Earnie Shavers body type

I would say it resembles " The Microwave's " body … That's Vinnie Johnson's for all you Millennials out there

 

That sounds very well put except are you aware what "lanky" means?!?
(of a person) ungracefully thin and tall.
synonyms: tall, thin, slender, slim, lean, lank, skinny, spindly, spare, gangling, gangly, scrawny, skeletal, scraggly, emaciated, size-zero, bony, gaunt, rawboned, gawky, rangy, skin-and-bones, angular, pinched, attenuated;
informal: weedy
"a pale-skinned, lanky youth".

It seems somehow you confuse long with lanky.
His arms are basically the opposite of lanky.
They were thick, especially the upper arms-think they were listed as eighteen inches.

Maybe eighteen is a fair number for body fat percentage too.

 

Not debunked, really, just not used. Scientific categories are never right or wrong, they're just useful or not useful to scientists in drawing meaningful distinctions.

For instance I could divide all humans into two categories, the "frunks" and the "burgles". The frunks are people with a follicle density of 100 hairs or greater per square centimeter of scalp, and the burgles are anyone with fewer.

Now, this isn't in any way mistaken or objectively wrong, but the vast majority of scientists - I daresay absolutely all of them - would find my arbitrary category trivial and utterly pointless. That is, unless and until there becomes some broader scientific reason to keep track how dense the hair on people's heads is.

Conversely, terms like "vertebrate" or "herbivore" are useful because they fit into a much broader scientific framework.

 

Ha very good send up Seamus. Sure, some of it can sound like your parody.

 

No just no

 

Haaaaaaaa

 

This content is protected

 

I would give ten U.S. dollars to anyone to go up to Earnie Shavers and call him a burgling ectomorph.

 

Gonna need a hell of a lot more than 10 pal.

 

Some categories are wrong are just wrong/factually mistaken.
Otherwise, great commentary.

 

If you mean young Shavers, add at least four zeros and we might have a deal...

 

Could you give an example? Propositions can be wrong, but the only way for a category to be wrong is for it to categorize something that doesn't actually exist, and the error in that case is the affirmation of a false proposition, not the categorization itself. There Is something called a category error in logic, but again, that involves misidentifying the properties that place an item in a agreed upon category - that is, applying the category in a way that's inconsistent with its established usage - not an inherent error in the category itself.

Literally all categories are entirely arbitrary, and as long as they're consistent and people agree on what they mean and use them consistently, one category is as valid as any other. We could all start calling mammals reptiles and reptiles mammals, and as long as we're all on the same page and remain consistent there's nothing "mistaken" in this. (It would be a totally pointless conversion, but not an objective mistake.)

You are a smart guy, and I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean here.

 

Very cogent analyses, maybe I am not so big on the smarts, lol.
I was thinking of times when things are defined in categories such as, "smart", & say they just put certain groups of humans in it.
Or define say planets as only certain composition, size, atmosphere...Or might define it too broadly, i.e., any round solid revolving outer space body...

Can you not consider these errors about the nature of the categories of intelligence and planetary bodies?
I mean defining extant terms incorrectly, you are considering it from the other angle, assuming the facts are correct.
But if they make assertions about categories that are fale, then they are wrong about more than the constituent propositions.