8 ms·

> but bats don't have paws. Bat paw: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Bat_in_a_Cave.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/

by byyyy 3y ago

> but bats don't have paws. Bat paw: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Bat_in_a_Cave.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Bat_in_a... ChatGPT was totally in tune with this concept. The appendage on the elbow of the wing can be a paw or not a paw but it certainly evolved from paws. The reasoning was spot on and amazingly nuanced.

foobarbecue 3y ago
What? No. You're rationalizing what is clearly an error. Truth still exists, and bats do not have paws, any more than humans do.
- maxbond 3y ago
  (Add a grain of salt because I searched for about 15 minutes here.) Doing some digging, paws are "soft foot-like parts of a mammal, generally a quadruped, that has claws" (Wikipedia). Bats do appear to have claws, but not really with the same structure as a paw; they don't seem to be mounted above a soft, fleshy pad. Rather, they're at the top of the wing, sitting on bone. They're also very different in function, when I've had the fortune to see a bat they seemed to use the claw to climb in a similar way to how climbers use ice axes. My impression is that bat's claws are the anatomical equivalent of a thumb, not a hand/paw, and that the entire paw or hand of bat's ancestors evolved into their wings (sort of like if your fingers became very long and webbed and then you were able to fly with them). So, my conclusion is that no, the claws of a bat are not a paw. ETA: I neglected to consider their hind claws, but I don't think those are padded either. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab686b1b086f22b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab68... That certainly has claws but I wouldn't describe that as being soft or as being similar to a paw. And they're pretty clearly made for hanging, climbing, and grasping prey/food, and not for walking.
  - byyyy 3y ago
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw As long as it has claws according to vocabulary dot com it is a paw.
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - byyyy 3y ago
        [flagged]
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        Birds don't have paws because they aren't quadrupeds according to websters. Bats walk on fours. They are quadrupeds therefore they have paws according to Merriam Webster. Why don't you address the point I brought up? I already completely understand your definition no need to reiterate it. However, there is a clear disconnect between your definition of paw and the definition from Merriam Webster. Please address it.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        four feet.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        You're very right about that; my mistake. It means four feet, not four legs.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    I think we're getting totally taken for a ride... byyyy can't actually be serious right...? Anyway I'm enjoying imagining bats with little paws, it's an amusing image.
    - byyyy 3y ago
      I'm serious. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw Look up the definition of a paw. I think you have a sort of mixed up definition of what it is. Possibly a different definition used among your "bat expert" friends. And I quote (again): Paw: the foot of a quadruped (such as a lion or dog) that has claws broadly : the foot of an animal Both the broad and technical definition of paw fits what the bat has. Bats have paws. The thing you are referring to is likely are these soft pads that are often on the paws, sometimes called paw pads.
      - byyyy 3y ago
        Also, I don't know if you noticed. But this nuance in the definition of the word paw was addressed by chatGPT.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Well, if you're looking for my opinion, I don't think they're trolling. But I do think both of you were (intentionally or unintentionally) goading each other from a disagreement to an argument with your rhetoric (eg, where you said, "let's assume that's a reasonable source", or when they said "you obviously sourced this it just didn't match your point so you discarded it" - that brings up the temperature of the conversation).
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        Bats are quadrupeds. When they walk they walk like a pterodactyl with the elbow of the wing. They don't stand on their hind legs. See the vampire bat. Additionally the "broad" definition from Merriam Websters covers it. These aren't pedantic details we are just nitpicking on either. ChatGPT's response considered the nuance the definition encompasses, which to keep on topic is thoroughly impressive and relevant to the overall conversation. Off-topic: The person you queried mentioned "intentional goading." Which is what you're continuing to do with that Calvin and Hobbes link. I think this, the flag and accusing me of trolling is taking it too far. A little minor goading is ok during a debate, (I actually don't completely agree with the absolutist politeness policies of HN). While I returned the goad (which I shouldn't have), ultimately I didn't really have a problem with it. I think, now though, it has escalated now past the point of no return. I'll be exiting this thread because of this. Farewell.

