It's a delicious structure consisting of a small sponge with a chocolate cap covering a veneer of orange jelly. It is arguably Britain's greatest invention after the steam engine and the light bulb. But is a Jaffa Cake actually a biscuit, asks David Edmonds.
This question reheats a confectionery conundrum first raised in 1991. A tax is charged on chocolate-covered biscuits, but not on cakes. The manufacturer, McVities, had always categorised them as cakes and to boost their revenue the tax authorities wanted them recategorised as biscuits.
A legal case was fought in front of a brilliant adjudicator, Mr D C Potter. For McVities, this produced a sweet result. The Jaffa Cake has both cake-like qualities and biscuit-like qualities, but Mr Potter's verdict was that, on balance, a Jaffa Cake is a cake.
[...] We are tempted to think that every concept must have a strict definition to be useable. But Wittgenstein pointed out that there are many "family-resemblance" concepts, as he called them. Family members can look alike without sharing a single characteristic. Some might have distinctive cheek bones, others a prominent nose, etc. Equally, some concepts can operate with overlapping similarities. Take the concept of "game". Some games involve a ball, some don't. Some involve teams, some don't. Some are competitive, some are not. There is no characteristic that all games have in common.
And there is no strict definition of "cake" or "biscuit" that compels us to place the Jaffa Cake under either category.
Another temptation is to believe that all that is at stake here is an arbitrary issue of semantics. It is, the thought goes, a mere verbal convention whether one labels a Jaffa Cake a cake or a biscuit. It has nothing to do with the real world.
The distinction between statements that are true as a matter of convention or language ("All triangles have three sides"), and those that make a claim about the empirical world ("It is possible to eat 13 Jaffa Cakes in a minute") - is a longstanding one in philosophy. But in the middle of the last century the American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine disputed whether such a rigid distinction could be maintained - and Tim Crane agrees with him that it cannot.
What say you, soylentils? Is it a cake or a biscuit? Is it both or neither?
Source:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38985820
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 22 2017, @02:48PM
This article seems incredibly silly. One doesn't need to invoke Wittgenstein's "language games" or Quine's "web of belief" or whatever to understand the very simple idea that words aren't always precise enough to handle all cases.
This is a very simple case of a trying to apply a precise legal definition to a situation where a product may not clearly fall into one category or another. It isn't a matter for deep philosophical contemplation, or even really a deep question about what constitutes a "cake" or "biscuit" -- it's really a problem of imprecise regulatory language. Judges have to deal with this sort of stuff all the time.
And besides, the very question raised is beyond silly. The item is OBVIOUSLY a cake, according to any reasonable culinary definition. Its structure, ingredients, and texture are a cake. The ONLY arguments against it being a "cake" apparently are that it's small and is eaten with the fingers. Apparently the concept of snack cake [wikipedia.org] has not yet migrated from the U.S. to Britain, but they do have cupcakes (though they may call them "fairy cakes" or other words coupled with "cake"). Obviously small cakes do exist. And they are NOT (to my knowledge) ever called "biscuits" (sort of the U.S. equivalent of "cookies").
Perhaps a U.K. native can clarify this, but I just looked up madeleines, which seem to be an obvious final test case here. In the U.S., some people occasionally refer to them as cookies; others call them small cakes. From a culinary standpoint, they are clearly small cakes. But my quick look at search results seems to indicate that British folks almost inevitably call them "cakes" not "biscuits." Problem solved. No deep philosophical contemplation about the nature of meaning required.
I've already given this matter much more attention than it deserves. The article is preposterous and just serves to paint philosophy as even more silly than it is. There are serious issues of language and meaning raised by folks like Wittgenstein and Quine; this is NOT one of them.
(Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday February 22 2017, @02:52PM
Jaffa, kree!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:59PM
to quote TGV below:
by TGV (2838) Neutral on Wednesday February 22, @10:02AM (#470196)
Well said.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:47PM
Jaffa, kree!
Tek'ma'te Takyon!
I'm re-watching SG1 with a friend who's never seen it and I had some Jaffa cakes in the house a month ago or so and we had a wonderful time whilst eating them and doing exactly that.
Language is fun!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by TGV on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:02PM
Well said.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:11PM
Oh and by the way -- what kind of idiotic legislator enacted a regulation targeting "biscuits" without defining the term in the statute? Most well-drafted regulations contain a list of terminology and definitions to deal with this very type of situation. The judge shouldn't be contemplating the abstract nature of "biscuits" to resolve the issue; he should be able to refer to a legal definition in the regulation (which may or may not accord with the common use of the term).
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:19PM
The same type who defined rules for fruit and vegetables, leading to litigation over whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables.
