SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world · 11 months agoJustifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?message-squaremessage-square111fedilinkarrow-up145arrow-down13
arrow-up142arrow-down1message-squareJustifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world · 11 months agomessage-square111fedilink
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·11 months agodesign takes volition.
minus-squareidiomaddict@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 months agoThat’s debatable, I feel like spiders design their webs.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·11 months agodo they understand they might try other patterns, and actively choose the one they use?
minus-squareidiomaddict@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 months agoI don’t know what their cognitive processes are, but it seems unlikely they do. It still sounds perfectly normal to me to say the following: “Spider webs are designed to be safe for the spider, but still trap as much potential prey as possible.” Does that really hit your ear (eye) wrong?
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·11 months agoyes. i would talk about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped the behavior of the organism. i wouldn’t impart volition to them.
minus-squareidiomaddict@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 months agoHow would you phrase it? (Honest question)
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·11 months ago“spiders have evolved to produce webs. evolutionary pressures have favored species which produce webs that are safe for the organism and effective at trapping enough prey to maintain the life and reproductive cycles of the organism.”
minus-squareidiomaddict@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months agoThat feels much more formal to me. Definitely not incorrect, but not how I’d explain it casually to someone.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 months agodevoid of context, your phrasing might be fine. in this context, precision is important for us to focus on the actual issue.
design takes volition.
That’s debatable, I feel like spiders design their webs.
do they understand they might try other patterns, and actively choose the one they use?
I don’t know what their cognitive processes are, but it seems unlikely they do. It still sounds perfectly normal to me to say the following:
“Spider webs are designed to be safe for the spider, but still trap as much potential prey as possible.”
Does that really hit your ear (eye) wrong?
yes. i would talk about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped the behavior of the organism. i wouldn’t impart volition to them.
How would you phrase it? (Honest question)
“spiders have evolved to produce webs. evolutionary pressures have favored species which produce webs that are safe for the organism and effective at trapping enough prey to maintain the life and reproductive cycles of the organism.”
That feels much more formal to me. Definitely not incorrect, but not how I’d explain it casually to someone.
devoid of context, your phrasing might be fine. in this context, precision is important for us to focus on the actual issue.