by byyyy 3y ago

foobarbecue 3y ago

What? No. You're rationalizing what is clearly an error. Truth still exists, and bats do not have paws, any more than humans do.

maxbond 3y ago
(Add a grain of salt because I searched for about 15 minutes here.) Doing some digging, paws are "soft foot-like parts of a mammal, generally a quadruped, that has claws" (Wikipedia). Bats do appear to have claws, but not really with the same structure as a paw; they don't seem to be mounted above a soft, fleshy pad. Rather, they're at the top of the wing, sitting on bone. They're also very different in function, when I've had the fortune to see a bat they seemed to use the claw to climb in a similar way to how climbers use ice axes. My impression is that bat's claws are the anatomical equivalent of a thumb, not a hand/paw, and that the entire paw or hand of bat's ancestors evolved into their wings (sort of like if your fingers became very long and webbed and then you were able to fly with them). So, my conclusion is that no, the claws of a bat are not a paw. ETA: I neglected to consider their hind claws, but I don't think those are padded either. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab686b1b086f22b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/8d/09/1e8d0923d5caf2dbab68... That certainly has claws but I wouldn't describe that as being soft or as being similar to a paw. And they're pretty clearly made for hanging, climbing, and grasping prey/food, and not for walking.
- byyyy 3y ago
  https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paw As long as it has claws according to vocabulary dot com it is a paw.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - byyyy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        Birds don't have paws because they aren't quadrupeds according to websters. Bats walk on fours. They are quadrupeds therefore they have paws according to Merriam Webster. Why don't you address the point I brought up? I already completely understand your definition no need to reiterate it. However, there is a clear disconnect between your definition of paw and the definition from Merriam Webster. Please address it.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        [flagged]
        byyyy 3y ago
        four feet.
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        You're very right about that; my mistake. It means four feet, not four legs.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    [flagged]
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  I think we're getting totally taken for a ride... byyyy can't actually be serious right...? Anyway I'm enjoying imagining bats with little paws, it's an amusing image.
  - byyyy 3y ago
    I'm serious. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw Look up the definition of a paw. I think you have a sort of mixed up definition of what it is. Possibly a different definition used among your "bat expert" friends. And I quote (again): Paw: the foot of a quadruped (such as a lion or dog) that has claws broadly : the foot of an animal Both the broad and technical definition of paw fits what the bat has. Bats have paws. The thing you are referring to is likely are these soft pads that are often on the paws, sometimes called paw pads.
    - byyyy 3y ago
      Also, I don't know if you noticed. But this nuance in the definition of the word paw was addressed by chatGPT.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well, if you're looking for my opinion, I don't think they're trolling. But I do think both of you were (intentionally or unintentionally) goading each other from a disagreement to an argument with your rhetoric (eg, where you said, "let's assume that's a reasonable source", or when they said "you obviously sourced this it just didn't match your point so you discarded it" - that brings up the temperature of the conversation).
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - byyyy 3y ago
        Bats are quadrupeds. When they walk they walk like a pterodactyl with the elbow of the wing. They don't stand on their hind legs. See the vampire bat. Additionally the "broad" definition from Merriam Websters covers it. These aren't pedantic details we are just nitpicking on either. ChatGPT's response considered the nuance the definition encompasses, which to keep on topic is thoroughly impressive and relevant to the overall conversation. Off-topic: The person you queried mentioned "intentional goading." Which is what you're continuing to do with that Calvin and Hobbes link. I think this, the flag and accusing me of trolling is taking it too far. A little minor goading is ok during a debate, (I actually don't completely agree with the absolutist politeness policies of HN). While I returned the goad (which I shouldn't have), ultimately I didn't really have a problem with it. I think, now though, it has escalated now past the point of no return. I'll be exiting this thread because of this. Farewell.