Is a ballpoint technically a fountain pen?

[afishhunter]

No.

A fountain pen works by controlled leakage. 

As others have stated, a ballpoint works by friction.

Therefore a "ballpoint" is a completely different critter than a "fountain pen".

[Arthur Pewty]

Supposedly Lilncoln once asked his cabinet how many legs a dog has. They naturally said four. Then he asked, "Well, what if we call the tail a leg?" "Oh, then it would be five legs." "No, it's still four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Calling a rollerball a fountain pen doesn't make it one.

[ParramattaPaul]

1 hour ago, Arthur Pewty said:

Supposedly Lilncoln once asked his cabinet how many legs a dog has. They naturally said four. Then he asked, "Well, what if we call the tail a leg?" "Oh, then it would be five legs." "No, it's still four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Calling a rollerball a fountain pen doesn't make it one.

👍👍

[Karmachanic]

2 hours ago, Arthur Pewty said:

Calling a rollerball a fountain pen doesn't make it one.

 

Like taking a ball point, changing the ink, and calling it a rollerball?

[wtlh]

1 hour ago, Karmachanic said:

 

Like taking a ball point, changing the ink, and calling it a rollerball?

The structure and tolerances of the ball head differs due to differences in the ink used.  Rollerball requires much tighter tolerances.  You cannot simply switch the ink in a ballpoint to water based and expect it to work, ink will leak everywhere.  Similarly switching the ink of a rollerball to a thick oil based ink, the ball will cease in minutes.

 

Ball points and to a greater extent rollerballs are technologically very advanced in comparison to fountain pens.  The quality of the ballpoint entirely depends on the perfection of the small ball bearing one can manufacture as well as the tight tolerances for its housing.  The balls have to be perfectly round.  It is no simple task.  Not many nations on this planet actually have the technological know-how to make these high quality tiny ball bearings.

[Karmachanic]

2 hours ago, wtlh said:

You cannot simply switch the ink in a ballpoint to water based and expect it to work, ink will leak everywhere.  Similarly switching the ink of a rollerball to a thick oil based ink, the ball will cease in minutes.

 

You think?

[Bristol24]

On 8/30/2022 at 11:10 PM, afishhunter said:

No.

A fountain pen works by controlled leakage. 

As others have stated, a ballpoint works by friction.

Therefore a "ballpoint" is a completely different critter than a "fountain pen".

Exactamundo!  And that necessary friction requires downward pressure for the ball to rotate.  Look at how most people hold a pen today and how hard they press.  Even the technique of writing required modification as the inexpensive, disposable ballpoint came to common use.  The ballpoint pen is not "technically" a fountain pen.  It is, however, a writing instrument... but then for some people so is a can of spray paint.

 

Cliff

[Arthur Pewty]

5 hours ago, Bristol24 said:

Look at how most people hold a pen today and how hard they press.

I experienced this in a nearly painful way. I handed a friend my fountain pen to make a quick note. Her vision is quite weak. When she pressed way too hard I cautioned her about how to properly use an FP, and she said oops, she didn't realize it wasn't a ballpoint. She isn't an FP user herself. No harm done, thankfully.

[PPPR]

These types of discussions about meaninigs remind me of the saw that Britain and the United States are two countries separated by a common language.

 

To review, first is my quotation of Mr. Ost's talk in part. Followed by a couple of comments.

 

On 8/25/2022 at 8:08 AM, PPPR said:

In his talk he [Pat Ost] stated, "The Parker rollerball refill was a development initiated by the Parker Pen (USA) Development Department; it was a ground-breaking innovative design that used a low viscosity ink, combined with a collector and feed design, not dissimilar to a fountain pen, to prevent leakage. Although there were differences in detail in collector function between the rollerball and a fountain pen, it could fairly be described as a disposable fountain pen with a rolling ball point in a tiny refill package that produced a good quality line life of around 1800 metres from 2ml of ink." (emphases added)

 

I think Mr. Ost's remarks support my position that a RB is a type of fountain pen. Of course, you are free to draw your own conclusion.

