Salad Theory: Why Pizza Is a Salad and All Food Is a Salad
A group of office pedants, after heated lunchtime debates, concluded that all edible foods are salads. Their proof: any definition of salad that excludes pizza also excludes fruit salad, pasta salad, or untossed salad. The only self-consistent definition is that a salad is any mixture of two or more ingredients. This leads to theorems like Soup-Salad Duality (no clear line between soup and salad) and the classification of single items as low-entropy saladoids. They also introduce Hyper-Salad Space with dimensions of soupiness and ingredient entropy.
Inescapably, a pizza _was actually a salad_.
- tshaddox
I’m fine with their first consideration:
> A salad must be a mixture of greens.
The only additional realization you need is that things like “fruit salad” and “chicken salad” are using the word “salad” figuratively. There’s no reason to expect our definition of “salad” to cover figurative usage. After all, do you really expect to cover, for instance, “word salad”?
- oersted
I really love this, it’s what I want to see in HN. But I can’t resist joining the pointless debate:
- A primarily cooked dish, particularly if it is cooked all together or is served warm, is definitely not a salad.
- An “untossed salad” is definitely not a salad.
- English speaking people add the term “salad” to a bunch of concoctions that are definitely not salads.
- Ekaros
As non-soup eater I am strongly against use of term soup here. Surely soup also should be relatively strongly defined. And not used as adjective for wet. Clearly soups must have some water content level. Otherwise too many things would be soup. And those clearly are not soups.
So I ask first to properly have Soup Theory before using it in relation of describing things like salads.
- CSMastermind
> Mathematics is the study of precisely imagined things. It's about imagining something so precisely that your idea of it is fully defined. There's no space for opinion or interpretation. Two mathematicians thinking about the same mathematical object, defined in the same way, are not thinking about two versions of it. They're actually thinking about the same object.
- Rob Miles
Any time I read something like this post, I can't help but think that it's people mimicking the language of mathematics because they don't understand its purpose. To them, math seems like pedantry, constantly obsessing about minor details that are seemingly irrelevant. When in reality, that obsession with full and complete definitions in math serves a purpose.
This discussion of salads serves no purpose. In fact, it's arguably meant to be confusing.
- movpasd
I love the amount of effort that went into this, and find it very amusing. I've had similar forays into defining sandwiches, ravioli, soups, and so on, but never in such meticulous detail.
But taking it seriously, a word like "salad" is best understood, IMO, as a family resemblance [0]: a group of inconsistently overlapping properties. Or, you could understand it functionally/pragmatically (a salad is what I order when I want a salad), where the meaning is not derived from an internal property but from the social system that produced it.
For salad or sandwich, it's all rather unimportant, naturally. But I do think taking this step back and questioning what it even means for an utterance to have meaning can help dissolve some serious and otherwise contentious philosophical issues. ("Intelligence" seems to be a rather relevant example.)
Mathematical definition is enchanting to those of us with an inclination towards abstraction. But just because it's a noun doesn't mean it's a thing --- or at least, not a thing independently of the speaker and their community of speakers.