The tomato is a fruit. Why?

Factual Questions
41

I expect an apology for that. That was an unwarranted personal attack and had no bearing on the topic at hand.

I do not understand your unwillingness to accept that there is more than one acceptable definition of a word. Does this stem from the fact that one definition of American includes Canadians. I am not saying that a tomato is not a fruit because that’s what everybody else says. I’m saying that some definitions of fruit include the tomato and some don’t. I don’t see how you can argue that point. Every defintion of a word does not apply at all times. You seem to think so, but you are wrong. In my line example above a matematician would define a line as being infinite in length with no width. According to this definition it is impossible to draw a line with a pencil. 97 million architects might disagree. Are architects all ignorant? Or are you for not accepting that a different definition of the word might apply? It would be cool of you to address this point this time around.

Jeff, thanks for introducing me to the useful term “Fruit Vegetable.” That doesn’t change the fact that there are acceptable definitions of fruit that do not include the tomato.

42

Yeah I got your point. However, the definition of fruit that you quoted used rhubarb as an example of a fruit. Also rhubarb is clearly a vegetable by most definitions of vegetable. (As are apples, oranges, etc.) I’m not saying that a tomato is not a fruit. I am saying that a tomato is a fruit by some definitions and is not by others. Call it a fruit if you want, you will be correct. Call it a vegetable, also correct. Say that it isn’t a fruit, still correct. Say that it is not a vegetable, wrong by most definitions. There is a set of all vegetables that has a subset of fruits. All fruits are in the greater set of vegetables.

43

My mistake for limiting my quote.

44

i am not saying that you’re an idiot.

i was showing that just because someone defines something as X, that doesn’t make it X.

me defining you as an idiot does not make you an idiot.

i was illustrating how ridiculous your logic was.

didn’t i explain this already?

45

Why is it the most trivial questions spark the most vigorous arguers?

Kilgore Trout, the dictionary is full of words that have multiple meanings, depending on how they’re used. That doesn’t make those meanings wrong, it just means you have to look at the context of the usage. That was what Lance Turbo was trying to point out to the OP, in order to explain the answer.

Vegetable can mean all plant matter. That would be the most general form, which of course includes fruit. While that is not the common parlance usage, or the grocery store usage, or a botanists usage for classifying plant parts, it is a classification and a proper use of the word. Ever played 20 questions? Isn’t question 1 almost always “Animal, vegetable, or mineral?” (Though doesn’t that leave out some of the Kingdoms of life as currently defined? Oops, hijack.)

In that way everyone has elaborated very nicely on the distinctions in terminology, and uses where tomatoes are fruits and where they are vegetables.

If you wish to argue that the English language is silly or poorly structured or overly complex because words can have multiple meanings that are somewhat contradictory depending on usage, by all means start a thread for that.

Meanwhile, what was your point for calling Lance Turbo an idiot, by your arbitrary definition? You claim you were just making a point. So be it, but still acknowledge that you did, in fact, call him an idiot. That doesn’t make it true, but it is still an insult. It does not illustrate Lance Turbo’s logic being idiotic, because his logic is not wrong. You just fail to acknowledge that words have more than one usage.

A very popular example (leading into great debates territory) - the word “theory”. In common parlance, a theory is an idea to explain some phenomenon or event. It can be highly detailed, or very general. It can be very well supported by evidence, or some wacky notion dreamed up while smoking crack while taking electroshock therapy. It has no specific implication of relation to truth. This is opposed to the scientific use of the word theory, which applies to an explanation that has been subjected to tests, and been upheld by the data. A scientific theory is something that has a pretty good base of support. It is not just a wild conjecture, it has some relation to truth. Now, which use is wrong? Depends on the context.

[/preaching off]

46

hijackal

the strawberry proper is not a fruit. the little seeds on the outside are the fruit, whilst the strawberry is nothing but a modified stem.

take that, lance and kilgore!

47

What distinguishes an idiot from an imbecile?

Several posters have provided alternate definitions of “fruit” that do or do not include the tomato. Yet somehow these are all inferior to your ex cathedra pronouncement that the tomato is a fruit, and the only remaining question is how long it will take the rest of the world to catch up with you. And you claim to be fighting ignorance? Loudly repeating what you said before is hardly the way to overcome someone’s ignorance. I SAID, LOUDLY REPEATING WHAT YOU JUST SAID DOESN’T REDUCE IGNORANCE!

There is certainly a well-accepted botanical definition of the word “fruit” which clearly includes the tomato. No one is disputing that. However, the existence of one definition of a word doesn’t preclude other definitions from existing OR from being correct. This is certainly the case here. In my experience the most common usage of the word is to refer to certain foods which are sweet and eaten for dessert. Although I’m aware of the botanical definition, that is seldom what I, or most of my circle of acquaintance, have in mind when we use the word. We’re using a casual, imprecise definition which includes apples, oranges and strawberries, but doesn’t include tomatoes, potatoes and pumpkins.

In fact, that’s the whole point of the question; the conflict between the technical definition and the casual definition. Because, as should be obvious by now, they are different. And, surprise, surprise, it’s okay for them to be different.

You seem to be arguing that there is only one definition and that it is somehow elevated above all others. Is this because you think botanists are the smartest people in the world? Is it because you think the only people who care what the word “fruit” means are those who have a need for a botanical definition? Isn’t it possible someone’s inquiry as to whether something is a fruit or a vegetable might have more to do with food preparation than classical categorization? Did you notice that the U.S. Supreme Court found another basis for the definition, or is that invalid simply because you’re Canadian?

We’ve already established that you’re an idiot, eh?, but I’m assuming you’re not unteachable. Go to the public library. Check out a book entitled Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, by George Lakoff. Open the book and open your mind and you’ll learn something about categorization and the human mind, beyond the ignorant belief that someone “in authority” said so.

48

Thanks, Irishman, for making the point I was attempting quicker, more clearly, and with less vitriol.

49

Folks, could we please take the vitriol portion of today’s program to the Pit?

Thanks.

50

FRUITS GROW ABOVE THE GROUND, AND VEGETABLES DON’T

51

Ok, so lettuce is a fruit now?? Great! :rolleyes:

52

i made the mistake of using the word idiot.

i don’t think lance is an idiot. not at all.

i would have made my point the same if i had have used tree instead, and perhaps less offense would have been taken. or perhaps bologna.

oh well.

53

there isn’t really anything else i have to say. i’ve said everything more than once anyway.

well, almost.

as you’ve probably read in the column, tequila does not contain a worm.

most people do think tequila has a worm. if you ask someone right now what a special quality of tequila is, they will most likely say that it has a worm. if you show someone a bottle of liquor with a worm in it, most people will say that it is clearly tequila. what i’m saying is, the general consensus is that tequila has a worm.

as you probably know, this is not the case.

anyway. i’m done now.

54

i have found something that gives a reason for a tomato to be considered a vegetable.

up until now, the only argument here was essentially “i eat it like a vegetable, i cook it like a vegetable, so it’s a vegetable.”

that doesn’t cut it.

the supreme court ruling is a different story altogether. they considered it a vegetable for trade purposes only.
but this link gives an actual valid reason for the tomato money will do that.

this link gives a valid reason to consider a tomato a vegetable.

http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~robsond/solutions/horticulture/docs/tomato.html

yes, i accept multiple definitions of the same word. i haven’t given any indication otherwise. but not when the definition is wrong, and until now i wasn’t given any reason to see it as correct.