 

________

The qoute is from "My Trials and Tribulations in Ink (Part 2)" by Pat Ost. Journal of the Writing Equipment Society, No. 109, Summer 2017, pg. 15.

 

On 8/28/2022 at 9:06 PM, AceNinja said:

Here are my thoughts on this.  Again, this is just my opinion, not trying to change yours.  Ok here goes:

1. "...combined with a collector and feed design, not dissimilar to a fountain pen, ..." - its not dissimilar to, doesn't mean it is a fountain pen.  And further, he's only talking about the feed and collector, not the nib.  
2. "...it could fairly be described as a disposable fountain pen ..." - its only 'fairly', doens't read like it is a fountain pen to me.
3. Also, I would at most say that, the rollerball refill that "could be fairly" described as disposable fountain pen, it only applies to this particular Parker Rollerball refill.  

 

On 8/28/2022 at 9:43 PM, A Smug Dill said:

 

I think “fair” there is not an adjective to fall somewhere on the spectrum between “poor” and ”excellent”, but means it is reasonable and without undue bias.

 

Here, I think Smug Dill has the correct interpretation of Mr. Ost's meaning. What Mr. Ost was saying is that a fair comparison would be to describe a rolling ball pen as a disposable fountain pen. As support, please, refer to the photo, below, and excuse my poor photography skills.

 

The photo shows two different RBs, a red Pilot and a black Sanford Uniball. Each has the same parts types and function the same as the Parker RB refill Mr. Ost referred to, namely a low viscosity ink with a collector and feed not dissimilar to a FP. The feed and collector is most visible, hopefully, in the red pen. You can also see how both pens bleed into tissue  paper when wrapped around the tip, demonstrating the  capillary action of the low-viscosity ink flowing around the rolling ball. To me, this  is what Mr. Ost meant when he said a rolling ball  is not dissimilar to a fountain pen.

 

 

 

[ParramattaPaul]

I'll be rude and ask; why are we, or more correctly you, still talking about this?

[Parker51]

By way of analogy then butter is the same as lard, is the same as margarine, is the same as cocoa butter.

Revolvers are the same as semi- automatic pistols, are the same as flintlock pistols, are the same as carbines, are the same as shotguns of all types as are the same as all rifles.

 

Simply because different things serve similar purposes, may use even the same components for certain parts doesn’t make them the same.

 

Differences matter.

 

Fountain pens have the unique characteristics that we are familiar with and while some are identical to ballpoint pens some are different. 
 

That is it.

[txomsy]

Go visit the Wikipedia page for Nobel Prize and check out the end of the section on Cultural Impact.

 

The authority argument is void for anything one is not an authority in. And for the things one is supposed to be an authority in, remember the opposition of authorities to Galileo, Pasteur or so many others. Any cursory look at the news nowadays should show that not all that one sees written should be taken as truth. The authority argument is a very well known source of fallacies.

 

The rest is a matter of definitions. When pre-socratic Greek philosophers discussed, they were careful to start by defining the exact meaning each of them attached to the words they used, they already knew to avoid Humpty-Dumpty's trick (1). All this thread revolves around such definitions. That we haven't learnt to speak in ~2500 years tells at length of our purported, self-proclaimed intelligence (me included).

 

So, let us assume a pen is something used to write. Then even a spray can is a pen. If we further refine it to be 'quill (writing stick) shaped', a quill is also a pen, and a cut feather, and a finger... Unless we further require it to have a writing "nib" (a replaceable quill-tip-shaped or cut-feather-shaped tip) and a holder body.

 

Anyway, in pre-FP times there was no discussion what a pen was. So, when someone came with the idea of having a built-in "fountain" of ink to deliver ink longer, attached to a "pen", it was natural to call it FP and not just a pen. It was a pen and a fountain of ink. No issue. Except, why call it fountain pen and not just pen? It still has a nib, and a body, and can be dipped.

