Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

contrabardus t1_iybkloi wrote

Reply to comment by Elevenst in Bats use same techniques as death metal singers to vocalize, study finds by IslandChillin

No. There's no specific order implied.

It just says they use the same techniques, not that one learned from the other.

99

Zozorrr t1_iycukfs wrote

Irrelevant- temporally one was clearly first. So when comparing saying something is “the same as” the comparative order is implied. Poorly worded title.

−15

Cerebral_Discharge t1_iycxauq wrote

But the study is about bats. Wording it the other way makes it about the death metal singers.

7

contrabardus t1_iyd1rxa wrote

False.

This is a like to like comparison, not a cause and effect one.

In like to like, order doesn't matter.

It's "A" is the same in some regard as "B" and the order of "A" and "B" is irrelevant in that kind of statement.

It is not "A" caused "B" in which case order does matter.

If I say oranges and limes are both citrus, it does not suggest that oranges came first, or that limes "learned how to be a citrus" from oranges. In either order the statement means the same thing.

This is the exact same situation.

What you're suggesting is like saying that if I say that "Bats and Birds both use wings to fly", it suggests that Bats copied their wings from Birds, and that bats existed before birds did.

3

[deleted] t1_iycb18k wrote

[removed]

−18

contrabardus t1_iycf2hp wrote

That's worded oddly, so I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

If you mean that the order can be inferred by the fact that bats have existed longer than death metal, then yes, that's true.

If not...

Context matters, and is more relevant than formal syntax in this case.

No reasonable person is going to think that someone is claiming bats somehow learned how to vocalize from Death Metal.

The order they are mentioned in doesn't matter, because it would be assumed by anyone with enough mental capacity to read and understand the sentence as an absurdity to think Death Metal existed before bats did.

It is just pointing out the similarities between the two, and order in this case does not imply that the first one mentioned predates the other.

EDIT: It's a like to like comparison, and not a cause and effect one. Which also makes the order irrelevant.

5

DILDOS_UNITED t1_iycwhxt wrote

Actually the order does imply order, it’s the context that negates that implication. So yes, the order is inferred from the sentence but only if context is ignored.

Switching the sentence, “Death metal singers use the same techniques as bats to vocalise” implies they got their techniques from bats solely by the ordering of the words and this is made somewhat believable because it’s potentially true. Without context you’d be unable to infer from this ambiguous sentence wether it’s an objective statement about their vocalisation techniques or if they really learned it from bats. More context would be needed.

Worth noting that the implications of words/sentences are fairly subjective and especially ruined when argued about.

2

contrabardus t1_iycyqwg wrote

Not true.

There is no implication that Death Metal singers learned their vocal methods from bats, only that they use the same kind of vocal technique.

The statement is that Death Metal vocalists learned to do the same thing bats do naturally, without influence from bats to learn. Not that one directly influenced the other.

That is a big reason why the order is irrelevant.

This is not a statement of cause and effect that links the two ideas as one leading to the other to begin with. It's a comparison of like to like.

It's "A" is the same as "B" and the order of "A" and "B" is irrelevant in that kind of statement.

It is not "A" caused "B" in which case order does matter.

The statement "I poured gravy on my mashed potatoes and it eroded a canyon into them, so it is like the Grand Canyon." does not imply that my mashed potatoes existed before the Grand Canyon did.

This is the exact same situation.

What you're suggesting is like saying that if I say that "Bats and Birds both use wings to fly", it suggests that Bats copied their wings from Birds, and that bats existed before birds did.

3