Incidentally, the thinking of the courts deciding these two cases appear to be diametrically opposed. In the UK case, the court looked at how Jaffa Cakes behave when allowed to go stale (a scientific test), ignoring how people eat them, while in the US case regarding tomatoes, the court ignored scientific evidence and based its decision on how tomatoes are prepared and eaten.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:28PM
Unless they are keywords, like: for, switch, PLEASE DO COME FROM and KTHXBYE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:49PM
And besides, the very question raised is beyond silly. The item is OBVIOUSLY a cake, according to any reasonable culinary definition. Its structure, ingredients, and texture are a cake.
Yeah, it's spongy. Are cookies spongy? No? NEXT! :)
P.S: biscuits crisps fries boot tannoy snog
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @01:08AM
So, if you're a Brit and you make dough and **don't use eggs or sugar**, roll it out thick, cut it into cylinders (or whatever) kinda like scones, [google.com] and bake that, what do you call that?
I saw this story in the queue and investigated a bit and came up with "tea biscuits".
Close?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:58PM
I kinda agree with you, but, hey, a little silliness in the news isn't a bad thing. Buncha silly people in a silly argument over something that doesn't mean anything, except to the tax man. And, the tax man lost his side of the argument.
Next legal issue - which is superior, Scotch whiskey, or Irish whiskey? (I'm partial to Scotch, but I'll entertain the idea of comparing samples.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:25PM
There now exists a Welsh whisky.
http://penderyn.wales/ [penderyn.wales]
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:04PM
There is no such thing as Scotch "whiskey". [end pedantry]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:24PM
Scotch: drink of the pretentious asshole.
Scotch drinker: "Taste those smokey peaty notes!"
me: "tastes like a tire fire."
Scotch drinker: "You just don't understand scotch!"
Irish whiskey: Smooth as butter.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:32PM
I kinda agree with you, but, hey, a little silliness in the news isn't a bad thing.
As I noted in another post below, turns out there was more to the article. It's not really "silly" per se; it's actually trying to shoehorn a philosophical argument about gender identity and philosophical definitions of words as related to gender into a debate about snack cakes. So it's taking a silly debate and trying to use it as a way to get people interested in a social issue. Meanwhile... using some philosophical fluff that's not really relevant to the snack cakes and might potentially be relevant to gender (except it isn't really explored in very interesting ways). Still not very successful, in my view, but it's more than I first realized. And quite a different animal than the headline or summary imply.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 22 2017, @09:03PM
So - queer cake?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:45PM
I know it seems straightforward, but every supermarket in the country classifies it as a biscuit, as it's shelved with the biscuits, not the cakes. People buy them like biscuits and store them at home with biscuits. Basically, they are functionally used as biscuits (which are a luxury and hence taxed, unlike cakes which are essential!).
So, from a function perspective they are biscuits, but from a culinary one cakes. Hence why it needed a judge to decide :)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:55PM
Agreed re: philosophy.
On the other hand, semantics is the favorite sport round these here parts.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:44AM
It is simple really. There are no biscuits anymore. A biscuit is twice (bi) baked (scuit). If it is not baked twice it is not a biscuit by definition. Modern manufacturers use faster and more efficient means to save costs and reduce price. As a consequence there are no biscuits anymore.
(No, those things from the frying pan are not biscuits and never were. They are not even unscuits.)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @02:51PM
N/T
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:04PM
As I read the summary all I could think of was the debate over whether Pluto was a planet or not. Incredibly, I scroll down and that very debate is the story right before this one.
And just like in this story, someone questioned why people were bothering with the classification one way or the other in the first place.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:33PM
So it can be taxed. thats the whole point. didn't you understand this?
(Score: 2, Touché) by butthurt on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:29PM
"Stop terraforming taxation," says the story before that. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:31PM
A tax is charged on chocolate-covered biscuits, but not on cakes.
Only in Britain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:06PM
This is what I came to say. Food for humans shouldn't have sales tax applied anywhere.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rleigh on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:08PM
There is no tax on basic foodstuff. There's tax on "luxury" (i.e. unnecessary, non-staple) products. One can argue about where to draw the line, or whether there should be one.
I've never understood why cake wasn't counted while biscuits where.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:11PM
were
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:47PM
One can argue about where to draw the line, or whether there should be one.
I, for one, draw the line at a Crunchy Frog [youtube.com], #4 of the Whizzo Quality Assortment.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:21PM
Because people can eat cake if they have no bread? Oh, wait, that was in France [and probably isn't true].
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:18PM
Ill bite...
In America A Tomato is classed as a vegetable for tax reasons
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:51PM
On the bright side the government trying to be too smart for its own good is just as much of a PITA.
As a parallel example close to my heart (or wallet anyway) my state sales tax does not apply to custom software development, although it does apply to software maintenance contracts, so I quite literally pay a bug tax on code written under maintenance vs tax free code written as a project. At a healthy billable rate and sane minimum charges it costs like "a lunch" worth of money to make a bug change as a support request as opposed to as a project request.
