Gilrandir vs Immune "System"

[Gilrandir]

Not all elements have to be directly connected as you claim. The body consists of more than just organs. Is the nerve system not a system because the nerves are not directly connected? Do the chemicals that connect them not count?

How do you mean nerves aren't connected?

Or how are the planets in the solar system connected? Also not a system?

The force that keeps them together is the Sun's gravity. This is the connection.

Gilrandir does like to contest concepts arbitrarily in strange ways.

Not concepts, but names. Misnames happen, even in science. For example, a light year is not a unit of time measurement, but of distance measurement. However, it is conventionally kept.

As for contesting things: there was a time when geocentric model of the world was a commonly recognized concept. Yet some people dared to contest it. And now another view on how the universe is built is recognized. Several times the structure of the atom was reconsidered. So science is about contesting things.

[Husar]

How do you mean nerves aren't connected?

I'm wondering why you think nerves are connected but the organs involved in the immune system are not? One connection of those organs are the T-cells that kill antigenes, another would be the blood that is used to distribute information and other things the immune system needs.
Nerves are connected in a similar way because two nerves do not communicate directly, they send chemicals to one another. Your picture doesn't show anything relevant, it's about as usless to show "connection" as the example of left and right leg being connected via bones and muscles. In the same way all our organs are connected via bones and muscles.

The force that keeps them together is the Sun's gravity. This is the connection.

Then the skin is what keeps the organs connected, or the blood, or the nerve system, the bones, the muslces, what are you still arguing about?

Not concepts, but names. Misnames happen, even in science. For example, a light year is not a unit of time measurement, but of distance measurement. However, it is conventionally kept.

And there is nothing wrong with it.

As for contesting things: there was a time when geocentric model of the world was a commonly recognized concept. Yet some people dared to contest it. And now another view on how the universe is built is recognized. Several times the structure of the atom was reconsidered. So science is about contesting things.

The problem here is that a system is a linguistic construct defined by man, not a natural ocurrence to be observed. So you either have to show how the immune system doesn't fit our definition of a system or state how your definition of a system differs, in which case it's a matter of taste and your attempt to force your definition through against a long-established consensus is just weird. Especially since your definition of a "connection" as required between the parts of a system appears incredibly arbirtrary to me.
The other option is that what you see as part of the immune system is different from what I meant. For example you mentioned the skin, which I would define as the "wider immune system" whereas I was referring to the narrower definition of immune system, i.e. the parts that actually react to intruders, that is the T-cells, which are the ones that identify and attack things and are responsible for the false alarms that cause allergies as I said.

So you were really jumping head first into a joke to throw "science" around without giving any second thought to what I was referring to or how to actually approach the subject scientifically, which would be to define what you mean with the words you use instead of wildly pitting definitions against one another as though either of them were a god-given constant.

I'm really not interested in following that any further though, it gets boring quickly...

[Gilrandir]

So, as you just stated it there is an interrelated structure, where function is mutually dependent and reactive. Fin.

I didn't say structure. I said "SUNDRY organs belonging to OTHER systems".

I'm wondering why you think nerves are connected but the organs involved in the immune system are not? One connection of those organs are the T-cells that kill antigenes, another would be the blood that is used to distribute information and other things the immune system needs.

Cells can't serve an example of connection. Otherwise one might claim that rectum and skin being eventually connected by cells make up a separate system of the organism.
Blood is not and organ, and moreover it doesn't belong to immune "system". Another argument why it is not a self-contained system.

Nerves are connected in a similar way because two nerves do not communicate directly, they send chemicals to one another. Your picture doesn't show anything relevant, it's about as usless to show "connection" as the example of left and right leg being connected via bones and muscles.

All nerves stem from brain and/or spinal chord.

In the same way all our organs are connected via bones and muscles.

Heart and stomach as well?

Then the skin is what keeps the organs connected, or the blood, or the nerve system, the bones, the muslces, what are you still arguing about?

Skin is an outside shell, inside organs are not connected by skin. On blood see above. Generally, one may find a lot of connections between different organs, but all of them form chains uniting them in self-contained systems with their own primary functions. This is why heart is a part of one sytem and lungs - of another.

And there is nothing wrong with it.

Which doesn't cancel the fact that it is a misname.

The problem here is that a system is a linguistic construct defined by man, not a natural ocurrence to be observed.

So solar system is not a natural occurence? System is a word used to signify phenomena of the environment. It fits some of them, and it doesn't fit others.

So you either have to show how the immune system doesn't fit our definition of a system or state how your definition of a system differs, in which case it's a matter of taste and your attempt to force your definition through against a long-established consensus is just weird. Especially since your definition of a "connection" as required between the parts of a system appears incredibly arbirtrary to me.

Reaching a consensus doesn't mean being terminologically correct. I can give an example of Paleoasiatic languages which are conventionally slumped together into one "family" despite the fact they are not genetically related. Or there is conventionally recognized linguistic category of noun gender, but in fact it is not a category (for nouns). Well, I don't think you would want me to elaborate, but if you do, give me a sign.

So you were really jumping head first into a joke to throw "science" around without giving any second thought to what I was referring to or how to actually approach the subject scientifically, which would be to define what you mean with the words you use instead of wildly pitting definitions against one another as though either of them were a god-given constant.

If all definitions are arbitrary, what's the use of trying to persuade me mine take on the issue is wrong? I gave all the arguments I was asked and I don't see why they are worse then yours. If mine don't convince you there is no need to call my approach unscientific, wild or arbitrary.

I blame Gilrandir.

When in the thread dealing with Maidan events people started comparing tanks against each other no blames were hurled around.

[Sarmatian]

Ah, death, taxes and Gilrandir complaining about double standards.

[Gilrandir]

Ah, death, taxes and Gilrandir complaining about double standards.

So not the double standards are to blame, but the complainer. I see.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So not the double standards are to blame, but the complainer. I see.

His snarky comment does not undercut the reality of the double standards (after all death and taxes are quite real), he's merely ascribing a constancy to your complaints.

Not strictly accurate of course, but I admit to having chuckled.

[Gilrandir]

His snarky comment does not undercut the reality of the double standards (after all death and taxes are quite real), he's merely ascribing a constancy to your complaints.

Not strictly accurate of course, but I admit to having chuckled.

In the world of constant changes where nothing is certain, there should be some things which are rock solid. I'm proud to be one of them.

[Sarmatian]

So not the double standards are to blame, but the complainer. I see.

But have you noticed that it's only like that when you are the complainer?

[Gilrandir]

But have you noticed that it's only like that when you are the complainer?

Others have been bullied by you and don't dare even to complain.