 

Maybe because calling everything "pen" would not allow one to distinguish the traditional implement from the new one?

 

Just like with an FP vs. a pen, when one comes up with the idea of a ballpoint, one may say it is also a kind of "fountain pen". But it requires extra pressure to write that the FP does not and uses a different writing mechanism, different shape (conic vs. flat), is not refillable, the ink-source and the writing tip are sold as one piece... To make a distinction it is also only natural that one calls it a ballpoint pen and not just an FP. Except why not call it a "ballpoint fountain pen" or just a "fountain pen" or, even better, a "pen", or a "quill"?

 

Maybe because it would be cumbersome and would also difficult distinction? Unless we further require that the nib is not a "nib" but a different kind of tip and the ink source not be refillable and be attached to the tip? in which case it would no longer be an FP.

 

Should we?

 

Back to square one. Words. Why do we use words at all? Once you have something in your hands and recognize it, there is no need for words. We use words as a convention to carry meaning.

 

So, one may argue that we only need one word 'pen', and indeed, nowadays when one sees the word, there is no way to know with any certainty what it refers to (an FP, a BP, a roller ball, a dip pen...?).

 

By convention, we interpret the word using the understanding that most people will first think of the implement they use most frequently. By convention thus, if someone asks for a pen nowadays, they will most likely get a BIC ballpoint. Not a feather, a dip-pen, an FP, a marker or a roller ball.
 

By convention, an FP is in no remotely thinkable way the same as any other implement. As it originally was, it is a dip-pen with a flat nib source of ink inside its body.

 

Take it to the other terms: is an FP a dip pen? It certainly is, but no one in his own sense would use 'dip pen' to refer to an FP. Is a BP a dip pen? A feather? A quill? A finger? it certainly is, as we can use it in the same way, but no one in their sense would call it so.

 

Not because it isn't. But because we use words to communicate and using "quill", "pen" or "dip pen" in that sense would void the term of specificity and meaning. Which would be OK if there was only one word, but when you have better terms it does not make sense not to use them, or to use them ambiguously. That totally defeats communication and the purpose of words.

 

So, back to the OP. Is a BP an FP? if you are willing to label as "dip pen" a BP, a FP, a marker, a rollerball and any other thing that has a pointed end and elongated shape (including a 'pen'cil) and can be dipped in any colored fluid to write (including your fingers), then I agree, in a broader sense, all of those are dip pens, a ballpoint is a fountain pen, a finger and a can of spray are pens. Oh, the joys of Hegelian philosophy!

 

Is that useful at all? In actual practice and for most legit purposes, it is not, and claiming so, although arguable, doesn't help a iota maintain any helpful conversation. Much like arguing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

 

So, in an "abstract" sense, a BP is an FP, both are dip pens, and like a stick, brush or chalk, they are pens. But, in "practical" terms a BP is not an FP and insisting on that use only leads to ambiguity and confusion in any argument.

 

Which, mind you, can be great for marketing (among other self-interested uses). But is still of little help.

 

My personal take, calling a BP an FP is not a proper use of words. But everyone is free to do a Humpty-Dumpty trick(1), of course, if they so wish, and maybe, even get away with it.
 

 

 

(1) “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Lewis Carrol. Alice in Wonderland.

[Bristol24]

5 hours ago, txomsy said:

Go visit the Wikipedia page for Nobel Prize and check out the end of the section on Cultural Impact.

 

The authority argument is void for anything one is not an authority in. And for the things one is supposed to be an authority in, remember the opposition of authorities to Galileo, Pasteur or so many others. Any cursory look at the news nowadays should show that not all that one sees written should be taken as truth. The authority argument is a very well known source of fallacies.

 

The rest is a matter of definitions. When pre-socratic Greek philosophers discussed, they were careful to start by defining the exact meaning each of them attached to the words they used, they already knew to avoid Humpty-Dumpty's trick (1). All this thread revolves around such definitions. That we haven't learnt to speak in ~2500 years tells at length of our purported, self-proclaimed intelligence (me included).

