Flies and vinegar meet apples and oranges
I just read this fascinating scientific piece on The Condimentary Preferences of Drosophila at an excellent blog that can only be described as A Somewhat Old, But Capacious Handbag. Apparently,
An implicit assumption in the common expression that someone is "comparing apples and oranges" is that such a comparison would be impossible, or at least highly impractical. There seems to be reason to believe that this is not the case, however. Even the most amateur botanist can tell that pears and apples are highly similar (both are in the subfamily Maloideae), yet the Dutch, Swedes, and Germans apparently consider it impossible to "compare apples with pears," since this is their preferred construction of the same idiom. Is it possible that English speakers are similarly mistaken? Are apples and oranges really comparable or even similar? Several lines of evidence indicate that they may be.
The claims of similarity between apples and oranges appear to be bolstered by their etymological relationships in Afro-Semitic, Uralic, and Indo-European languages. In many of these languages, oranges are described as apples, albeit from a different location or with a different color. For example, the Greek χρυσομηλιά (chrysomelia) and Latin pomum aurantium both literally describe oranges as "golden apples." The German, Finnish, and Russian the terms for the bitter orange (a related species) are derived from the Latin, and the Hebrew תפוז (tapuz) is a shortened form of תפוח זהב(tapuakh zahav), which also means "golden apple." The Dutch, Latvian, Icelandic, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, and North-German words for sweet oranges (often simply called "oranges" in English) are all derived from the phrase "Chinese apple" in their respective tongues. If an apple from China is like an orange, then a comparison between the two is necessary every time an orange is mentioned.
As has been known since at least 1893 when the United States Supreme Court overturned centuries of botanical classification by defining tomatoes as vegetables (see Nix v. Hedden), common names are often biologically meaningless. Still, the large number of comparisons in relatively independent linguistic samples suggests that even if the two fruits shouldnot be compared, they are compared with great frequency, and various scholars from a variety of fields have suggested that apples and oranges can be validly compared by providing logical and empirical counterexamples.
Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that "we compare apples and oranges all the time! We compare them by price, by how much we like the taste, by likely sweetness and ripeness, by how well they'll go in a tasty fruit cocktail, and so on. In fact, every time we go to the store and buy apples rather than oranges — or vice versa — we are necessarily (if implicitly) comparing apples and oranges." He suggested that a better idiom would involve "two items that really are radically dissimilar" like "apples and democracy" or "oranges and the multiplication table." He believes that such "comparisons really would be hard to conduct." Volokh's argument seems valid, but his conclusion is likely inaccurate: one of his readers noted that even such radically dissimilar nouns as apples and the multiplication table can be compared fairly easily, as when one compares the number of syllables in each word or the relative age at which children learn each concept. Volokh's brother Alexander "Sasha" Volokh argued that mathematically, only the properties of apples and oranges can be compared; the fruits themselves cannot be. Mathematically astute bloggers and readers forced him to partially retract his analysis, however, leaving the issue at least partially unresolved.
Perhaps more interestingly, at least two independent scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared to oranges fairly easily and also the two fruits are quite similar. The first study, conducted by Scott A. Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, noted that
The British Medical Journal noted in a study by Stamford Hospital's surgeon-in-chief James Barone that both apples and oranges were sweet (as measured by the Licker scale), similar in size (circumference and diameter), weight (in grams), and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds (the study used seedless oranges), the involvement of Johnny Appleseed (P<0.01), and color (oranges were far more likely to be orange, with P=0.03).
The authors of the first study rejoined that its "earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment" than the British Medical Journal study; they appear to be correct. The issue should be settled by now. Still, while this question appears to have been laid to rest, further study may be necessary to determine whether the Serbian construction ( "Поредити бабе и жабе", or "comparing grandmothers and frogs") and the more English exaggerated comparisons such as those between "oranges to orangutans" "apples to dishwashers" and so on are invalid as Professor Volokh suggested.
Note: The above is a heavily modified version of the Wikipedia article on apples and oranges. (I can rewrite it for my blog because I wrote much of the original article and also because it's an Open Document, and Open Documents are awesome like that).
In a small-scale survey of the dietary preferences of kitchen Drosophila (species unknown), we find, contrary to received wisdom, that you catch significantly more flies with vinegar than with honey. However, no condiment tested was sufficiently attractive or lethal to comprise a promising direction for future pest control strategies. Further analysis of drosophilan gastronomic leanings suggests they may be middle class.While at first glance, this may seem compelling, unfortunately, the study is not without problems. There is no indication that the flies were actually caught. Personal observations indicate that honey is much stickier and viscous than vinegar and that its physical properties could result in more trapped flies even if the dipterans approach it only rarely. Additional research may be necessary to determine if the conventional wisdom is correct (as with the relative viscosities of blood and water or the relative flatnesses of the state of Kansas and a pancake), or not. In the mean time, the question will remain in much the same situation as the ancient chicken/egg question. There is hope, however. Scientists, mathematicians, doctors, linguists and lawyers appear to have finally reached a conclusion about whether apples can be compared to oranges. A discussion of their path to a well-supported conclusion follows.
