Let's play a Scholarly Game

Off Topic
#1

The Basics

Premise

The basics are thus: I’ll state a fact that is obvious. To wins round, you must be the first that can prove it with citations.
Statements such as “A cow is not a type of rock” are obvious, bit you can’t reply with “it’s not a rock,” you need a scholarly citation.
BTW I totally got this game idea from here: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game

Judging

For the first round I’ll judge acceptable answers and not participate. However, should some others volunteer we can round robin who makes the statement then judges it.
Whomever proposes a statement, even if not judging, may not submit answers for that statement.

The Prize

I don’t know, 1000 internet points? A private class of mine? We’ll see where things go.

Game Time

Round 1

Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Humans are not a type of tree”
Winner: @mblatz

Round 2

Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “cats are not demons sent to terrorise humans”
Winner: @mrjimmy

Round 3: FIGHT

Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Boubon typically has 'bite” (where here bite refers to the drink profile)
Winner: @frank_lima
Honourable Mention: @mdredmond for the mosquito bite study involving beer consumption prompting me to clarify the statement.

Round 4: The Quickening

Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Red is not Orange” (note, there is not a specific shade mentioned here, so can’t use hex values or specific wavelengths since the boundary is explicitly not clear)
Winner: TBD

1 Like
#2

This article addresses the number of trees before humans appeared on earth vs after humanity began. I don’t think that humans can predate humans.

I also surmise that trees can survive without humans, but the inverse doesn’t seem to be true.

(Not very scholarly, but nobody accused me of being such)

1 Like
#3

Dead humans do not burn as well as dead tree. QED

3 Likes
#4

1 - Premise/given: the (modern) Linnaean system of taxonomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank#Examples) is in wide and accepted use across all of biological sciences, and taken to be authoritative.

2 - Fact: no organism can be in more than one Kingdom. (this would defeat the purpose of the taxonomy.)

3 - Fact: all trees are categorized under the kingdom Plantae.

3 - Fact: humans are categorized under the kingdom Animalia.

4 – Conclusion: Humans are not a type of tree. (and vice-versa.)

Q.E.D.

2 Likes
#5

All citations are on the Internet. Q.E.D. :grin: must be true!

1 Like
#6

I mean, there were more British colonies until some specific British colonies ruined everything for the rest of them.

I’m awarding it to @mblatz

Round 2 statement: “cats are not demons sent to terrorise humans”

1 Like
#7

“giving”…hrrumpgh! :smile:

1 Like
#8

I deny phrasing.

1 Like
#9

Point of Clarification. Are we talking about all animals belonging to the family felidae (including tigers, lynxes, housecats), restricting it to animals belonging to the sub-family felinae (including lynxes, cheetahs, pumas, house cats, etc.), or restricting it even further to animals belonging to species Felis catus (general house cats)?

Additionally, If the cat was “sent”, by what? Are we intended to dis/prove the existence of an almighty sender? Disprove the existence of demons? How does one disprove a negative?

3 Likes
#10

Trees burn, as do witches, and witches are people, so people are trees.

Did I win?

2 Likes
#11

First, Cats have been shown to have very little capacity for memory.

Therefore you could try and “send” a cat to do something, but it’s unlikely to remember what it was sent to do.

Second, in mythology cats fall into the category of “familiar” not “demon”
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/369116/pdf

So cats are actually familiars that may or may not remember what they were asked to do.

3 Likes
#12

I would have accepted an argument involving big cats.

Ding ding ding.

Round 3: FIGHT

Statement: “Boubon typically has ‘bite’” (where here bite refers to the drink profile)

EDIT: I’m sure someone else can come up with something.

1 Like
#13

You didn’t define “bite.”

[J Am Mosq Control Assoc.] 2002 Jun;18(2):91-6.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12083361#

Alcohol ingestion stimulates mosquito attraction.

Shirai O1, Tsuda T, Kitagawa S, Naitoh K, Seki T, Kamimura K, Morohashi M.

Abstract

Mosquito bites should be avoided because of the risk of contracting parasitic and viral diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and several encephalitides. Although humans have been said to suffer more mosquito bites after ingesting liquor, little is known about whether that is true. Thirteen volunteers (12 men from 20 to 58 years old and a 24-year-old woman) were chosen as test hosts and a 30-year-old man was established as a control. We measured ethanol content in sweat, sweat production, and skin temperature before and after ingestion of 350 ml of beer (ethanol concentration 5.5%) by volunteers and compared them with a control subject. Our study demonstrated that percent mosquito landing on volunteers significantly increased after beer ingestion compared with before ingestion, showing clearly that drinking alcohol stimulates mosquito attraction. However, ethanol content in sweat and skin temperature did not show any correlation between alcohol ingestion and mosquito landings. This study shows that persons drinking alcohol should be careful about their increased risk to mosquito bites and therefore exposure to mosquito-borne diseases.

5 Likes
#14

Alright, I will clarify it because I still want to see what people can come up with but damn that’s a good pull.

3 Likes
#15

I’d reply, but this statement seems to only revolve around definitions, e.g. “define bourbon”, define “bite”. It’s like if the statement to be proven is “water is wet”…I don’t know how to “prove” that without self-referencing or circular logic. “Wetness” is a property of water, “nose” is a property of wine, “bite” is a property of bourbon/whiskey/alcohol. So all “true” as a matter of definition, therefore not provable as assertions.

Maybe I am missing the “spirit” of the question?

#16

Boubon actually has a strict definition: bourbon whiskey. a straight whiskey distilled from a mash having 51 percent or more corn, produced in the USA, using new charred oak barrels.

Part of the game is things like “bite” being well understood in speech here but poorly defined.

#17

Bite within the context of a flavor or drink according to the Oxford dictionary is defined as:
image

The chemical composition of Bourbon is highly variable but always includes both Ethanol and Tannin.


Tannin is described as having a bitter taste and smell.

Ethanol is also a mild irritant, both when in direct contact with your mouth and as an inhaled vapor.
http://www.cen.iitb.ac.in/chemical_approval/msds/78_msds.pdf

This combination of Tannin and Ethanol can reasonably be described as “sharp” and “pungent”
image


image

1 Like
#18

I like it!

Round 4: The Quickening

Statement: “Red is not Orange” (note, there is not a specific shade mentioned here, so can’t use hex values or specific wavelengths since the boundary is explicitly not clear)

#19

Red is orange.

You’re asking someone to prove a definition.

#20

There is no combination of ‘Orange’ that is ‘Red’

https://word.tips/words-for/Orange/?dictionary=wwf