'Whoopee cushion' stops play at Masters (and what is 'sport'?)

[littlebabyjesus]

Put it this way — birds are a thing. They exist, and we can study them. As part of that study, it becomes useful to classify them — taxonomy assists future study. The definitions derive from real world characteristics.
The concept of sport, on the other hand, has no existence beyond whatever meaning we ascribe to it. Once we have ascribes a meaning, that becomes the classification by definition. Arguing about what falls into the classification can never be anything other than a circular argument — something is a sport because and only because that’s how you’ve defined what sport is.

Got to agree with Frank that this isn't the best analogy. Even the basic concept 'species' is facing a fair few challenges in its definition at the moment - nowhere near as clear-cut as it was once thought. (And there are very definitely arguments about how 'species' should be defined!) Regarding birds, we now also know that they are basically dinosaurs, so the dinosaurs did not go extinct 65 million years ago as is often said.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Right, but they are still based on trying to classify things that actually exist. They aren’t manufacturing a concept, defining what is classified by that concept and then arguing because other people have different definitions for it!

Sports/games actually exist. I can show you the rule books and everything.

 

[klang]

Sports/games actually exist.

...and with this goes my hope that golf was just an illusion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

...and with this goes my hope that golf was just an illusion.

Soz.

As per definitions, it's in one of the biggest families of sport - namely 'hitting balls with sticks'.

 

[kabbes]

Sports/games actually exist. I can show you the rule books and everything.

Yes, but the concept of sport doesn’t. It’s a made up classification whose definition is bespoke to each individual and then people argue because their version includes things that other people’s doesn’t. But so what? That argument tells us nothing except for the self-referential fact that people had different definitions in the first place. Wow, how fascinating. It has no further import beyond itself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, but the concept of sport doesn’t. It’s a made up classification whose definition is bespoke to each individual and then people argue because their version includes things that other people’s doesn’t. But so what? That argument tells us nothing except for the self-referential fact that people had different definitions in the first place. Wow, how fascinating. It has no further import beyond itself.

That's not actually so different from the definition of 'species' among biologists. You may judge that the issues at stake in defining species are of far greater import, but that in itself is a subjective judgement by you.

 

[8ball]

Got to agree with Frank that this isn't the best analogy. Even the basic concept 'species' is facing a fair few challenges in its definition at the moment - nowhere near as clear-cut as it was once thought. (And there are very definitely arguments about how 'species' should be defined!) Regarding birds, we now also know that they are basically dinosaurs, so the dinosaurs did not go extinct 65 million years ago as is often said.

I think this is overcomplicating kabbes ‘ point.

“Species” is a category we have made up. “Football” is also something we made up. As opposed to “birds”, or “rocks”, say, which were here before we got here, and hence which we did not make up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think this is overcomplicating kabbes ‘ point.

“Species” is a category we have made up. “Football” is also something we made up. As opposed to “birds”, or “rocks”, say, which were here before we got here, and hence which we did not make up.

Hmmm. I think we're straying into arbitrary territory here by seeing a sharp distinction between the classification of human-made things and the classification of non-human-made things.

 

[kabbes]

I think this is overcomplicating kabbes ‘ point.

“Species” is a category we have made up. “Football” is also something we made up. As opposed to “birds”, or “rocks”, say, which were here before we got here, and hence which we did not make up.

Exactly. And the category of species would be similarly boring to argue about were it not for the fact that investigating that classification has taught us about the nature of the things that already exist. What does arguing about the classification of sport teach us? Nothing. It is just dull barking.

 

[8ball]

What does arguing about the classification of sport teach us? Nothing. It is just dull barking.

Nothing more than the fact that people enjoy arguing that the game they are taking too seriously is of more import than the games others take too seriously,

 

[stavros]