Popular sentiment overwhelmingly supports the concept that ethanoic acid is unalluring to dipterans (1). However, some academic opinion disagrees (2). We here present results indicating that flies prefer vinegar not only to honey (p<0.01), but to a range of sauces and dressings from various cultural traditions.
An implicit assumption in the common expression that someone is "comparing apples and oranges" is that such a comparison would be impossible, or at least highly impractical. There seems to be reason to believe that this is not the case, however. Even the most amateur botanist can tell that pears and apples are highly similar (both are in the subfamily Maloideae), yet the Dutch, Swedes, and Germans apparently consider it impossible to "compare apples with pears," since this is their preferred construction of the same idiom. Is it possible that English speakers are similarly mistaken? Are apples and oranges really comparable or even similar? Several lines of evidence indicate that they may be.
The claims of similarity between apples and oranges appear to be bolstered by their etymological relationships in Afro-Semitic, Uralic, and Indo-European languages. In many of these languages, oranges are described as apples, albeit from a different location or with a different color. For example, the Greek χρυσομηλιά (chrysomelia) and Latin pomum aurantium both literally describe oranges as "golden apples." The German, Finnish, and Russian the terms for the bitter orange (a related species) are derived from the Latin, and the Hebrew תפוז (tapuz) is a shortened form of תפוח זהב(tapuakh zahav), which also means "golden apple." The Dutch, Latvian, Icelandic, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, and North-German words for sweet oranges (often simply called "oranges" in English) are all derived from the phrase "Chinese apple" in their respective tongues. If an apple from China is like an orange, then a comparison between the two is necessary every time an orange is mentioned.
As has been known since at least 1893 when the United States Supreme Court overturned centuries of botanical classification by defining tomatoes as vegetables (see Nix v. Hedden), common names are often biologically meaningless. Still, the large number of comparisons in relatively independent linguistic samples suggests that even if the two fruits shouldnot be compared, they are compared with great frequency, and various scholars from a variety of fields have suggested that apples and oranges can be validly compared by providing logical and empirical counterexamples.
Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that "we compare apples and oranges all the time! We compare them by price, by how much we like the taste, by likely sweetness and ripeness, by how well they'll go in a tasty fruit cocktail, and so on. In fact, every time we go to the store and buy apples rather than oranges — or vice versa — we are necessarily (if implicitly) comparing apples and oranges." He suggested that a better idiom would involve "two items that really are radically dissimilar" like "apples and democracy" or "oranges and the multiplication table." He believes that such "comparisons really would be hard to conduct." Volokh's argument seems valid, but his conclusion is likely inaccurate: one of his readers noted that even such radically dissimilar nouns as apples and the multiplication table can be compared fairly easily, as when one compares the number of syllables in each word or the relative age at which children learn each concept. Volokh's brother Alexander "Sasha" Volokh argued that mathematically, only the properties of apples and oranges can be compared; the fruits themselves cannot be. Mathematically astute bloggers and readers forced him to partially retract his analysis, however, leaving the issue at least partially unresolved.
Perhaps more interestingly, at least two independent scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared to oranges fairly easily and also the two fruits are quite similar. The first study, conducted by Scott A. Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, noted that
there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.Spectrometric analysis showed that apples and oranges could be compared quite easily and that they were actually very similar. He concluded that "the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future." Google Trends data is unavailable, but in the field of medical research (the only field where such analysis has, to our knowledge, been done), his influence appears to have been ephemeral at best. While use of the phrase dropped from an all-time high in 1995 back down to 1994 levels in 1996 after the paper was published, it quickly crept back in to use and appeared more often in 1999 (the last year for which data are available) than in any other year save 1995.
First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared
The British Medical Journal noted in a study by Stamford Hospital's surgeon-in-chief James Barone that both apples and oranges were sweet (as measured by the Licker scale), similar in size (circumference and diameter), weight (in grams), and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds (the study used seedless oranges), the involvement of Johnny Appleseed (P<0.01), and color (oranges were far more likely to be orange, with P=0.03).
The authors of the first study rejoined that its "earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment" than the British Medical Journal study; they appear to be correct. The issue should be settled by now. Still, while this question appears to have been laid to rest, further study may be necessary to determine whether the Serbian construction ( "Поредити бабе и жабе", or "comparing grandmothers and frogs") and the more English exaggerated comparisons such as those between "oranges to orangutans" "apples to dishwashers" and so on are invalid as Professor Volokh suggested.
Note: The above is a heavily modified version of the Wikipedia article on apples and oranges. (I can rewrite it for my blog because I wrote much of the original article and also because it's an Open Document, and Open Documents are awesome like that).
Tags: biology, dave, disenchantedidealist, research, satire, silly
Disenchanted Dave @ 6:31 PM
0 comments
links to this post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home