Also if I write code for a client and maintain ownership and license them to use it that's tax free because custom software development is explicitly tax free, but if I license my code to a second client that's "prewritten computer software" and is explicitly sales taxable. Unless they're in another state, where it gets complicated.
Hilariously the state publishes a guide that states that "answering peoples questions" and "reformatting data" and "designing interfaces" is non-taxable but a maintenance contract which involves answering peoples questions is taxable. So SOME bug reports are not sales taxable if its just a question or a minor DB change or a minor UI change, but something like controller code in a MVC framework is taxable because its neither touching the DB nor the web page. Hilarious!
Also "assessment services" are non-taxable but actually patching as an activity to stay up to date is explicitly taxable. So "apt-get update" is tax free, "apt-get -fudy dist-upgrade" is tax free, "apt-get dist-upgrade" is totally sales taxable because its actively patching stuff. So contracts gotta specify separate project breakouts for looking for patches and considering patching vs actually patching. Customers sometimes like that anyway I guess WRT nighttime maint windows.
Sometimes you wonder why contractors do shit like "apt-get dist-upgrade" or local equivalent in crontab while also billing for maintenance services, well, they're actually just billing for assessment services and only paying sales tax by filing a bug if it goes wrong or looks like it'll go wrong, otherwise they're just making sure stuff is getting patched.
Honestly I'm not sure if writing ansible scripts to automate ongoing maintenance is taxable or not. Something like that I think you're best off paying the tax just to avoid an audit.
Anyway the point of all this BS is when the .gov thinks its too smart, when the rubber hits the road things get all Fed up just as bad anyway.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:43PM
What fucked-up state is this that taxes all these standard computer activities?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:01PM
Not to drop the docs but I checked some generic midwestern states and its vaguely normal for that location. Check your own state, you might be surprised.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:04PM
No wonder California is still #1 for tech business. Other states keep trying to tout their "low" cost of living, but with insane business taxes and regulations like these, no one wants to run a business there.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:14PM
Yeah I can bill a lot of sales tax when comparable housing is a tenth CA cost, and the climate and geography and crime level here is much better.
Its not really all that bad. You sell a thing or a service and you pay the sales tax. The complication is there's a loophole where custom software development and R+D analysis type work is tax free and the "helpful" government provided documents make stuff more confused rather than clear stuff up. Which is the connection to Jaffa Cakes where if you think its bad when .gov just says "cake" and "biscuit" without definition, I can assure you that kind of .gov bureaucrat can generate 10 pages of junk that is both extremely specific, yet not really any help at all WRT clearing things up or making sense of anything.
Amusingly I googled up California's custom software sales tax and the main difference between CA and the midwest is taxes are a little less than twice as high in CA, LOL. Pretty much same rules. Note that I study the hell out of my states sales tax laws because I don't want to end up in PMITA prison as per Office Space, and I invested like 15 seconds studying CA so I'm very unlikely to be wrong about my state and somewhat likely to be wrong about CA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @12:16AM
the climate [...] here is much better [than in California]
Clearly, your current residence is in Heaven.
What do you guys do for fun there besides ride around on clouds?
[and the geography here is is much better than in California]
In SoCal, it's a short ride to the beach (for folks who aren't already there).
It's a short ride to the mountains (for folks who aren't already there).
The whole place is actually desert but, with imported water, there's lots of green space.
To get to "the desert" (the non-"improved" area) is a short ride.
(All of this is a big reason that the movie industry settled here.)
You have geography better than that??
and crime level
I find that people who don't live in the low-rent district don't tend to encounter crime--regardless of the city/state/region.
housing is a tenth CA cost
Yeah, you got us there.
We tend to call the high cost of living "The Paradise Tax".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:55PM
You know, I was too quick in my reply earlier. I actually did click on the article link, but all I saw were loads of irrelevant pictures of giant cakes/cookies. I thought I had skimmed the whole thing after I encountered yet another random photo loading at the bottom.
But it turns out the article goes on after that -- and the entire second half of the article (not at all addressed in the summary) is actually about gender, bring up transgender/intersex issues. I'll leave it to the rest of you to read it if you want and debate whether or not the cake/biscuit controversy is a good metaphor for gender issues in the modern world. But I thought you all should know the primary message of the article is probably not intended to be about Jaffa Cakes. And the philosophical apparatus I criticized earlier is clearly intended here to be about other social issues, not resolving a baking question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:20PM
the entire second half of the article (not at all addressed in the summary) is actually about gender, bring up transgender/intersex issues.
The orange jelly was a dead giveaway.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:09PM
It's kind of like Kitty's are pussies .... but a pussy can be quite a non-kitty. If you know what i mean... nudge nudge, wink wink... does she? Ey? Ey? WOOF!! (man, that's a mash-up of Monty Python and Black Adder!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJlItzalJY [youtube.com]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @01:23AM
I had to RTFA because this seemed like some bullshit trolling... TFA really does end with some social commentary about transwhatevers. How the fuck has society gotten to the point where a (formerly) respectable publication such as the BBC can print this tripe? We get it, you're insecure or want to be different so you gotta call yourself a man one day and a woman the next, but for shit's sake stop sticking it in article you can fit it!
(Score: 1) by UncleSlacky on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:17PM
It's quite obviously a cake, as anyone who's left a jaffa cake out too long will know.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:44PM
It's quite obviously a cake, as anyone who's left a jaffa cake out too long will know.
So whats a twinkie? They don't change. Too many weird tropical oils to get hard (which sounds vaguely obscene) and nothing hygroscopic like molasses to go soft.
Note to our UK brethern, cousins separated by a shared language, a twink is different than a twinkie on this side of the pond. I do not believe either are sold in jolly ole england. Do you UK people like it when us ameri-burgers call you jolly ole england? If not, its not our fault, we learned everything we know about you brits from watching Mary Poppins movie when we were kids and soccer riots when we got older.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:10PM
Twinkies are neither: they are just delicious, delicious poison. :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:03PM
Note to our UK brethern, cousins separated by a shared language, a twink is different than a twinkie on this side of the pond. I do not believe either are sold in jolly ole england. Do you UK people like it when us ameri-burgers call you jolly ole england? If not, its not our fault, we learned everything we know about you brits from watching Mary Poppins movie when we were kids and soccer riots when we got older.
Actually, both twinks [may be NSFW] [google.com] and Twinkies [mysupermarket.co.uk] are sold in the UK.
Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:18PM
My apologies, oddly enough that was not covered in the Mary Poppins movie.
I suppose I'm old. "Kids these days", Ameri-burgers anyway, probably learn everything about the UK from "Harry Potter" movies and books and that fat kid probably ate a lot of twinkies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:24PM
Not a food.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday February 22 2017, @09:39PM
Concentrated Evil.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @04:23PM
So whats a twinkie?
Imagine Milo Yiannopoulos, but 15 years younger. Or the sorts he likes, but 10 years older.
(Score: 1) by J_Darnley on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:42AM
I thought this was the definition used to settle the 1991 case mentioned in the summary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:55PM
is it potatoe or potatoe? and can't we have a little war of words around it, a little **predictable** mismatch that serves to keep novelty alive .. or are we're truly going to declare a religious war against our subjective differences and make a world religion based on who's on the right side of an argument that is cultural and personal by pretending that everything can be objectified and made subject to sterile and un-novel rationality?
lets go crazy and invent a few dozen new names for the little buggers! to each their own!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:35PM
You'd think the jews had learned something in the Konzentrationslagers but the only message they took home was the methods they now use on the Palestinians...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:23PM
"Britain's greatest invention after the steam engine and the light bulb"
(Score: 2, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:13PM
Joseph Swan don't real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan#Electric_light [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:53PM
Inventions are only ideas if they don't work. Thomas Edison made it work. Although he was good at taking credit for others work. He created the model modern corporations use today to steal IP from smart people to give the financial rewards to those who aren't smart enough to do the actual innovation.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday February 22 2017, @09:31PM
From the linked Wikipedia article:
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @12:58AM
Those had such a short service life that you had better buy them by the dozen.
You'll need to keep a kerosene lamp around as well, otherwise you'll be waiting till sunrise to replace the Swan bulb that just burned out.
Incandescent bulbs didn't really get to be practical [wikipedia.org] until tungsten (Just and Hanaman, 1904), "ductile tungsten" (Coolidge, 1906), and argon (Langmuir, 1913).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 23 2017, @05:09AM
Working and working well are two different concepts.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @09:10PM
In addressing the question of who invented the incandescent lamp, historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel[8] list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison. They conclude that Edison's version was able to outstrip the others because of a combination of three factors: an effective incandescent material, a higher vacuum than others were able to achieve (by use of the Sprengel pump) and a high resistance that made power distribution from a centralized source economically viable.
Edison gets to claim the first practical, marketable light bulb. Swan doesnt get to claim lightbulbs at all. 22 other prior inventors.
In the list I see brits, scotch, Belgians, Americans.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:35PM
Rename it the 1991 Biscuit and Jaffa Cake tax. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:10PM
Once again, Father Ted to the rescue [youtube.com].
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @11:22PM
What a useless study and a waste of taxpayer dollars. It's no wonder Trump wants to de-fund all philosophers.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Thursday February 23 2017, @01:41AM
By "biscuit", you mean "cookie" right?
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:31PM
In my experience when they are fresh, they are cakes. When they are stale they are biscuits. Better fresh, so they they really are cakes.