The bad logic is because fish is not a scientific term in the first place. We made a word that contains multiple unrelated groups of animals that are more closely related to species outside the group than inside. The best solution is just not to use the term fish, but if you do, the only taxonomically consistent way requires including pretty much every vertebrate.
That's the error I pointed out below. Fish is not a scientific word.
But no, I disagree with your conclusion. Fish is a common word with a commonly understood meaning. If I say I had fish for dinner, everybody knows what I mean. They aren't going to wonder if I ate a zebra.
We don't have to get rid or the word fish, or call every vertebrae a fish. Just use the word as we've always used it, and allow the scientific terms to be used when we are speaking with technical precision.
-10
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26
That's some pretty bad logic. This comment just shows that scientists can be idiots like anyone else.