade or commerce different from that given in the dictionaries, and that they had the same meaning in trade today that they had in March, 1883.
The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word “fruit” as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are “fruit,” as distinguished from “vegetables” in common speech or within the meaning of the tariff act.
There being no evidence that the words “fruit” and “vegetables” have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Of that meaning the court is bound to take judicial notice, as it does in regard to all words in our own tongue, and upon such a question dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 91 U. S. 42; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 137 U. S. 216; Nelson v. Cushing, 2 Cush. 519, 532-533; Page v. Fawcet, 1 Leon. 242; Taylor on Evidence (8th ed.), §§ 16, 21.
Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.
The attempt to class tomatoes as fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this Court, said:
“We do not see why they should be classified as seeds any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term ‘vegetables.’ As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary or can be produced.”
You’re right, and I absolutely upvoted this. Can’t we just laugh at the funny but slightly inaccurate thing? Quit reminding people that America’s courts weren’t always such a joke.
It doesn’t matter why are you roleplaying as a botanist if you don’t see that culinary definitions and scientific classification are two separate things. One is really useless for the average person and the other is probably also a foreign concept to everyone having quirky discussions about whether cakes are hotdogs or smoothies, because they are the type of people to tweet a 60 page essay about why expecting neurodivergents people to cook their own meal should be considered a hate crime.
Tomatoes don’t belong in a fruit salad
What about cherry tomatoes or grape tomatoes?
grape tomatoes
Do they make wine out of them?
Stupid meme. Many other countries also classify tomatoes in with vegetables for various commerce regulation and taxation purposes. That case was just capitalists trying to get out of paying tariffs by nitpicking the definition of a tomato
I hate these things where people twist reality just so they can make a cute “Americans are so dumb” meme. If you want to bash the US, there are plenty of relevant topics to choose from for criticism. Better yet, read a book once in a while instead of just scrolling the internet and grabbing random shit that’s gone viral.
And BTW, what’s a fruit or vegetable is not some objective Sacred Truth that science “discovered”, it’s that science came up with a system of categorizing plants that people deemed to be useful for the study of Botany, just as legislators came up with a slightly different classification useful for taxation, and regular people also classify them in a way that’s useful for cooking purposes. This is not a situation where Science! is an almighty God. It’s just ways of sorting things. “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”
Like when the state of Indiana [attempted to change] the definition of pi
Almost changed the definition of pi. It passed the House, but a professor from Purdue happened to be in the Statehouse on unrelated business the day the Senate voted on it. He managed to convince enough Senators that it was a terrible idea and they absolutely roasted it on the floor.
The Wikipedia article on it is great. “Legislative History” is the interesting bit. My favorite part is this:
An assemblyman handed [Prof. Waldo] the bill, offering to introduce him to the genius who wrote it. He declined, saying that he already met as many crazy people as he cared to.
Very relatable
Just a list of items we normally think of as veggies, but actually fruit: cucumbers, squash, peppers, eggplants, avocados, pumpkins.
The real misconception is that people conflate culinary terms with biological terms.
Are actually fruit
No, they are culinary vegetables. They are also biological fruits. AFAIK “vegetable” does not even have meaning in biology
