Boneless wings are just chicken nuggets. Here's why.


The epistemological analysis of the “chicken wing” begins with the question, what is the “chicken wing”? In order to epistemically define the “chicken wing”, we must first define the nature of knowledge. Knowledge, according to philosophical standards, is defined as justified true beliefs. In order for something to be knowledge, it must first be justified, true, and a belief.

Using foundational rules of the English language it is reasoned that the word, “chicken wing” must be derived from the words “chicken” and “wing”. Using the testimony of the English language and the principle of epistemic deductive closure we can reason the following:

If I know that a chicken wing comes from the wing of a chicken,

And given that the wing of a chicken has bones,

Then I know that a chicken wing has bones.

Logically deducing the proposition that a chicken wing comes from the wing of a chicken has reasonably concluded that I know that a chicken wing has bones. Nomologically, we reason that the wing of a chicken does indeed have bones.This results in the truth that a chicken wing has bones.

At this point of the analysis, we have defined the proposition, “a chicken wing has bones” as a true belief. To discern this proposition has knowledge it must be justified. To do so we must differentiate the skeptical scenario that is, a boneless chicken wing is still a chicken wing.

Firstly, we must have knowledge of the difference between a boneless chicken wing and a chicken wing.


The difference is easily identifiable in that a boneless chicken doesn’t have bones.


Because we have knowledge of this difference, reasoned by nomological laws of nature pertaining to the biology and anatomy of a chicken, we have true knowledge that a boneless wing is not a chicken wing. Quad Erat Demonstratum.

- #ZachTheIntern
(Minoring in Philosophy)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments