schrödinger's pudding

someone named faye kname contributed the following definition to urbandictionary.com for the phrase, 'the proof is in the pudding':

A phrase that, when uttered, instantly identifies the speaker as being incredibly stupid and illiterate.

The original saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", basically meaning that something has to be experienced/utilized in order to prove how good it is.

This phrase got messed up by idiots who don't quite understand what they are saying.

Similar mistakes include could care less (couldn't care less), stop running around with your chicken cut off (stop running around like a chicken with its head cut off), begs the question (raises the question), here here (hear hear), and all that glitters is gold (all that glitters/glisters is not gold - "glisters" is used in the original Shakespeare quote)

i don't know that that is the appropriate tone for a definition, but apart from that there are some logical problems with it:

1. 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' means the same thing as 'the proof is in the pudding': how do you discover what is in the pudding? usually by eating it. it's merely a shorthand for the original, longer expression. no foul.

2. 'could care less' is the opposite of 'couldn't care less'. no analogy.

3. 'stop running around with your chicken cut off.' no one has ever said this. no issue.

4. 'begs the question' - yes, this doesn't mean 'raises the question, but see point 1. no analogy.

5. 'glister' (OED: a bright light, brilliance, lustre) and 'glitter' (OED: brightness, brilliance, lustre, splendour) are synonymous. no issue.

to sum up: inappropriate tone; wrong about the phrase being defined; wrong about the supposed analogies. and yet it's received 302 up and only 294 down. this definition (and its votes) got messed up by idiots who don't quite understand what they are saying.


update: all four of the definitions on urbandictionary.com are wrong - even (regardless of whether you agree with her about the shorter version) kname's. hilarious.


well now hang on. here's this from wiktionary: 'the only real test of something is as what it is intended to be used for.' which is kinda like kname's.

and here are a couple of (potentially) relevant definitions of 'proof' from the OED:

1. 'that which makes good or proves a statement'
2. 'the fact, condition, or quality of proving good, turning out well, or producing good results; thriving; good condition, good quality; goodness, substance.'

i'm skeptical of wiktionary's stress on fitness for intended purpose. there is no OED definition of 'proof' that fits it. and it's not strictly true - think of a moldy pudding, or a watery one, or one with beaks sticking out.

besides, it overcomplicates it. Q: what will we discover when we eat the pudding? A: what's in it - its ingredients, not its fitness. what are we proving (or disproving)? statements - speculations - about its contents. i reckon there is also a sense of having to wait for a process to finish - eg, until the pudding is cooked - before you can truly determine what it consists of (which makes it a close cousin to 'it ain't over till it's over').

and what is the intended purpose of a pudding? to be eaten. so wiktionary is saying that the test of whether a pudding can be eaten is to attempt to eat it. and proving ingredients is objective; proving intended use depends on the individual's intention: is it the pudding's intention to be delicious and delightful? filling? nourishing?

the phrase finder glosses it this way: 'To fully test something you need to experience it yourself.' which sounds a bit like wiktionary's and that at world wide words, but they provide the helpful reminder that when the phrase first appears (ca 1605) puddings were often savory and filled with mystery meat - the spirit of the phrase being somewhat optimistic about solving the mystery.

(oddly, phrase finder heads this phrase as 'the proof of the pudding' - which they take pains to point out is meaningless. but no one says just 'the proof of the pudding.' they also wonder about things - eg the erroneous attribution to cervantes - they could've checked on wiktionary.)

and if the phrase did indeed arise when the ingredients of puddings were routinely in doubt, phrase finder's gloss makes more sense than wiktionary's, and is much closer to what i've always thought the phrase meant.

another way of putting it is (from the free dictionary) 'the way to judge something is by its results.' but what is being judged? 'result' here suggests a process. you wouldn't refer to the eating of the pudding as a result of the pudding; but you would say that the pudding is the result of making the pudding. so what is being judged? the process of making the pudding, and that obviously includes the ingredients, along with the technique. how do you judge it? you eat it.

to say 'the proof is in the pudding' implies - just as the longer original form does - that one can only judge the pudding a) when it is done, and b) by inspecting the pudding itself (instead of relying on surmise about its ingredients and qualities) - and in the usual way: by eating it - though until one actually eats it (an instruction the shorter form doesn't explicitly provide), barring the use of xrays or chemical analysis, it's a sort of schrödinger's pudding.