 

So, let us assume a pen is something used to write. Then even a spray can is a pen. If we further refine it to be 'quill (writing stick) shaped', a quill is also a pen, and a cut feather, and a finger... Unless we further require it to have a writing "nib" (a replaceable quill-tip-shaped or cut-feather-shaped tip) and a holder body.

 

Anyway, in pre-FP times there was no discussion what a pen was. So, when someone came with the idea of having a built-in "fountain" of ink to deliver ink longer, attached to a "pen", it was natural to call it FP and not just a pen. It was a pen and a fountain of ink. No issue. Except, why call it fountain pen and not just pen? It still has a nib, and a body, and can be dipped.

 

Maybe because calling everything "pen" would not allow one to distinguish the traditional implement from the new one?

 

Just like with an FP vs. a pen, when one comes up with the idea of a ballpoint, one may say it is also a kind of "fountain pen". But it requires extra pressure to write that the FP does not and uses a different writing mechanism, different shape (conic vs. flat), is not refillable, the ink-source and the writing tip are sold as one piece... To make a distinction it is also only natural that one calls it a ballpoint pen and not just an FP. Except why not call it a "ballpoint fountain pen" or just a "fountain pen" or, even better, a "pen", or a "quill"?

 

Maybe because it would be cumbersome and would also difficult distinction? Unless we further require that the nib is not a "nib" but a different kind of tip and the ink source not be refillable and be attached to the tip? in which case it would no longer be an FP.

 

Should we?

 

Back to square one. Words. Why do we use words at all? Once you have something in your hands and recognize it, there is no need for words. We use words as a convention to carry meaning.

 

So, one may argue that we only need one word 'pen', and indeed, nowadays when one sees the word, there is no way to know with any certainty what it refers to (an FP, a BP, a roller ball, a dip pen...?).

 

By convention, we interpret the word using the understanding that most people will first think of the implement they use most frequently. By convention thus, if someone asks for a pen nowadays, they will most likely get a BIC ballpoint. Not a feather, a dip-pen, an FP, a marker or a roller ball.
 

By convention, an FP is in no remotely thinkable way the same as any other implement. As it originally was, it is a dip-pen with a flat nib source of ink inside its body.

 

Take it to the other terms: is an FP a dip pen? It certainly is, but no one in his own sense would use 'dip pen' to refer to an FP. Is a BP a dip pen? A feather? A quill? A finger? it certainly is, as we can use it in the same way, but no one in their sense would call it so.

 

Not because it isn't. But because we use words to communicate and using "quill", "pen" or "dip pen" in that sense would void the term of specificity and meaning. Which would be OK if there was only one word, but when you have better terms it does not make sense not to use them, or to use them ambiguously. That totally defeats communication and the purpose of words.

 

So, back to the OP. Is a BP an FP? if you are willing to label as "dip pen" a BP, a FP, a marker, a rollerball and any other thing that has a pointed end and elongated shape (including a 'pen'cil) and can be dipped in any colored fluid to write (including your fingers), then I agree, in a broader sense, all of those are dip pens, a ballpoint is a fountain pen, a finger and a can of spray are pens. Oh, the joys of Hegelian philosophy!

 

Is that useful at all? In actual practice and for most legit purposes, it is not, and claiming so, although arguable, doesn't help a iota maintain any helpful conversation. Much like arguing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

 

So, in an "abstract" sense, a BP is an FP, both are dip pens, and like a stick, brush or chalk, they are pens. But, in "practical" terms a BP is not an FP and insisting on that use only leads to ambiguity and confusion in any argument.

 

Which, mind you, can be great for marketing (among other self-interested uses). But is still of little help.

 

My personal take, calling a BP an FP is not a proper use of words. But everyone is free to do a Humpty-Dumpty trick(1), of course, if they so wish, and maybe, even get away with it.
 

 

 

(1) “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Lewis Carrol. Alice in Wonderland.

Wow...and then wow some more.  Score a 9.9 on that one.  A great dissection of the question getting it all the way down to the microscopic.  Do I get credit for mentioning spray cans first?  Way to go...

 

Cliff

[MHBru]

this is one of the most ridiculous threads on this site and cheapens the value of why we are here.  Can we please flippin' kill this.  I am sick of seeing this in my feed... frankly there are others like this but this one really irks me.   a stone on the ground is not a planet either!

 

[Inkysloth]

38 minutes ago, MHBru said:

this is one of the most ridiculous threads on this site and cheapens the value of why we are here.  

 

 I’ve found it interesting.  I enjoy thinking about the way we define and describe our world, and don’t see a problem with stationery being a vehicle for philosophical discussion.

 

There are plenty of threads I don’t find interesting so just scroll on by. No one is compelling you to read or participate in this thread. 

[txomsy]

4 hours ago, Bristol24 said:

Wow...and then wow some more.  Score a 9.9 on that one.  A great dissection of the question getting it all the way down to the microscopic.  Do I get credit for mentioning spray cans first?  Way to go...

 

Cliff

Sure, and I think you were right spot on. It actually inspired me to write my post. So, thank you for your neat ideas.

[txomsy]

2 hours ago, MHBru said:

his is one of the most ridiculous threads on this site and cheapens the value of why we are here. 

I also think it is rather ridiculous, but defining words and making clear what they mean is not something I would say reduces the value of the forum or any discussion.

 

I refrained from answering before because I too found it ludicrous. But that people were willing to go to such lengths shows it is interesting for some, and they have got as much right to discuss as we do. Even seemingly pointless questions (like the angels on a pinhead) may hid deep reasoning with profound implications (in the angels case, related to causality and physics that one might trace to, e.g. Pauli's principle in modern Quantum Mechanics).

 

Boring and frustrating? For me, yes. Ludicruous? For me, fully agreed. Meaningless and obvious? Dangerous? I'm with you. But that's me, and certainly not everyone agrees. Which makes for fun reading.

 

I know I have to accept that at a very high level of abstraction we can simply call all of them (and most any other thing) 'objects' and call it a day. That I don't discuss. I only say, doing so (generalizing too much) is stripping most of the meaning of more accurate words and hampering communication.

[ParramattaPaul]

21 hours ago, ParramattaPaul said:

I'll be rude and ask; why are we, or more correctly you, still talking about this?

 

[PPPR]

On 9/13/2022 at 3:54 PM, ParramattaPaul said:

I'll be rude and ask; why are we, or more correctly you, still talking about this?

For the first part of my response, please, let me use a portion of one of your earlier posts:  

 

On 8/24/2022 at 5:31 PM, ParramattaPaul said:

I'm sorry if you thought I was ignoring you.  I didn't reply earlier because i was busy with other matters of greater importance...

My response to you was that a delay in response is in no way offensive while acknowledging we all have lives other than onlione. I hope you may grant me the same forebearance.

 

Second, there was some confusion regarding Mr. Ost's statement about his meaning.  My intention was to clarify my reading of his statement. Further, I attempted to demonstrate his meaning with my poor photography skills. Please, let me know if I failed in this attempt, and I will try to take a better photo. 

[PPPR]

On 9/14/2022 at 2:16 AM, txomsy said:

Go visit the Wikipedia page for Nobel Prize and check out the end of the section on Cultural Impact.

 

The authority argument is void for anything one is not an authority in...

Your post raises a number of points worhthy of consideration. Please, allow me to begin with the first couple of sentences.

 

I've read the section you referred to and have a passing familiarity with the informal logical fallacy of arguing from authority. In my reading of your post, you fail to identify an authority used in my arguments or how that authority held no weight. In my experience, that is a bare minimum for a rebuttal and discussion. If I have misread your post, please excuse and elucidate me in my ignorance for I mean no offense.